Quick question for the Kerry supporters

[newsguyatl]

how does kerry defend his ANTI-war vote in 1991 when saddam actually HAD invaded another country, oil wells were on fire and our troops were in kuwait, but voted YES on bush's 2003 illegal and immoral war, and MAINTAINS he was right even after seeing all the facts (or lack thereof) come to light?


just wondering...



can someone actually give an answer WITHOUT criticizing the question or the messenger?

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. yes, they were both political votes

Most democrats opposed the war in 1991 and Kerry was looking ahead to running against Bush and didn't want to get suckered into a political trap sprung for him by Karl Rove.

[newsguyatl]

3. that's what i thought.

thanks for clarifying.



just what we need in the white house, someone who makes his decisions based on politics, not on what's right or wrong.

[jpgray]

4. Well, seeing that this is true for everyone but Kucinich

Why do you support Dean? He shat on the environment in favor of coprorations in Vermont. Was that politically motivated, do you think? I support Dean, but you're holding Kerry to a standard you DON'T hold Dean to. You shouldn't have illusions about any of the candidates--you want an apolitical guy, it's Kucinich. All others don't pass the test.

[dsc]

28. that is utterly absurd

First Dean's Vermont has the cleanest enviroment in the entire US by any standard you wish to use. Vermont is more densly populated than several states with significantly worse enviroments (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho come to mind). Further there is no one currently campaigning who didn't support Gulf war 1 and did support Gulf War 2 except Kerry.

[curse10]

5. and you wonder why people criticize the messenger and question

it was obviously loaded, you already knew the answer, and it was a shameless attempt to make Kerry look evil. Nice try.

And at this point in the game, you can't say that Dean hasn't calculated his moves based on anything but politics.

[newsguyatl]

12. nice defense there curse10

so what you're saying is that kerry KNEW the iraq war vote was wrong even though he voted for it and still defends it?



is THAT what you're saying...



if you're not, please clarify... most of us here AREN'T politicians, so let's cut through the bullshit, ok?

[curse10]

14. I stopped justifying my support for Kerry to Dean supporters long ago

and I'm not going to start now.

and you know damn well that was not what I was saying. I was criticizing the lame post and the lame question that has been asked a thousand times by dean supporters on this board.

[newsguyatl]

18. hahaha

wow, you guys are coming up more empty handed than even i thought you would...


i hope the voters of new hampshire see through the facade and hypocrisy.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[newsguyatl]

20. nice personal attack there curse 10

somehow i knew dean supporters would be attacked before a sensible defense of kerry could be brought up.


nice job. "the hysteria of dean supporters."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. LOL and a football player should not base his actions on football

but on the fact that it really is wrong to slam into that quarterback with all 300 pounds of him.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. you DO realize this is politics, right?

The next guy who bases his decision on what's right and what's not politicially expedient will be the first guy.

[newsguyatl]

11. no, magic rat, i didn't realize that, thanks for making it crystal clear

and thanks for ALSO making it crystal clear the hypocrisy of kerry's candidacy.

[curse10]

16. LoL

Oh. My. God.

[bigtree]

13. And Gov. Dean is not engaging in politics in his opposition?

Dean has been in the catbird seat

Echoing all of the popular proposals and positions, cherry-picking, and throwing stones; knowing all the while that he would not have to vote on any of these issues. If he had any dignity he would'nt be sticking it to those who were tasked with the responsibility of crafting and actually voting for these bills.

[newsguyatl]

15. again

nice job at actually defending kerry... real nice!


honestly, i don't blame you for going on the offense, kerry's vote surely can't be defended.

[curse10]

17. Again

Nice try.

LoL

[diamond14]

10. bull....the vote did NOT give the pResident any more power than

he already had...many Presidents have gone to war without congressional approval...they have the power to do that....Vietnam, Granada, Iraq, Columbia, Guatemala, Bosnia and more...NO congressional approval needed....

the congressional vote was to back-up the pResident when he went to the UN, to FORCE the UN inspectors back into Iraq, with the FULL backing of congress...that's why almost all the congress voted for it....AND bush* then slapped congress in the face, and dissed the UN BIGTIME...and went to war ALL ALONE...

Kerry believed that the best approach was to continue inspections...
as Kerry noted "it was amazing how badly bush* fu*ked the whole thing up" (did the news focus on WHAT bush* fu*ked up?, NO, they attacked Kerry for using the "F" word, repeating over and over how Kerry used foul language...not mentioned was bush* bombing children, which is much more foul than Kerry's use of 'F'word)

the bush1 war in 1991 layed the foundation to spend BILLIONS in containing saddam, and then BILLIONS more for the bush2 war....it opened a war-profiteering free-for-all....Kerry said NO in 1991, recently Kerry attempted to fix the mess, by keeping UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq, rather then bombing and killing innocents...

read here
videos at bottom of page...Kerry explains his vote
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

[JI7]

2. i think fox news, or face the nation or both

asked this and he answered. not sure if the transcript it available. but they were both from today.

[Cocoa]

7. I heard him explain it on Fox

he said it was too rushed, which agrees with the way I remember it.

