My interview with John Kerry

[WilliamPitt]

Interview: John Kerry with William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Interview

Monday 22 December 2003

http://truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

This interview is formatted somewhat differently than the one I did with Governor Howard Dean this past May. Senator Kerry and I spoke for about 20 minutes in a minivan that was flying down some back road in New Hampshire on the way to a gathering at Hopkington High School. Kerry was slated to speak about environmental issues to a science class that was constructing an electric hybrid car as part of the curriculum. Because our one-on-one time was constricted due to his campaign schedule, I have decided to add a portion of his comments from that classroom.

(snip)

WRP: I wrote a book last September called ‘War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know,’ which stated that Iraq’s WMD capabilities had been grossly exaggerated by the administration, and therefore their rationale for war had no standing. That book, over the last fifteen months, has been proven to have been absolutely correct on this point. A lot of people read that book, and have subsequently turned away from your campaign for one reason: These people believe this data was out there before the Iraq vote, that it was available to you, and they believe you chose to ignore it or disregard it and vote in favor of the war. How would you answer that charge?

JK: There were a number of people offering contrary opinions, but this was compared to the overwhelming evidence that was put in front of us in very specific and factual terms. When someone shows you a photograph and says, “Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations,” it is pretty compelling.

What’s more, what I thought was equally compelling was not just the evidence, but were the very direct promises of Colin Powell and others within the administration about how they were going to proceed, about working with the United Nations, about using weapons inspectors, and about war being a last resort. In foreign policy, traditionally, we have worked across party lines to try to have one voice to speak with as a country in the interest of our national security. Obviously, the President, we now know, broke every single one of those promises and disregarded his own word. He is not a man of his word.

Given the information we were given at that time, however, a lot of very smart people made the same decision. Bill Clinton thought we ought to do what we did. He was the former President of the United States, and made his judgment based on eight years of experience. Hillary Clinton voted for it. Tom Harkin voted for it, as did Joe Biden. A lot of people made the judgment that this is a serious threat, and made the judgment that the administration was committed to going through the international process, build a coalition and do this right.

They didn’t do it right. They did it wrong. I was one of the first Senators to stand up and hold them accountable for it. In fact, I forewarned them each step of the way about what they needed to do to legitimately live up to their obligations

WRP: How do you feel now, after all this time has passed, when you hear these stories about unmanned drones striking the East coast, and other threat stories like that?

JK: It is one of the worst intelligence lapses, or deceptions, in modern history.

(snip)

Upon arrival at the school, Senator Kerry inspected the hybrid car the students were constructing, and then sat down with them in their classroom. A portion of the comments he made are below:

JK: After you get out of school here, after you finish college, most of you are going to be looking around asking, “How am I going to find a job that is going to excite me and do some good?” I believe that one of the great possibilities for your generation is to make America safer – safer in terms of our dependency on oil from the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etcetera, but also safer in terms of our health and our long-term future on this planet.

Give me a show of hands: How many of you have studied global warming? Almost all of you. How many of you believe, after studying it, that global warming is a serious issue? All of you. How many of you think we’re doing anything about it? None of you. There you go. And you’re right, we’re not doing anything about it. We’re going backwards.

One of the biggest contributors to global warming is carbon dioxide, in addition to sulfur dioxide, mercury and so forth. All the ice core studies and all of the analysis – there are 1,500 scientists at the United Nations, all of whom have agreed that this is a serious issue. 160 nations worked for ten years to come up with a solution, and the United States under George Bush was the first country in the world to say, “To hell with all of you, we’re walking away from the solution, we’re declaring it dead.” In the last weeks, some of President Bush’s friends were working hard in Washington to get $50 billion of subsidies for oil and gas drilling instead of helping you get better batteries for that car out there, so you can do more research into electric cars, so we can begin to do some of the things we need to do to clean up our air, water, you name it.

This is your future. This is real stuff. It really wasn’t so long ago that I was sitting where you are sitting, and I was probably daydreaming half the day away, trying to figure out what to do with my life like a lot of you are. And then, after college, along came a war, and I wound up fighting in it, and a lot of young students got active in politics. The first speech I ever gave in politics, I was exactly the age some of you are here today. This is when it begins. So you all can help us make a difference.

God only gave the United States of America three percent of the world’s oil reserves. That’s all we have. We import almost 60% of our oil. Saudi Arabia has 46% of the world’s oil reserve, and we have three. All of the Middle East has 65% of the world’s oil reserves. So we are very dependent on an unstable area, and on relationships we don’t particularly like, and I don’t care how smart you are, there is no way you can figure out a way for the United States of America to drill it’s way out of this predicament. We have to invent our way out of it. I think it’s time we got about the business of really trying to do that.

...more...

[adadem]

1. In an earlier

thread someone asked me if I supported the war. Though I protested the war I, like Senator Kerry, chose to believe that the President of the United States and the PM of Britian would not go so far as to lie to the world. Colin Powell, a man I once respected greatly, also mislead us. This is why I understand why Senator Kerry voted the way he did. Do I wish he, and I along with many others, hadn't tried to have some faith in Blair and Powell (never trusted Bush)? Yes, but I give the Senator, based on all his years of experience, the benefit of the doubt...that he saw something in that "evidence" that caused him to vote the way he did.

Great piece Will...good job.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Thanks

[Scott Lee]

4. If Kerry was actually this gullible, what was he doing in Congress?

Am I alone in revulsion that those who represent us could so blithely be led around by the nose by a little dictator in the chief executive's chair?

This ought to scare the shit out of anyone who values a representative democratic system. Read up a bit on what happened to Rome as their democratic system deteriorated into Senators doing the bidding of emperors.

[bigtree]

6. Accordingly Scott Lee, if I follow your reasoning,

United Nations in voting for original Iraq resolution following Powell's presentation: "gullible"

[Scott Lee]

12. Yes! UN, you need to clean your act up too!

By the way I support the UN, unlike Kerry.

[zulchzulu]

14. So any proof that Kerry doesn't support the UN?

I'd love to see your screed on this. Do tell.

[KoKo]

49. what stood out from your interview, to me, was this paragraph:

Given the information we were given at that time, however, a lot of very smart people made the same decision. Bill Clinton thought we ought to do what we did. He was the former President of the United States, and made his judgment based on eight years of experience. Hillary Clinton voted for it. Tom Harkin voted for it, as did Joe Biden. A lot of people made the judgment that this is a serious threat, and made the judgment that the administration was committed to going through the international process, build a coalition and do this right."

(I heard: Blame it on Bill and Hillary, because I just followed them. I followed Harkin and Biden (Mr. Dem "mouthpiece" on every Whore Pundit Show for the last few months) and if he had thrown Evan Bayh in, I would have been throwing rocks at my wall, in frustration!

I don't know Will. If you support him fine. If he's the nominee, fine.
But Jeeze he did a huge 360 on Blitzer this a.m. trashing Dean for saying America "WASN'T SAFER" under Bush, but then coming back and saying "Yes, I, John Kerry say America ISN"T SAFER under BUSH! You can't have it both ways. AND, just after that Blitzer announces that Ridge is having a Press Conference to raise our "Terror Alert" to Orange High! So, either we are SAFER or NOT??? Either Dean was "CORRECT" or "NOT."

:shrug: Kerry can't win for stepping "in it," imho......sorry, and I've tried to like the guy.....he's "Old Dem Party." I've broken away from "Old Dem" seeing how weak Daschle and some others have done, selling us "down the river of no return." :shrug:

On Edit: Corrected Birch to Evan Bayh (son) and put Will's quote in quotes italics, because it was confusing.

[Scott Lee]

59. you mean besides...

His comments on the "mother may I" approach to the UN?

I've seen similar sentiments toward the UN by some of the weirdest tinfoil hat wearin' bunch on the right. Can you explain this?

[XanaDUer]

58. You claim Kerry does not support the UN

Any proof of this assertion?

[mzmolly]

65. Read on...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/12/18/kerry/index_np.html

[XanaDUer]

76. I've seen the entire article

not just the snippet link you provide.

There is nothing in the article that states than Kerry does not support the UN.

All he does is disagree with Dean's statement that the US must get "permission" from the UN when there is imminent threat to the US.

The UN charter itself allows any nation to defend itself from dangers to its own security without permission from the UN.

Dean seems to be so ignorant of international laws governing the UN that his utter lack of foreign-affairs experience is a real handicap.

[mzmolly]

93. All he did was 'spin' Dean's position as well as his own...

Dec. 18, 2003 | Desperation isn't pretty, and Sen. John Kerry is looking increasingly desperate as he tries to stop the juggernaut candidacy of front-runner Howard Dean. On Wednesday, though, Kerry crossed a line, falsely accusing Dean of saying the U.S. needed to ask "permission" from the U.N. and the rest of the world before going to war to defend itself.

Dean never said any such thing. In his Monday foreign policy speech, which drew a bright media spotlight because it came on the heels of the capture of Saddam Hussein, Dean said he'd have gone to war with Iraq "had the U.N. given us permission." Macho hawks won't like the word "permission," and in fact Dean might have chosen a better word to characterize the consultative process that should have preceded the war. Asking permission doesn't quite become a superpower, but a little bit of humility would have gone a long way toward getting global support for rebuilding Iraq. Instead we got unilateralism, and we're mostly facing the chaos of Iraq alone.

But Kerry wasn't content to bash Dean about his Iraq stance; he insisted the front-runner was saying he'd seek U.N. permission for any war -- even one necessary to defend the U.S. from an imminent threat...

...For more than a year the Massachusetts senator has wavered and waffled and tried to have it both ways: To pose as an antiwar candidate though he voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the war; and then to vote against the $87 billion for reconstruction after he'd authorized the war. In the days since Saddam's capture, though, Kerry's been particularly shameless, trying to share credit for toppling the tyrant after running away from his war-authorization vote for months.

More information here.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/12/john_the_hawk_k.html

[thinkahead]

159. SERGIO VIEIRA DE MELLO

a shining UN star lost because of the Iraq war. We may be safe from Saddam, but not terrorism. Just ask Sergio's wife.

[sandnsea]

2. Great piece

Thank you so much. Cleared up my only lingering question.

"But I felt my decision was absolutely consistent with the counter-proliferation efforts I have been making as a Senator for my entire career. I felt proliferation was a critical issue. I thought a President ought to get inspectors back into Iraq. I thought a President ought to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. But I knew how to do it right, and my regret is that this President proved he not only didn’t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously."

[IndianaGreen]

5. Bottom line: Kerry believed Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld

Had Kerry spent some time in DU he would have seen that all of the Bush regime's claims about Iraq were debunked, as DUers posted story after story from the British and Australian press that clearly showed that Bush was lying.

Powell's presentation to the UN, to name one example, was quickly shown to have relied on a graduate paper about Saddam's WMD program BEFORE the Gulf War.

Kerry has shown that he is not qualified to be President!

BTW, good article Will!

[WilliamPitt]

7. Powell's presentation to the UN came four months after the vote

As with much of the debunking, here and elsewhere, it did not come in time for the vote. My own book was only out for about three days before the vote came.

[Scott Lee]

13. And this excuses Kerry's gullibility - how?

[adadem]

35. Exactly

Thank you, Will.
Many, many people...including many Dems such as myself felt that Colin Powell was the one person in the administration with some sense of honor and truth. Unfortunately we have found that not to be the case...unless he bought into the intelligence, too. I would have hoped, though, that he would speak out against the lies and he has not done so. So he's on my "poop" list until he does.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

10. A US Senator being told by Bush

We are not talking here about a normal President of the United States. We are talking about a man that entered the White House by virtue of the Opus Dei cabal in the Supreme Court. To lump Bush in the same category as all the previous Presidents of the US is an insult to their memory.

Kerry acts as someone that was completely oblivious to the Selection 2000. If Kerry is that out of touch, then he should not get promoted to higher office.

Wes Clark has made Kerry totally irrelevant!

[imhotep]

20. you are right about Clark

If Kerry had a campaign with some brains they would realize Clark should be their target for votes.
Why does Kerry spend so much energy on Dean?

[paulk]

50. But isn't it better to err on the side of caution

when the security of the country is at stake?

[ibegurpard]

11. He could've thrown his support behind one of the preferable compromises

that were effectively scuttled by Gephardt and then used those compromises as cover for voting no.

[sandnsea]

16. Cover????

This is a matter of international security. It's a matter of weapons proliferation, a strong UN process to deal with these weapons and the nations producing them. He clearly says why he voted. You prefer he ignore his own conscience on the issue in order to have "political cover"???

[ibegurpard]

22. You know what? I flat out don't believe him

He's had ample opportunity to say something like this for over a year and instead he's tried the mush-mouth have-it-both ways approach. IMHO, he voted for the IWR because he was running for President and was afraid he'd get tarred with the Taxachussetts Ultra-liberal label and this vote would make him look like a get-tough guy. So in light of that opinion, yes I DO think that he made a bad political choice.

[sandnsea]

71. He has said it repeatedly

His record going back to 1997 supports it 100%. He supported Clinton's bombing in 1998, he thought Clinton should have been even tougher. It's his position. He wrote a book on international crime, terrorism, money laundering, etc. He wrote legislation that has been enacted on money laundering. He has called for a stop Bush's nuclear program. He wants these weapons gone. It's what he believes.

The only mistake he made was trusting George Bush to do this correctly, and really Colin Powell more so.

It is just wrong to hold this vote over his head. Especially when Edwards, Gephardt, and even Hillary Clinton aren't held to the same standard.

[ibegurpard]

102. I hold them all to the same standard.

And Gephardt deserves particular scorn in my book because of his role in scuttling the compromise work. Hillary isn't running and Edwards will get the same treatment from me if he tries the bullshit line that Kerry is trying to feed everyone as well.

[sandnsea]

140. Hold Dean to it too then

He said Saddam was a threat, had WMD, and supported a resolution to go to war, either with the UN or alone as a last resort. He was not against war from the beginning. He thought Saddam was a threat and supported war to deal with it.

[ibegurpard]

191. Sorry, no can do

He says he wouldn't have voted for IWR and instead prefers the compromise I was hoping to see worked out. Why on earth would I hold him to that standard?

[Mairead]

204. "It is just wrong to hold this vote over his head"

To me, Sand, the clincher was Randy Forsberg--a long-time supporter-- being so outraged by his vote that she opposed him for re-election. She clearly felt he had had enough information to have voted No (as thousands of Massachusettans had pleaded with him to do).

Here are her credentials:

Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Political Science, specializing in defense policy and arms control)
Randall Forsberg worked at SIPRI, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, starting in 1968, and was a regular contributor to the SIPRI Yearbook of World Armaments and Disarmament, writing on US and Soviet nuclear weapons, until 1979. In 1980 she founded the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies (IDDS), a Cambridge-based nonprofit center which she directs. At IDDS, Forsberg publishes the Arms Control Reporter, a monthly reference work, and she is the series editor of the annually updated IDDS Database: World Arms Holdings, Production, and Trade. She is also the editor of the forthcoming IDDS annual survey, War and Armaments, Peace and Disarmament--Global Trends, Prospects, and Policy Options.
Forsberg has authored or edited many books, including Resources Devoted to Military Research and Development: An International Comparison (1972), The Price of Defense (1979), Peace Resource Book (1985), Cutting Conventional Forces (1989), The Arms Production Dilemma: Contraction and Restraint in the World Combat Aircraft Industry (1994), Nonproliferation Primer (1995), and Abolishing War: Culture and Institutions (with Elise Boulding, 1998). She has contributed to Scientific American, International Security, Technology Review, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, World Policy Journal, and other journals.
In 1989 Forsberg briefed President Bush and his Cabinet officials on US-Soviet arms control issues. In 1995 she was appointed by President Clinton to the Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. She has also served on panels for the US Congressional Research Service, the US General Accounting Office, and the US Office of Technology Assessment; testified for the US Congress and the Swedish Parliament; given talks at West Point, the US Air Force Academy, the National Defense University, and the German War College; and met with senior government officials of Russia, China, Germany, Norway, and other countries. She is on the board or advisory board of the Boston Review, Arms Control Association, Journal of Peace Research, University of California Institute for Global Cooperation and Conflict, and Women's Action for New Directions.
In 1980 Forsberg wrote the "Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race," the four-page manifesto that launched the national Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign. After founding the Freeze Clearinghouse, she co-chaired of the Freeze Campaign's National Advisory Board from 1980 through 1984. In 1983 Forsberg received a five- year Mac Arthur Foundation Fellowship (the so-called "genius award"). Among other awards, she has received honorary doctorates from Notre Dame and Governors State University.

[babzilla]

28. not just classified briefings, pictures too!

When someone shows you a photograph and says, “Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations,” it is pretty compelling.

Were Kerry or his staff compelled to dig a little deeper into the claims by his nemeses the BFEE?

Yes I do expect him to just say fuck off, you're all a bunch of liars. Isn't that what he did when he stood up against the first gulf war?

Why were these pictures more compelling, detailed and ominous than the ones Bush 41 faked to show that Iraqi's were massing at the border of Saudi Arabia?

Kerry's position of responsibility to this country is to protect us from enemies within as well as abroad. He has failed and flailed in this regard. Because of this he can gain no purchase in defending his vote for the Iraq war.

Those of us that were paying attention cannot forgive his miscalculation in this matter, no matter how he attempts to justify it.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[babzilla]

54. I was marching too.

I also believed that WMD's could be found.
Found by the U.N. inspectors if they had a chance to carry out their mission.

Even when I believed that Iraq may have been in possesion of limited amounts and primitive methods to distribute such weapons I was out on the street protesting against attacking the innocent people of Iraq with the MOAB's paid for with my tax dollars.

Even when I believed that it was a possibility that Hussein had buckets of anthrax or VX or mustard gas or whatever the fuck Reagan/Bush/Rummy had supplied to him 20 years ago, I was still writing to my representatives to please refrain from attacking a sovereign nation that did not represent an imminent threat to me.

Personally, in my opinion, I was on base with the timing. I bet the people who have died as a result of this war would agree.

[sandnsea]

74. Then how would the inspectors get in there?

I cannot comprehend people who say this. What magical powers would have gotten inspectors into Iraq???

[babzilla]

80. U.N inspectors

are sent in by the U.N., it is not magic.

If there are enough countries convinced that there is a threat they are sent in.

Even if there aren't enough countries convinced that there is a threat, we have our ways.

What magical powers enacted UNSCOM? Ask Pitt to ask Ritter about the magical powers.

[sandnsea]

88. And how did we get the UN to do this???

By letting them know we were serious. With the IWR.