I remember believing strongly that Poppy was doing everything he could to prevent peace from breaking out, which is why I protested against that war.

[bigtree]

9. There was an effort by the Democrats in that Congress to present

a unified front. Remember, their complaint was that BushI hadn't exhausted all of the diplomatic remedies.

In the IWR there were specific guidelines that mandated that Bush go back to the U.N. and use force only as a last resort in the face of an imminent threat.

Despite your assertion, the IWR did not give Bush authority to unilateraly, and preemptively occupy Iraq. The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill.

In that matter, how would a 'no' vote restrain the president when he was crowing that he already had the authority to invade under 1441? He didn't go around the country waving the IWR as his justification. He doesn't even mention it in his boasting.

What purpose does it serve to claim that Congress authorized him to unilateraly and preemtively invade and occupy. Nowhere in the resolution does it give him authority to do that. Nowhere in the speeches or rhetoric of any Democrat in the Senate, save Leiberman and Zell Miller, is support given for his reckless invasion. Nowhere.

Bush would love to hide behind the vote, but he knows the IWR didn't give him the authority so he doesn't mention it at all in his justification. Only in the Democratic campaign do we foist the blame on Democrats for the sins of Bush

[curse10]

21. This cannot be answered with a simple sound bite

The differences between the two wars is vast. And the reasons for supporting and not supporting either one cannot just be a knee jerk response.

Kerry didn't vote for the first one.

And Kerry didn't vote for unilateral action on the second. IWR called for more diplomacy. Bushie didn't do it. The only people to blame are the Bushies and his people.

[newsguyatl]

22. twiddling thumbs, waiting

for someone to actually defend kerry here...

[Octafish]

23. GOOGLE "April Glaspie" and "Saddam Hussein"

Most journalists know that Saddam got the green light from Glaspie's boss, George Poppy Bush. Kerry wasn't going to go along with the BFEE scam.

[Octafish]

24. Twiddling thumbs, waiting.

Gee. Must've been real news to some people.

[newsguyatl]

25. ...

Kerry wasn't going to go along with the BFEE scam.


what made him go along with it this time?


wouldn't have been this presidential bid now would it've?

[Octafish]

26. No.

President Clinton turned to Kerry for advice when Saddam refused to cooperate in the mid-90s. Kerry knows the BFEE installed the guy in the 1960s. Why? For oil.

GOOGLE: "Henry Gonzalez" + BNL (Banco Nazionale del Lavoro) + Iraq-gate for more information.

[newsguyatl]

30. again i ask octafish

Kerry wasn't going to go along with the BFEE scam.


what made him go along with it this time?


wouldn't have been this presidential bid now would it've?

[emulatorloo]

27. We've been over this several times but

But here it is as simple as I can put it.

John Kerry does not like bad people having bombs and never has.

In 91 nobody was saying that Saddam had bombs.

In 2003, The CIA told the Senate that Saddam had bombs and was going to bomb us.

Powell Cheney and Bush said they would do a lot of things before they resorted to going to war to take the Bombs from Saddam. They said that if they had to go to war, they would get all our friends on board first (france, germany, etc)

They lied, and broke their promises.

Wes Clark said he believed Saddam had bombs too on meet the press this morning because Rumsfield told him so.

Howard Dean has said he wouldn't have believed them. But he is a governor and did not see the secret reports that showed Saddam's Bombs. So who knows for sure? He is a good man though and I will vote for him in the GE if he gets nom.

These reports were made up, but they seemed real, given that they came from intelligence agencies that said they were real.

So it is George Bush's war, Not John Kerry's

On edit: forgot something

[newsguyatl]

32. ok, so

now that the TRUTH has come out (for those who couldn't see it way back then) why does kerry still maintain his war vote was the right vote?


why?

[emulatorloo]

34. Because he still thinks bad people having Bombs is bad

So the principle is the same, even though it turned out that Saddam had no bombs.

Bad people should not have bombs who want to hurt us with them. I have to say I agree with that.

So if that comes up again, he will still want the bombs taken away. But he will try to do *everything* he can to get the bombs away before going to war. War is the last thing you do, after nothing else has worked.

He is very mad about what George Bush did - the lying part, the fact that he did not work with our friends and ignored what they were saying, and that he went to war without trying everything else.

[Ripley]

33. Hold on there.

We always knew he had chemical weapons since the 1980's when Rumsfeld helped hand them over to Saddam to fight Iran. So what is this about not knowing he had anything in 1991?

[emulatorloo]

35. Because 91 was about oil mostly not so much Nukes n/t

[dontstopthere]

29. i don't get why

everyone has to be so anti-everyone-but-their-candidate here. Personally, I like all the candidates. Yes I support Dean, but if he's dead in the ground by Georgia's Primary I'm throwing my support to Edwards. If neither of them are the candidate I'll throw my support behind them immediately. I'll even order a bumper sticker, button, and shirt.

[dontstopthere]

31. my bust,

when I say I support all the candidates I don't mean Big Joe.

[emulatorloo]

36. And I will actively support any of them

except JL but it seems unlikely I will have to worry about that.