[babzilla]

98. So daily bombing raids in the northern provinces

weren't serious enough?

So the U.N. sanctions against Iraqi's selling oil for anything but food wasn't serious enough?

Yeah, that really taught Saddam a thing or two. Perhaps if we had concentrated our efforts on supporting the Iraqi people through NGO efforts they would be in a better situation than they are today.

Unfortunately, we did not attack Iraq because we were concerned with the human rights situation, it was merely subterfuge for the failures of the current administration.

If Kerry doesn't realize that then he is not the man I thought he was.

[sandnsea]

100. Obviously not

Because Saddam Hussein didn't give a shit about those people.

The vote was to force the issue of Iraq and WMD. Inspectors went in because of WMD. The vote worked. That's the only issue there is regarding that vote.

What Bush did or said afterwards is evidence of his deception and failures alone and nothing more.

[babzilla]

115. maybe where you & I disagree

is whether the issue needed to be forced or not.

[sandnsea]

131. Do you care about weapons proliferation??

Do you think the UN needs to take a stronger hand in that problem?

[babzilla]

133. unscom destroyed all the WMD in Iraq

that is why there are none to be found now.

Is David Kay concerned with weapons proliferation? Get the address to his vacation home and ask him.

[sandnsea]

139. Are you concerned?

You didn't answer.

How do we know all the WMD were destroyed? Weapons inspections in the fall and winter of 2002. How'd we get them back into Iraq? The IWR.

[babzilla]

142. no, I am not concerned about WMD in Iraq

I wasn't even concerned with them when I thought they might have some.

I am more concerned about slipping in the shower.

[sandnsea]

144. weapons proliferation

Let's stop slipping around my question. You're going to fall and hurt yourself.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

145. How can you proliferate nothing?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[sandnsea]

148. How'd we know there was nothing?

The fucking UN weapons inspectors. How'd they get into Iraq. The fucking IWR vote.

Do you care about weapons prolifertion or not? Do you want a UN strong enough to deal with it or not? Should we force the UN to take the lead or not?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

154. Inspectors weren't in Iraq before the IWR?

Do you believe this?

[sandnsea]

162. In 1998.

Yeah, they were there then. UN inspectors after that, no, they weren't.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

175. February 20, 2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

Yes, 2003.

[sandnsea]

177. So what!!! Who cares!!

What the sam hill does this have to do with a vote in October 2002?????? Can you people stay on topic? Can you stay within the same time frame? What possible purpose does this serve? Talking about inspections in February 2003 when the vote was in October 2002! :crazy:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

181. *

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

178. *

[sandnsea]

180. That's an answer???

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

182. *

[sandnsea]

187. I'm getting *

I guess that's funny or something.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

189. Sorry,

check your mail.

[sandnsea]

190. lol

Okay, sorry.

[babzilla]

149. I gave you a straightforward answer

Weapons proliferation in Iraq did not and does not concern me, no matter that Rummy/Powell/Wolfie/Dick/Chalabi and asundry characters tried to convince me otherwise. I'm just not buying the pre-emptive strike.

Don't worry about me, I've got non-slip tape in my tub and duct tape on stand-by. I am safe.

[sandnsea]

153. That wasn't the question

The question, for the third time at least, is are you concerned about weapons proliferation, period. Around the world. As an issue. Are you or aren't you.

[IndianaGreen]

163. Speaking of proliferation, when is Israel going to get rid of its nukes?

Or do we have two sets of standards? One for Muslim countries, and another for Judeo-Christian ones?

[sandnsea]

170. As soon as nobody is aiming WMD at them

Or blowing them up with terrorists attacks, I would imagine.

[babzilla]

164. around the world?

In 80 days we could do a lot more to control weapons proliferation by taking the advice of my candidate to buy up the supplies of known nuclear weapons on the market from the former Soviet Union.

BTW, Kerry thinks that's a good idea too.

cheers

[sandnsea]

169. Is that the total solution?

Nope. My candidate already had legislation passed on weapons, BTW.

What are we going to do about countries that don't want to sell their WMD's? Do we want a strong arm of the UN to deal with it? Or do we want to just let them do whatever they want until they decide to use their weapons against somebody?

[babzilla]

173. ah yes, the mushroom cloud as smoking gun.

I see you have been listening to Condi.

total solution or final solution? I already told you, I'm not afeared.

As sir mick would tell you: you can't always get what you want, you get what you need.

[sandnsea]

Oh, you don't give a shit

You give a shit about this Iraq war because the evil United States is involved. But anybody else, what the fuck, have fun!! I get it.

And I didn't say a damn thing about mushroom clouds or preemptive strikes or anything of the sort. But for people to have to go so far to defend their candidate as to say they don't give a shit about weapons proliferation is pretty pathetic.

[babzilla]

184. yes I do believe that it is wrong

to pre-emptively bomb innocent people because of their fucked up leader.

Just like I believe it was wrong for Al-Queda to take out the twin towers in retaliation of what they perceived as our fucked up leader.

See how that works?

Pre-emptive strikes and fear-mongering about mushroom clouds have everything to do with it. Have you checked your threat-level today?

[sandnsea]

186. We have a fucked up leader

On that, we all agree, even Kerry. So what's the problem?

And the threat level has jack to do with it. I'm sorry people can't differentiate safer from safe, but that's their reading comprehension skills problem, not mine.

[babzilla]

195. safe= no one bombing your shit

safer=no one bombing your shit when there is no actual evidence of weapons proliferation in your neighborhood.

See? I can differentiate safer from safe.

[sandnsea]

197. Safe?

Gee, safe might include not getting hauled out of high school and shot because you dare question the fearless leader, don't you think?

Were they safe or safer under Saddam or without Saddam? Hmmm. Very tough call.

Are we safe or safer without Saddam? Now that's an easy call. Safer.

[IndianaGreen]

199. We are not safer without Saddam because...

Saddam was never a threat to the US.

If Israel thought that Saddam was a problem they should have done something about rather than having young American men and women do their dirty work for them!

[sandnsea]

201. Saddam was a threat to the region

Not just Israel. He threatened everybody. He fueled anti-Americanism as much as Saudi Arabians or any other person or group threatening us. We're safer. Not instantly safe, just safer. Not necessarily worth fighting a war over, especially an illegal war. But we're safer. Even members of the liberal Brookings Institute has said Dean is goofy on foreign policy and referenced this statement.

[HFishbine]

206. But Pitt and Ritter

Had put the lie to the notion that Iraq posessed such weapons, much less was proliferating them.

[sandnsea]

9. Dean supported containment

Why did he support containment if there was nothing to be worried about????

[sandnsea]

30. Never an answer to this

Wonder why.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. Nothing to be worried about or no threat to the US?

Two different questions.

[adadem]

38. I give no credibility

to any of the candidates who did not have to cast a IWR vote. They can say whatever they want, whenever they want. Only the elected officials who did have to vote can give a factual answer as to why they voted as they did. It's far too easy to say "I was misquoted by the press".

[babzilla]

45. because containment was equal to the threat.

There was not an imminent threat to us while the U.N. sanctions and U.S./U.K. flyover containments were in effect.

Containment is preferable to pre-emptive strikes unless you are Wolfowitz & Co., isn't that what the whole foreign policy arguement is about?

[sandnsea]

113. Was Saddam a threat or not?

Dean says Saddam was no threat. He was against the war from the beginning. He knew Bush was lying. There were no WMD. Congress was duped. There was no reason to vote for the IWR.

Yet he supported the first Gulf War because Saddam invaded its neighbor. No room for diplomacy there. Was Saddam still a threat to our regional allies or not? Why did Saddam need to be contained at all if he was no threat?

This goes to the war vote and the "against the war from the beginning". Nobody was for the kind of unilateral invasion Bush launched in March.

[babzilla]

119. Saddam was not a threat IMO

I just don't prescribe to the invading their nation to save them notion in this case.

sandnsea: This goes to the war vote and the "against the war from the beginning". Nobody was for the kind of unilateral invasion Bush launched in March.

so true sandnsea, so true. That is why I support Dean.

cheers

[sandnsea]

128. Saddam was a good guy

Okay, if you say so.

[IndianaGreen]

132. Saddam was "our" guy!

He was a good guy while he was butchering those nasty Iranians, often using chemical weapons we provided him with.

BTW, babzilla never said that Saddam was "good," only that he was not a threat to America.

You should be ashamed of yourself for distorting what babzilla said. Kerry is known to do that too!

[babzilla]

136. not a threat to the U.S. and not a good guy.

I could say that about a lot of people, and I still won't advocate invading a country based on whether the leader is a good guy.

I think our leader is a bad guy but I sure as hell hope that some rogue nation doesn't take it upon themselves to relieve me of my burden.

Hold the bombs, I've got an election coming up.

[sandnsea]

146. Bad guy gone = safer

That's all. He's gone. He was a bad guy. He created alot of problems that did result in increased dangers to this country. Not directly perhaps, but indirectly. He's gone. It's good. That's all.

[IndianaGreen]

152. Bush has done more harm to this country by pursuing his Saddam vendetta

than anyone else other than OBL, a man that was created by CIA because of our blind hatred of anything Marxist.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

165. You know my answer to that

I gave it to you here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=14908#16731

[babzilla]

157. he's gone, that's good, that is not all

in between gone and good are thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Blood and treasure are precious resources not to be squandered on despots of our own making.

[sandnsea]

160. As it refers to Saddam alone

Just him. Just him. It's a good thing he's gone. That's all. It doesn't justify anything Bush did to get rid of him.

And as I originally said, if he needed to be contained then he was enough of a threat to consider doing something more to resolve the situation. The notion that the guy was not a threat just doesn't stand up against everything people said and did in regards to dealing with him.

[IndianaGreen]

166. Over 10,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children are also gone!

What about them? Or are their lives not that important?

I am reminded of some words that Emma Goldman wrote back in 1911:

We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that it will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations.

Such is the logic of patriotism.

Patriotism, a Menace to Liberty (1911)
Emma Goldman

http://www.connix.com/~harry/emma.htm

[sandnsea]

172. I don't support the war

The war was wrong. It was illegal. It was illegal even in accordance with the IWR that passed as far as I'm concerned.

But it doesn't make the vote wrong. And the world is still better with Saddam gone. And it doesn't make Howard Dean anti-war from the start.

The fact of the war is a separate issue from the rest. That is a war that George Bush and George Bush alone started. I blame him.

[IndianaGreen]

174. Bush did not act alone in Iraq, he had Democratic help

I am sure that you remember the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, and how many judges and politicians were convicted for allowing the Nazi horrors to take place, even though they themselves did not kill anyone. They were all reponsible!

Bush did not act alone in Iraq, he had Democratic help.

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution



President George W. Bush along with bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate announced the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States," President Bush said during the announcement in the Rose Garden, Wednesday, October 2, 2002. White House photo by Paul Morse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

[sandnsea]

179. No they didn't

That resolution called for enforcing UN resolutions OR protecting U.S. security.

As has been repeatedly stated here, the US can't enforce UN resolutions without UN authorization.

The US security wasn't in any way shape or form threatened because Bush lied.

The resolution did not authorize this war. It was illegal. Bush is a liar. He is responsible for it.

[IndianaGreen]

183. Our differences are irreconcilable!

This is why it is impossible for Kerry to ever win the Democratic nomination in 2004, or to win back those liberals that he drove away with his IWR vote. His explanation for his IWR vote will never pass muster with those that opposed the war.

Our differences are irreconcilable!

[sandnsea]

188. Oh bull

The only thing that's irreconcilable is the fact that the U.S. isn't 100% wrong every time it acts. Acting against Saddam and his history of weapons production wasn't wrong, in and of itself. The way Bush did it was wrong. Anybody can see that.

[IndianaGreen]

193. The Yamashita principle makes Kerry equally responsible as Bush is

General Yomoyuki Yamashita was the commander of Japanese occupation forces in the Philippines. Yamashita was found guilty of war crimes, despite the fact that he personally had never ordered the killings of civilians, and had actually forbidden his troops from mistreating the Filipinos.

The Yamashita principle is that a person, by virtue of the office they occupy, is responsible for whatever happens under their watch. It is what we call "command responsibility."

Kerry voted for IWR. Bush used IWR as all the authority he needed to go to war. Kerry did not protest when Bush went to war. Kerry did not call for the impeachment of Bush when the war started, which he had a Constitutional duty to do so. Kerry is responsible for the war, as much as Bush is, using the Yamashita principle as the guideline.

Kerry is as responsible for civilians killed during the war in Iraq as Henry Kissinger is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians during the bombing of Laos and Cambodia.

Kissinger Watch #1 - 01

"Holding Individual Leaders Responsible for Violations of Customary International Law: The U.S. Bombardment of Cambodia and Laos" by Nicole Barrett, J.D., Columbia Law, 2001., Summary prepared by Katharine Larsen, Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. class of 2003.

At no time has the question of accountability for political decision-making been ascontroversial as it is today. The roller coaster trajectory of the past few years alone has included the prosecutions of Pinochet, Habre, and Milosevic; it has also included a recent ICJ decision that undermines the exercise of universal jurisdiction in Belgium, the silencing of opponents to U.S. governmental policy in the wake of the unforgettable events September 11, and the continuing presumption of political immunity for foreign policy practices.

In this context, Nicole Barrett's note, "Holding Individual Leaders Responsible for Violations of Customary International Law: The U.S. Bombardment of Cambodia and Laos," analyzes the legal consequence of filing suit against Henry Kissinger, the U.S. National Security Advisor from 1969-1973, for violations of customary international law (CIL). Here, Barrett tackles two questions: Did the U.S. bombings of Laos and Cambodia violate CIL, and, if so, can Kissinger be held accountable under theories of command responsibility? Both these questions are answered in the affirmative. First, Barrett asserts that carpet-bombing represents a per se violation of CIL and that the bombings in this case specifically flouted the laws of war at the time. Second, she determines that Kissinger knew about the bombings and not only did not take measures to prevent them but actively sought to maintain them despite the deaths of almost one million citizens of Laos and Cambodia.

In analyzing whether the bombings constituted a violation of CIL, Barrett makes her point in four parts. She first describes the chronology and character of the attacks on Laos and Cambodia individually. She then discusses the origins of the legal rules that apply to theseevents. Third, she asserts that these rules are binding today and were equally binding at the time of the bombings. Last, she applies these standards to the facts of each attack. Because she determines that CIL, as it stood in 1969, had established a clearly discernable and legally bindingprinciple that civilian lives must be shared in times of war and that the bombings in question indiscriminately took the lives of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants, Barrett concludes that these acts constituted a clear violation of CIL that could not be justified by "militarynecessity."

The bombing of Laos resulted in the murder of over one-tenth the country's population. AsBarrett points out, the United States dropped more bombs there than it did worldwide during World War II. Hospitals, religious institutions, and villages were wiped out; Agent Orange was spread across 4.5 million acres of fertile lands; almost a million citizens were forced from their homes in what Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) called "a mindless use of power."

http://www.icai-online.org/56272,46136.html

[sandnsea]

194. So who got impeached?

What Senator didn't get reelected? Who's in jail?

No, I'm not justifying Laos. I'm just saying, get real. Apply reason and logic. Kerry is not responsible for what George Bush did.

And he did protest when Bush went to war, several times in many ways. And I think when this gets further down the road, he will be the one leading the way against this Administration. I don't think it's an accident that every single thing that has leaked out on this war has come from people directly involved in Kerry's campaign. This isn't over for Bush, not by a long shot.

[IndianaGreen]

196. Had Kerry seconded the speech that Sen. Byrd gave about the war

and had he voted against IWR, we would be discussing today who should be in the VP slot with Kerry.

As it is, Kerry was a "miserable failure" on Iraq and he will never win the nomination.

You cannot de-link the IWR vote from the consequences of that vote. One follows the other!

[sandnsea]

198. I disagree

I've always disagreed with that line, ever since the vote was cast in October I understood why Kerry voted for it as opposed to Joe Lieberman for example. I understood the purpose was to get the inspectors back in Iraq, not launch a unilateral invasion.

And if you really believe Kerry ought to be President, other than that vote, I really think you ought to reconsider. Because if you really believe he ought to be President, outside that one vote, then you ought to trust him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[IndianaGreen]

200. As it is now, I don't trust Kerry at all.

Today I think that Kerry believes in the PNAC agenda as much as Paul Wolfowitz does.

Kerry's own words on Sunday's CNN Late Edition are an indication that Kerry is as much of a PNACer hawk as Biden and Wolfowitz:

I think that for a major candidate for the presidency of the United States not to understand that the removal of a dictator who required our troops to go to war and die in the early 1990s, who invaded another country, who attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States, who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel to destabilize the Middle East, who developed and used weapons of mass destruction against another people and his own people, and who was pursuing a further nuclear program than we thought he was, when our own inspectors were in his country destroying those weapons -- for a major candidate not to understand that the capture of that man makes America safer, I think, shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of foreign policy and national security.

We are safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/21/le.00.html

[sandnsea]

202. He's right

I think most of America, like 80%, would agree with him. I don't remotely see how this makes him a PNACer. He's not advocating preemptive invasions and global domination. He's stating facts about Saddam Hussein.

[HFishbine]

207. He's not?

Sounds like he's at least keeping the door open. If I'm not mistaken, and I may be, I think it was Sandsea who posted a few days ago about Kerry's support for "Progressive Internationalism."

This security strategy is debatable on its merits, but there is no question that it buys into some of PNAC's fundemental assumptions such as the US being willing to act pre-emptively and unilaterally to assert its power.

Progressive Internationalism: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecid=900020&contentid=252144

[babzilla]

192. but it wasn't just him alone and that's not all

no matter what "everything people said and did", it doesn't justify changing our foreign policy to invading a country on a whim.

Most of the people "saying and doing" had much to gain from the situation, see Chalabi, Cheney, PNACers etc.

[KoKo]

55. I don't buy that! Kerry has been a Washington Insider! Sen. Byrd didn't

believe it and neither did Ted Kennedy. Most of us at that time here on DU didn't believe the "trumped up evidence" either. So, for Kerry to say this, just doesn't make sense. He was privy with all the Washington Insider Crowd to the "inner PNAC crowd." Neither he, nor Theresa live in an "insulated bubble."

They are Washington "Insiders" from back to even Theresa's John Heinz history. They are NOT Naive like Dean's wife spending all her time "treating ill patients" would be. These people go to the very HEART of our DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE in DC! Kerry is very well connected and has been since the Kennedy days. This man is not innocent or clueless.

He voted for "Political Reasons" to look stronger against Bush. He got "sideswiped" by Dean and Kucinich. He looks like a "waffler, more of the same tired Washington insider" the more I see of him.

And, that's SAD......I wish he had been better. I would have fought hard for him, if he'd heard us out here. :-(

[bigtree]

15. This is a good quote

"I am the one who has stood up and taken the risks and fought for the agenda of my party with consistency."

I'll note that there are other important issues that need debating outside of his Iraq vote. Thanks for the additional dialogue on the environment. He really shines in that area. Good piece, good questions.

[babzilla]

17. lame answer here

WRP: How do you feel now, after all this time has passed, when you hear these stories about unmanned drones striking the East coast, and other threat stories like that?

JK: It is one of the worst intelligence lapses, or deceptions, in modern history.

Not buying it.

I wasn't deceived by the "worst intelligence lapse/deception" in "modern history" why should the candidate fall for it?

So then Kerry goes into a high school science class to discuss environmental issues and explains our energy resource predicament in terms of what god has given to us? Pahlease.

"God only gave the United States of America three percent of the world’s oil reserves. That’s all we have."

Is god now making up for it by blessing us with the hybrid car that the students are building?

We import almost 60% of our oil. Saudi Arabia has 46% of the world’s oil reserve, and we have three. All of the Middle East has 65% of the world’s oil reserves.

Does that mean that god loves them more than us? God must hate our freedoms.

And on the 8th day the lord distributed the oil resources. Or maybe the fossil fuel dinosaurs were following the north star?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

23. Kerry was the one that bought the drones argument

When the BBC showed pictures of the drones, they were very small and were made of balsa wood.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

26. There is no evidence in the "evidence"

Kerry fumbled the ball at a time the country need a man of his experience and expertise the most. Kerry let us all down. Now it is our turn to let Kerry down by telling him that we are already committed to an antiwar candidate and that it is unlikely that he will ever get us back.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ibegurpard]

29. Sorry Pete you're wrong

IWR and Biden-Lugar, which Dean voiced support for, are not only not identical, the ACLU praised Biden-Lugar as an acceptable compromise.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[ibegurpard]

33. Why didn't he stand up for it then?

Why didn't he say "I cannot vote for this resolution" and then hold up Biden-Lugar as something he could've voted for? And why is the Kerry campaign trying to paint Biden-Lugar and the IWR as identical when Kerry said he preferred Biden-Lugar and organizations like the ACLU praised it as far superior?

[XanaDUer]

69. Because Biden-Lugar did not pass...

That's a good reason. It was voted on and did not pass.

Here is the full text of the Biden-Luger Amendment, which was named:

This Act may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."



Section 2. Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces.

(a) Authorization for the Use of Force. - The President, subject to subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate -

(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or (2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

Full link here:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093002.htm


(PS-This is a government document and thus not subject to copyright laws.)


Now let's look at the misnamed IWR:

The name of this act is:

'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to --

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all
relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages
him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to
ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and
noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in order to --

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq.

(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 --

(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

(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.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2002/october/101106.html


So, notice the differences between these two acts. The differences are small, but the October Resolution itself mentions the use of diplomatic methods until these methods have been exhausted. Or, until they prove to be ineffective in safe guarding National Security.

Biden-Lugar suggests no such necessity to exhaust diplomatic measures before the President of the US chooses to engage in the use of force.

Biden-Lugar merely requires that the President provides his suspicions that Iraq constitutes an imminent threat to the US.

[sandnsea]

32. Ted Kennedy said they were identical

I trust his word.

And anti-war is anti-war. You can't support a resolution authorizing war in any way, then turn around and say you knew there was no evidence and you were against the war from the beginning. It's incoherent.

Kucinich. He was anti-war. He wanted to end the sanctions, get inspectors back in, and keep a tight reign on Iraq so they couldn't get any more weapons. He just wanted to do it through diplomacy. But even his position suggests Iraq was a threat.

[ibegurpard]

36. Ted Kennedy was wrong if he said they were identical.

The ACLU disagrees with that assessment.

[sandnsea]

47. Why'd Dean support a resolution at all??

If he knew Saddam was no threat, had no WMD, Congress was duped, Bush was lying; why'd he support any resolution????

[IndianaGreen]

39. Kerry had a choice, as you said, and he pissed that vote away

by giving Bush a blank check for war.

Was Kerry deaf and blind about the millions of people in this country and abroad, that marched against the war?

Not once did Kerry stood up to Bush on the war. When Saddam's statue was toppled by Chalabi's men, who were bused to Baghdad by the US from Mosul, Kerry was cheering Bush alongside the other regime's PNACers.

Even today, Kerry was chiding Dean for suggesting that America was not safer because Saddam was captured. Kerry is still saying today that Saddam had WMDs:

HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am going to continue to tell the truth, because America's position and the world leadership is at stake. And most of all, because the safety and security of American citizens are at stake. And the truth is that Americans are no safer today from these serious threats than they were the day before Saddam Hussein was captured.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Now, you disagree with him on that?

KERRY: I think that The Washington Post editorialized and called Howard Dean's view "ludicrous."

I think that for a major candidate for the presidency of the United States not to understand that the removal of a dictator who required our troops to go to war and die in the early 1990s, who invaded another country, who attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States, who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel to destabilize the Middle East, who developed and used weapons of mass destruction against another people and his own people, and who was pursuing a further nuclear program than we thought he was, when our own inspectors were in his country destroying those weapons -- for a major candidate not to understand that the capture of that man makes America safer, I think, shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of foreign policy and national security.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/21/le.00.html

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

52. Pete, why did Kerry have "no choice" but to vote? Please Explain.

thanks.

[KoKo]

73. Dean is not "Anti-War" he was "Anti-Iraq Resolution" giving power to Bush

to go in "guns ablazing" without getting a "full coalition from traditional allies" and allowing a longer time for inspectors. Same as Robert Byrd, same as me and others here on DU who watched ALL the Senate Hearings on the issue and followed all the "Amendments to the Resolution."

[babzilla]

34. with all due respect

I find it odd that Kerry states that god has distributed energy resources in a public high school science class.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

46. Perhaps Kerry now supports teaching Creationism in the public schools

Once one goes over to the Dark Side as Kerry has, there is no telling how far down that path they will go.

[KoKo]

51. You make a good point I.G. how far over to the dark side have you gone,

Kerry? Pretty dark, it seems.

[WilliamPitt]

57. Gibberish

[babzilla]

68. gibberish?

do you mean as in highly technical or as unnecessarily pretentious? Come to think of it, both definitions are fitting re: Kerry's candidacy.

gib·ber·ish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jbr-sh)
n.
Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.

Highly technical or esoteric language.
Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

[WilliamPitt]

82. "Unnecessarily pretentious" would cover it

Kerry's 20+ year record as a progressive would preclude cracks like the above in a normal conversation. Then again, this is DU.

[IndianaGreen]

84. I'll say that Kerry stopped being a progressive when he allied himself

with Bush and his bloody war in Iraq. In that respect Kerry is in good company: President Lyndon Johnson when he expanded the war in Vietnam, President Kennedy when he gave the green light to the Diem assassination and the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Unlike Kerry, Kennedy accepted full responsibilities for his actions and, had he lived, he would have pulled out of Vietnam and would have normalized relations with Cuba.

President Johnson's tragic life mirrors more Kerry's current predicament. No one did more for civil rights in this country than LBJ, yet ultimately his Presidency was destroyed by his inability to admit error in Vietnam. Kerry has an excellent liberal record, no one can deny that, but his inability to admit error in Iraq, plus is increasing defense of the US invasion of Iraq, precludes him from ever being President of the United States.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

92. What would 3 years of backing BushCo preclude?

PA
IWR
HS
$87B (A vote on the QT)

Arguably the three(4) most important Congressional votes in the last 30 years.



Edit: 5? The PA Enhancement, another QT'er.

[WilliamPitt]

95. Get your facts straight

"Both Massachusetts senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, voted against the spending, although they split on the war vote."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/18/lawmakers_ok_87b_for_iraq_afghanistan/

+ voting against the tax cuts, filibustering the Medicare vote, filibustering the judges, saving ANWR = you're wrong.

How did Dean vote on these? Oh, right. He didn't have to.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

107. I noted that they were on the QT. We'll never know.

What about the big, UNDENIABLE three?

PA
IWR
HS

Or don't you want to talk about those? Odd voting pattern from a liberal with a 20 year voting history. Talk facts. Do you disagree that those three votes had historical precedence to them? Do you agree with those votes? We're not talking about a single vote that effects the direction that this country is taking. Or two votes. Three of the biggest votes in the last 30 years.

Funny how you bring in the tax cuts, Medicare, judges and ANWR when I was talking about IWR, PA and HS. (I applaud Kerry for his stances on the issues you brought up, even though they were extraneous to my post)

I'd vote for Kerry. But if he was the epitome of liberalism that you state he is, I'd think he might of voted against at least one of those IMPORTANT votes. They were important, weren't they? Maybe it's just me. :shrug:

[Egnever]

150. filibustering the Medicare vote

take that one out of your list. Kerry was only grandstanding on that one. Daschle clearly had a plan on that one and the filibuster was never a part of it.

Kerry took off right after the filibuster failed without sticking arround for the real fight that followed on the point of order. Just another example of kerry posing as a fighter IMHO.

And what about all those votes he just didnt care to show up for?

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry had missed 57 percent of the Senate votes

http://www.news-record.com/election/edwards/novote22.htm

Guess Dean isnt the only one that doesnt have to vote.

[KoKo]

75. ROFL! Gibberish.

:D

[XanaDUer]

78. Non sequitur.

It does not follow.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

81. It follows babzilla's post #34

and I quote:

I find it odd that Kerry states that god has distributed energy resources in a public high school science class.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=14908#15331

which is in response to Kerry's statement to a science class at a public school:

God only gave the United States of America three percent of the world’s oil reserves. That’s all we have.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

This is a fundie way of talking. I assume that it was GAWD's will to destroy the dinosaurs too, and to sent Hurricane Andrew to Florida.

[babzilla]

56. God is just a figure of speech

Well, that is helpful. I bet some think otherwise.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Bawahahahaha

Kerry: "God only gave the United States of America three percent of the world’s oil reserves. That’s all we have"

babzilla: Does that mean that god loves them more than us? God must hate our freedoms.

And on the 8th day the lord distributed the oil resources. Or maybe the fossil fuel dinosaurs were following the north star?

Good show, babzilla! Good show!

[JVS]

61. I'm tired of people passing the buck to the Almighty

This blame God first attitude sickens me.

[KoKo]

77. Yes! I.G. and babzilla! Explaining Kerry and trying to make sense out of

him is takes too much effort, when there are candidates who are "plainer speaking," without the baggage Kerry keeps trying to push back in the trunk.

[babzilla]

85. nuance *is* hard

I've heard all of Kerry's excuses.

I'm sticking with Dean.

[babzilla]

104. thanks IG

I'll be here all week.

Don't forget to tip your server.

[TLM]

19. Wow the last time I saw an interview like that...

It was being given by Divine Brown to Hugh Grant... also in the back of a car.

[JVS]

41. Ohhh wow! That was rough.

LOL

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

43. Where's yours?

[babzilla]

64. you got an interview

nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah

Usually when you publish things people are allowed to comment on it even if they haven't been allowed into the backseat, yes?

[WilliamPitt]

83. Definitely

and when my work gets compared to prostitution, I'm allowed to sling some shit right back.

[babzilla]

90. sling all the shit you want to

By all means, let's all do like the monkeys do in the zoo.

[IndianaGreen]

91. Gentlemen, please!

Will Pitt has done a great interview with Kerry considering the time constraints and the location! For that I am very grateful to Will.

Our disagreement pertains to Mr. Kerry, and no one else but Mr. Kerry.

There is no point in quarreling among people that share the same overall goals.

[babzilla]

94. yes, it should be about Kerry

but "where's yours?"

[TLM]

147. The truth hurts...

and the truth is I don't try to pretend that my advocacy for Dean is objective journalism.

I don't pretend to have no bias.

[Raya]

24. Nice Post. Saw Kerry on CNN today. Very coherent compared with ...

[jadesfire]

62. So let me get this straight...

This is for all of you who were soooooo much smarter than the entire Congress...


Let's just suppose that you are a Senator, you have 19 years of experience on the Foreign Relations Committee, you were there when the Chemical and Biological weapons were revealed after the first Gulf War, you saw the continued proliferation of these weapons during the UN weapons inspections, there was a few years where no inspections were taking place, and now you are being told by the PENTAGON and the Intelligence departments that this same dictator who has attempted to asassinate a US President in the past now has the ability to hit cities along the Eastern Seaboard with these chemical and biological weapons; they back it up with documents, photographs, and other evidence that convinces almost the entirity of the US Senate that the dictator is an eminent threat.

As this Senator you would just automatically assume that the entire US government is being used to LIE to the US SENATE. Sorry, but if our Senator's believed this was possible, it is time to dissolve our system of government. Regardless of the Administration, the bureaucracy of these departments (which do NOT overwhelmingly change with the administration) is dedicated to serving their country in an honest and respectable manner. Lying to Congress is an act of Treason. That's what we should be focusing on.

If you as a Senator, had been privy to this information I hope you would think long and hard before you dismissed the evidence presented by these men and women simply because the Commander in Chief is not your favorite (or even someone you can stand listening to) person. The lives of MILLIONS of American's were at stake, on a scale that made 9/11 look miniscule.

Even with this information John Kerry was a leader in promoting the Biden-Lugar Amendment before it was defeated (both Biden and Lugar also voted for the final resolution).

Stop being so self-rightous.

[IndianaGreen]

66. You are asking us to believe in Rumsfeld and Colin Powell?

Just to believe in those two pathological liars is enough for me not to vote for a candidate!

Remember that this is the same Powell that gave $42M to the Taliban in May 2001.

This is the same cast of characters that knew Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on the US, some of which involved hijacking airplanes and crashing them into national landmarks.

Do you remember the reason why the Millenium celebrations were cancelled in Seattle? I do! The reason given was that they feared a terrorist attack on the Space Needle by an airplane. This was back in December 1999!

We also have the entire litany of lies about Afghanistan, and the civilian casualties, to be more than cautious in accepting at face value anything the Bush regime would say.

No excuse!

[jadesfire]

72. Powell did not address the Senators since he is in the State Department...

The information was presented by the Intelligence Departments and the Pentagon. Again, most of whom are non-partison and some are even Dems...

[thinkahead]

168. No excuse ME

I may not be a member of Congress, or privy to "rock solid" intelligence about Weapons of Mass Destruction, but I've never been afraid of Iraq.

And why should I be - when Pakistan already has a nuclear bomb. And North Korea, a much more frightening potential foe already is on the verge of becoming not only a nuclear threat, but a missile selling threat to God knows who.

Why should I vote to ensure the death and destruction of thousands of Iraqi civilians (more than died on our soil on Sept 11th) or be so certain the route to victory in the War on Terrorism lies in the removal of a boxed in Saddam Hussein - a man assured of destruction if he acted out?

Why should I vote to spend billions of our taxpayer dollars and expend the lives of our children in Iraq when we ignore Saudi Arabia, the homeland of most of the September 11th hijackers who murdered 3000 of our civilians?

Do you really need to be a member of congress to see that Iraq qas the PNAC wet-dream come to life?

Iraq was the wrong fight, voted on at the wrong time by the wrong people - and we are no safer than we were before Hussein was removed.

Iraq was never an imminent threat. We were lied to about that. Some of us were smart enough to see there were (and still are) far more imminent threats out there. Now we are less prepared to take them on.

Fantastic work by congress, if you ask me.

[demnan]

48. Kick

The original post deserves a kick, even though some of the following ones are extraordinarily negative toward a a fine man who has served his state and his country well.

[HFishbine]

53. One thing I'd like to know from Kerry.

He now says of the intellegence that convinced him to vote for the IWR, "It is one of the worst intelligence lapses, or deceptions, in modern history."

I would like to know when he came to this conclusion. It apparently wasn't when Will Pitt published his book. It apparently wasn't when some of his collegues evaluated the intellegence differently and voted against the war. It apparently wasn't when DUers were reading of the debunking of Powell's UN presentation weeks before the war.

When did Kerry's opinion turn and what caused him to change his mind? It's an important question, because the cynic might say it looks like he changed his mind when it appeared he might not cinch the presidential nomination. But, I'm open to hearing Kerry's explaination of when and why he came to disbelieve the intellegence.

[IndianaGreen]

60. Today Kerry said we were safer because we toppled Saddam

KERRY: I think that The Washington Post editorialized and called Howard Dean's view "ludicrous."

I think that for a major candidate for the presidency of the United States not to understand that the removal of a dictator who required our troops to go to war and die in the early 1990s, who invaded another country, who attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States, who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel to destabilize the Middle East, who developed and used weapons of mass destruction against another people and his own people, and who was pursuing a further nuclear program than we thought he was, when our own inspectors were in his country destroying those weapons -- for a major candidate not to understand that the capture of that man makes America safer, I think, shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of foreign policy and national security.

We are safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/21/le.00.html

Today the alert level was raised to orange for the first time since May.

[mzmolly]

63. Says it all...

:eyes: *sigh*

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

70. Safer?

Then how come we have an orange alert today, from threats from Al-Queda. Could it be because Saddam wasn't an imminent threat in the first place??? Sheesh.

[jadesfire]

97. Are you implying that anyone thought

Sadaam was the only threat, not even W said that.

Just in case you missed that day in English class eminent does not equal only.

[bigtree]

89. Alert level:

Used to keep the American public fearful and yoked to Bush's doctrine of perpetual war.

[Scott Lee]

151. What an idiot.

How Kerry can hang on to this crap is beginning to stretch the bounds of all imagination.

John...HONEY.....you voted IWR, now try to defend it. Don't make shit up and try to sell it to us as chipped beef, ok? Facts are that the arrest of a drugged old man in a hole did not make us SAFE, SAFER, or SAFEST. It just didn't...ok?

[sandnsea]

103. When did Dean come to that decision?

It apparently wasn't when he was supporting Biden-Lugar. It apparently wasn't when he was saying Saddam had WMD and was a threat. It apparently wasn't when he was supporting continued containment. It apparently wasn't when he was saying give the inspectors 30-60 days and then go in unilaterally. So when exactly did Howard Dean ever figure out there was a failure in intelligence?

And when did DU figure it out? In May you were all flapping around like henny penny's "What if they find WMD, what if they find WMD?"

Frankly, a hell of a lot of people are flat full of shit. Not saying you are, mind you, just a hell of a lot of people.

[Egnever]

67. Sory but I dont buy it

"Put it this way: Given the circumstances we were in at the time, the decision was appropriate,"

Exactly my problem with kerry. There was nothing appropriate about his decision whatsoever.

There is absolutely nothing he can say that will convince me otherwise. This war was completely unecesary and was telegraphed very clearly by this administration the fact that Kerry refused to see the warning signs
or pretend that they werent there does absolutely nothing to inspire confidence in this man in me.

Course we have argued this a million times you all know the speil.

Sory ry you had the presidency in your hands and despite the thousands of letters and hundreds of people camping out in front of your office you chose to give it away with your vote. Lifes a bitch

[KoKo]

79. I know, it's so plain to see. But, some keep supporting Kerry's "stepping

in it." We, expected better from him. He had it ALL....it was HIS to lose. He's lost it. Maybe a "miracle will occur" and save him from his mouth.

I will support him if he's the nominee, but I think we have better. If he couldn't get our support and those in some of the polling, then what would he do against Rove/Cheney? They would "tie him up in a knot."

He keeps going back and forth, and back and forth. He stands in front of a Campaign Bus on "Snuffy" today, that some of us think means "death" instead of New Deal or Better Deal or whatever his slogan is. He rides in on a Harley for the Press just after Chimp's "Flyboy" thing. What the hell is wrong with him.

Theresa should have shut him in a room and talked "political reality" to him.

[flpoljunkie]

86. Kerry is right. He is the progressive candidate who can beat Bush.

Kerry: I think the progressives in our party need to look and see who has the ability to take that progressive agenda and still stand up and beat George Bush. We don’t need to send the country a message. We need to send the country a President.

Amen. Thanks for asking Kerry about his IWR. No one will be able to convince those who have ears, but cannot hear, eyes, but cannot see.

[mzmolly]

96. The interview was an attempt to redeem Kerry with the left.

The agenda won't save Kerry's campaign, nor will DU and/or Mr. Pitt.

[bigtree]

99. Way to slap 'em down mzmolly!

Your agenda might just sink your man's campaign. He will need Kerry's supporters if he wins the nomination. Hope Gov. Dean doesn't share your vitriol.

[mzmolly]

101. Vitriol?

I will vote for and work for Kerry if he is the nominee. Questions?

[bigtree]

105. cool

same here for any other Democrat.

Just hard to take the constant drumbeat of 'Your Man (Woman) is finished. That was the tone of your post. Kinda hard to take when no votes have been cast. Most candidate supporters still feel that they still have a chance, notwithstanding the coronation by polls and media handicapping.

Your previous post says that Kerry's statement says it all. What do you object to about the statement. It seemed solid to me. What would Gov. Dean do differently in the future regarding Iraq?

[mzmolly]

109. I dont mean to sound presumptive.

You'd have to see my other posts here for clarification regarding my problem with Kerry's statement(s) on Iraq. It's Kerry's history of statments that I take issue with and his changing position/tone from week to week.

Regarding what Dean will do in Iraq. I'll refer you here for more information:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/Search?query=iraq&inc=10

:hi:

John Kerry now:

"I think that for a major candidate for the presidency of the United States not to understand that the removal of a dictator who required our troops to go to war and die in the early 1990s, who invaded another country, who attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States, who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel to destabilize the Middle East, who developed and used weapons of mass destruction against another people and his own people, and who was pursuing a further nuclear program than we thought he was, when our own inspectors were in his country destroying those weapons -- for a major candidate not to understand that the capture of that man makes America safer, I think, shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of foreign policy and national security."

John Kerry Pre-Saddam Capture:

"KERRY: ...I'll tell you this: that the president took a legitimate national security concern, which was containing Saddam Hussein and how you get the inspectors back in in order to do that, and literally distorted it and abused it by misleading the American people with respect to everything that he did.

He said that he would build an international coalition; he built a fraudulent coalition. He said that he would use the inspectors and respect the United Nations process; he couldn't wait to get out of it. He said that he would go to war as a last resort; he did not go to war as a last resort.

And the fundamental concept of the presidency is that you don't send young men and women to war because you want to; you do it because you have to. And I think he abused that."

[bigtree]

111. hey mzmolly

I'm obviously smarting from my guy's poor standing in the punditry.

I've seen alot of positioning on many issues in this race. Each candidate has changed or reclarified some position. What would your man do differently than mine in the future regarding Iraq? Not much daylight on this between any of the Democrats, in my view.

Kerry always wanted Saddam out. Statements such as "a legitimate national security concern" - "containing Saddam Hussein and how you get the inspectors back in in order to do that" were always his concern.

This shows a consistent view that the removal of Saddam was a good thing. He always follows in his statements that the way that Bush did it was bogus. And that the way that Bush presented the case to Congress to force a vote was fradulent.

I just don't see what the inconsistency is. He shouldn't have to change his view that he believed Saddam should have been removed just because Bush mishandled it and lied. He truly believes we are better off with Saddam in custody but he has said all along that Bush recklessly took us into a, perhaps, unnecessary war to do it. He did it against the warnings and admonitions of the Senator and others of note. Lots of smart people of good motivation believed the president and supported the resolution.

[mzmolly]

112. I dont know what your candidate would do frankly. I do know what mine

would do ;) Here is a very brief outline.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364

I have a great concern about our deficit and rebuilding our relationships with the UN and our other allies. I also like Dean's position on the middle east, heatlh care ect... Just a few of the many reasons I support HD for President. But, I don't want to turn this into a Dean thread. So cheerio :hi:

[zulchzulu]

129. Kerry was talking about two different issues; looks like you don't get it

Kerry was saying rightfully that Saddam did have WMDs in the 1990's (which he may have destroyed or were destroyed in thousands of NFZ sorties in the 1990's), did invade another country (Kuwait), lobbed missiles at Israel (Scuds in Gulf War), used WMDs on his own people (Kurds in 1988) and had a nuclear weapons program (which he did have).

That's one issue.

The second issue is about how Bush used lies and deception in the selling of the imminent threat that Saddam was threatening the World when the IWR was being devised.

Those are two issues which are separate concerns.

Of course Dean agreed with the same policy and the Biden-Lugar Amendment that Kerry wanted in the resolution originally and then decided to lie that he ever had that opinion.

The cut-and-paste Dean blog stuff you posted is intellectually dishonest as much as the candidate.

[mzmolly]

135. I do believe calling me things like dishonest is against the user rules?

But what you conveniently overlook is that Kerry was taking about THIS war in both instances. I did not pull a quote from 1990. Kerry went back in time to justify/prop his bullshit vote on the war, thus claiming victory and 'honor' in the capture of the dangerous Saddam Hussein. :scared:

Now that's inellectually honest. :eyes:

There are several more contradictions on the part of Kerry, but he's polling below 7% now, so I haven't much time to spend on his spin.

:)

Glad you edited out the personal attack.

[babzilla]

108. re: ears & eyes

Kerry can you hear me?

[Meshuga]

106. To What Extent Must Congress Trust The Intelligence Community?

I can understand finding Bush suspect, but I think to a certain extent people in postions of responsibility have to put their trust in what the intelligence community are telling them. It is not like they can set up their independent intelligence findings.

At the same time, the foreign relations committee has always been a model of bipartisanship that has gone back throughout Kerry's career. This small group has always left politics "at the water's edge."

And lastly, whatever you can say about the 2000 election/fraud, there was no reason to believe that Bush Jr. would fail to put together a coalition like he had for Afghanistan, or his father had for the first Gulf War.

[sistersofmercy]

110. Well, as a Kerry supporter I have quarrel with his Saddam statement

Is Kerry honestly stating the WORLD is a safer place without Saddam? A gross simplistic exaggeration, IMO.

[sandnsea]

114. Safer does not mean totally safe

I can't imagine anybody not thinking the world is safer without Saddam Hussein. Even Wes Clark said the world is safer.

[sistersofmercy]

116. That is...

an assumpation I can do without. If you look at the current misadminstration I think they are the bigger threat to world peace, Saddam's crimes occurred over a decade ago and it is now being addressed as a world threat? Please, that's an insult to my intelligence and quite honestly I think it was an incredibly stupid statement by Kerry.

[sandnsea]

121. Leaping logic

I don't know what else to call it. Nobody said Saddam is a world wide threat. I don't know why people find the need to make these wild conclusions.

If the ME is more stable without Saddam's fueling Palestinian terrorism, the world in general is safer. His removal is very helpful in that regard. It would obviously be more helpful if Bush hadn't unleashed a whole new set of problems. It is possible that Bush could make the world terrorist situation much more dangerous than Saddam did. We aren't there yet. And it doesn't follow that Saddam didn't contribute way more than his share and the world is safer without him.

And we still have a long ways to go in Iraq to make sure it doesn't get worse. Which Kerry, and everybody else, has also said.

[IndianaGreen]

117. Having US troops in Iraq did not make the world safer

On the contrary, the introduction of US troops in the Middle East, particularly when they are led by Christian fundamentalists like LTC Steve Russell (*), have brought more instability to that volatile region and has only succeeded in swelling Al-Qaeda's ranks.

* see LBN story about this lunatic here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=280387

[sandnsea]

123. Which is why it needs to be internationalized

Nobody is disagreeing with that.

[IndianaGreen]

126. Bush doesn't want to give up the oil wells and the Halliburton contracts

and many Democrats are as much on the payroll of special interests as Bush is.

[sandnsea]

130. So blame Bush

He is the cause of the problems. But him being a complete disaster doesn't redeem Saddam Hussein either.

October 2002. You get to shoot one. Bush or Saddam. You don't have any idea what will happen in the future. Who takes their place isn't part of the picture. Bush or Saddam. Who are you going to shoot.

Have I asked you this before, I know I asked somebody.

[IndianaGreen]

138. It is not possible to answer your question.

Here is another hypothetical for you:

You travel back in time to October 20, 1889, to Branau, a small village in Austria. There you are handed a 6-month old baby boy to babysit for his mother Klara. He is baby Hitler! Knowing what you know about what this baby will do as a grown man, will you kill baby Hitler, or will you let him live?

Think carefully about the answer...

Here is my answer:

My emotional side would want to smash that baby's head to spare the world the horrors of the Holocaust.

My intellectual side would consider the possibility that by traveling back in time, I have already changed history. History is the result of so many variables, that even if we could relive our own lives all over again, chances are that the outcome would be different.

I would let baby Hitler live, because the future is not yet written. There is no such thing as fate!

The emotional me would go along with this, knowing full well that if I could travel back in time, I can certainly travel back again if it turns out that history cannot be altered because it follows a script, and there is really no free will.

[sandnsea]

141. No, we're talking two grown men

Two dangerous men. You're a CIA operative. You're assigned to kill Saddam. Do you? Or do you kill Bush?

[IndianaGreen]

156. I don't believe in state-sponsored assassinations

We got plenty of that during the Phoenix program in Vietnam, and some of the other sordid things we did in Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, to name just a few.

I do believe in justice and the rule of law. I would place Saddam and Bush under arrest, and ship their sorry asses to the International Crimes Court.

BTW, you never answered the baby Hitler scenario...

[sandnsea]

158. No, not a choice

You have to shoot one. Sorry. My game, my rules. You answer, then I'll answer.

[IndianaGreen]

167. I won't play by your rules anymore than I would play by Bush's rules

which unfortunately is what your candidate did.

[sandnsea]

171. Refuse to answer it

Because you know I'm right. It isn't an easy thing to answer. Those were the rules Kerry was playing by. He HAD to answer. And he answered by his own rules. Trust Colin Powell and those like him, or trust Saddam Hussein. So he voted to put up a threat of force to pressure the UN to take the problem of WMD seriously.

It's easier to play games when millions of lives aren't in your hands.

[IndianaGreen]

176. No, it was a very easy answer!

War against a country that had not attacked the US is always wrong. It was wrong for us to invade Iraq, as it was wrong for us to invade Panama, and Grenada.

We should have adhered to international law.

It's easy to go to war when it is someone else's children that have to fight it! Kerry never considered the moral and ethical issues about this war. His failure to consider those issues show that Kerry has a serious character flaw that disqualifies him from the Presidency.

[sandnsea]

185. That was the plan

Get the inspectors in and only go in with the backing of the UN if it was necessary, as a last resort. Adhering to international law. Where was Kerry wrong here?

[clarknyc]

118. Good for the General, however...

Dean said America isn't safer, not the world.

[sandnsea]

120. The General said America is safer

As did Kerry and everybody else except Dean. I was responding to the particular poster since she did say the world.

[IndianaGreen]

122. Since Saddam was never a threat to the US

his capture has nothing to do with us being safe or unsafe. However, the unprovoked invasion of a Muslim country by American Crusaders has made us less safe, in addition to making the world a more dangerous place.

[sandnsea]

124. Denial

That's all I can figure. Saddam played a major role in the instability in the ME. There would never be peace with Israel as long as he was funding and sponsoring anti-Israeli terrorism. That, in addition, is fueling terrorism against the US. Consequently, removing that one piece of the puzzle does make us safer over the long run.

Which isn't to say this is a justification for war. It is to say this situation is alot more complicated than most people around here want to admit.

[IndianaGreen]

125. Israel's occupation of Palestine is the reason there is terrorism

Saddam was not a factor in the Israel/Palestine conflict, the IDF and its tanks and American made F-16s are the factor.

It's the occupation!

[sandnsea]

127. The invasions of Israel

Do you just ignore that?? The funding of Hamas, Hezbollah, you just ignore that?? This was going on long before the occupations in question.

[IndianaGreen]

134. Iran funds Hamas, as did Israel years ago...

Are you now proposing that American troops should shed their blood for Israel?

Israel can take care of herself, thank you. Having the largest stockpile of WMDs in the Middle East makes Israel a mini-superpower.

Now we found no WMDs in Iraq, it seems that the war supporters are grasping for other reasons to justify Iraq's occupation. Kerry today even used the death threats against Poppy Bush as justification for invading Iraq.

Do you know what I am hearing here? I am hearing the same tired old arguments that the Bush regime uses to justify the war in Iraq. I am saddened that so many Democrats have bought the torrent of lies from the White House.

[sandnsea]

137. No you're not

You are hearing the fact that Saddam was a bad guy. Up and until he was captured, everybody said "yeah, he's a bad guy but you don't invade countries with bad guys as leaders" Today, Saddam wasn't a bad guy anymore. He was a great guy. Didn't create any problems in the world or for the U.S. at all. :eyes:

It's GOOD he's gone. Put everything else aside, it's GOOD he's gone. It's not a case of the ends justifies the means. It's not a case of saying Bush was right in lying or anything else.

It's just a simple statement of fact. Saddam was a major pain in the ass in the ME, him being gone will help reduce funding of some of the Palestinian terrorist groups, that in turn will turn down the heat on the situation, and it will be better for the entire world in the long run.

And it would be even better if Bush stops his unilateralism and gets international help in Iraq. Which Kerry, and every other candidate, has also said.

[Scott Lee]

155. Saddams capture means nothing. ZERO.

No matter how you badly want to spin this in a negative way for Dean and positive for your boy Kerry.

Dean said Saddam's capture didn't make us safer, and he's right.

Good lord, Ma'am, just live with the truth instead of trying to nuance it for john Kerry, can you do that?

[killbotfactory]

143. Did Kerry pay any attention to what happened after the vote?

The inspectors found NOTHING, even with the help of our intelligence... didn't that make Kerry suspicious?

The inspectors found the UAV, which was an RC plane with balsa wood wings and a five mile radius... didn't that make Kerry suspicious?

We were never able to convince other nations Iraq was a threat to us... didn't that make Kerry suspicious?

The only thing the inspectors found were missles which went 20km over the limit... didn't that make Kerry suspicious?

The administration called for an end to inspections and action against Iraq only a few weeks after they started... didn't that make Kerry suspicious?

The list of weapons sites given to CENTCOM for targetting were mainly old buildings we bombed previously in 1998... didn't that make Kerry suspicious?

One of the supposed "TERRAR LABS!" cited by Powell turned out to be a bombed out bakery... didn't that make Kerry suspicious?

The terrorist group that the administration said was in Iraq was above Kurdish territory and had no connection with Saddam... didn't that make Kerry suspicious?

There was tons of new info that came out during inspections that totally invalidated most of the claims of the administration. Kerry should have realized he had been sold a bill of goods and renounced his vote and opposed the war... Did he even pay attention to what was happening over there?

Unless, of course, he bought the line about the UN being obstructionist and Saddam being too smart for inspectors. If that's the case I think he has piss-poor judgement.

[IndianaGreen]

161. Another possibility is that Kerry is another PNACer

like Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman. The reason Kerry "waffled" is because he was trying to have it both ways.

Today it is clear that Kerry was an enthusiastic supporter of Bush's invasion of Iraq. Kerry's interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer is proof enough of where Kerry really stands on the war: He was all for it!

[Meshuga]

203. Anyone Who Supported Biden-Lugar Should Be Outraged!

Dean should never have supprted a resolution that would have given Bush authority to wage war without another vote in Congress. A letter sent doesn't cut it. I'll never trust his judgement.

And for Wes Clark, who "probably would have" voted for IWR, and definitely advised someone else to, is not exactly in a postion to cast stones of aspersion, either.

[killbotfactory]

210. I'm talking about AFTER the IWR

Even if you were under the mistaken impression that Bush would seek a multilateral force, use war as a last resort, and had good evidence that Iraq was a threat, the run-up to war should have raised enough red-flags to rethink that position.

And authorizing the president to use unilateral force for the removal of WMD's as a last resort, and only if they are an imminent threat and the UN refused to act, is not nearly the same as voting for something which says this:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

If Biden-Lugar passed, and Bush went to war the same way he did under the IWR, I would expect supporters of the bill to be outraged seeing as Bush never proved that Iraq was an imminent threat, cut short inspections and working with the UN when it was most convenient for him, and didn't just target WMDs (pretty much because they had shit intelligence and were bluffing about them) but went and took over the whole goddamn country.

[HFishbine]

208. Which leads to the question

What was the tipping point for Kerry's opinion of the intellegence? He now calls it one of the greatest intellegence failures or deceptions in history. When did Kerry come to this conclusion?

[MaineDem]

205. Great job, Will

Thanks for posting this.

[cindyw]

209. kick

:kick:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

211. Excellent work

on an excellent man.

[WiseMen]

212. Can we have a link to the final article?