Why Didn't Kerry Speak Out?

[windansea]

When Bush broke those Iraq "promises" ...

Why Didn't Kerry Speak Out? John C. Bonifaz, author of a just-published anti-Bush book, emails with what seems to be a sophisticated and potentially highly-damaging criticism of Kerry's finally-settled "But He Promised!" stump rationalization for his pro-war vote.

snip

"If he fails to do so," Senator Kerry continued, "I will be the first to speak out." Senator Kerry broke that promise ... In the crucial days after the president withdrew his efforts to gain United Nations support for his war and before the president launched his invasion, Senator Kerry remained silent. The president had, indeed, failed to build an international coalition, and yet the senator did not speak out.

snip

Maybe I'm missing something but this seems to me a devastating criticism of Kerry's rationalization, if you are an anti-war voter. If the "promises" were so important... . P.S.: Why didn't Kerry speak up? The obvious answer: Because the "promises" theory all along was tactical--the creation of a possible a__-covering excuse for Kerry's pro-war vote should the war go wrong. When Bush was breaking these "promises" popular support for the war was strong, and it looked as if it might cost Kerry votes to speak out. Duh! ... If you stop taking the rationalizations seriously and look at Kerry's behavior as that of a pol trying to play it safe and have it both ways, it all falls into place. Occam's Razor! ... P.P.S.: Bonifaz's book is Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush (NationBooks--NY, January 2004) ... P.P.P.S: Emphasis added throughout. ...

read the whole thing..
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094399/

[creativelcro]

1. So, it's not just a meme... Kerry is really a wimp ?

[jsw_81]

10. John Kerry is no wimp

[CWebster]

24. The medals hanging on his wall

not the ones he fostered the illusion of that he threw over the wall.

[Bush loves Jiang]

2. Skull and Bones..

:puke:

[Sensitivity]

3. Kerry was shouting his opposition. Media ignored him, Dean back-stabbed

That is one of the most dissapointing thing about the campaign.
Dems should have been united on this.

Edited to remove cut-paste from someone else's thread.

[jpgray]

5. Thank you (nt)

[JohnKleeb]

8. Wow

Here's my opinion Sens, I believe that all the major candiates, that is the final 4, we hear about were all for a middle ground, that is they didnt totally oppose the idea of war in Iraq and didnt totally support. Thanks for those links.

[windansea]

14. why did you cut that stuff out

at least it had some things Kerry said

[jpgray]

4. More Kaus? The guy who sees Bush and Clark as equals?

Every statement I've ever seen from Kerry on the prosecution of the war follows what he said in his speech--Bush failed to keep his promises.

[creativelcro]

7. Too convenient.... Period.

Are you saying that, if Bush said: "gimme all powers, don't worry I'll behave", that Senators should just go along and later whine he did not keep promises... C'mon, professional politicians are paranoid and cynical, they know you cannot trust anything that is said. They know better than that. Kerry voted they way he did for political gain. And it backfired.

[jpgray]

9. Kerry made a mistake, but he has been consistent with his remarks (nt)

[CWebster]

26. Some Democrats voted against the Resolution

What does Kerry say to them when he claims the mantle of experience gives him an advatage in leadership and good judgement?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[jsw_81]

12. Wimp? How many Silver Stars did you win?

[ModerateMiddle]

11. Is this Kaus?

He absolutely HATES John Kerry, and has demonstrated repeatedly that he is willing to only look at the "facts" that support his hatred.

John Kerry was screaming his opposition to the "rush to war".

[sangh0]

13. Why didn't windansea listen when Kerry spoke out?

Dean, Kerry trade insults over Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/elec04.prez.kerry.dean.ap/index.html

"...Kerry voted last year to give Bush the authority to use force but has been critical of the president's diplomacy. He has said the Bush administration gave Congress faulty intelligence and agreed to build an international coalition before launching a strike -- a pledge that he claims the president has broken. "

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason
New York Observer

"...But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader. The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship..."

Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans on War
By Ron Fournier
Associated Press
Wednesday 18 June 2003

http://truthout.org/docs_03/061903A.shtml

"...Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq"s Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

"He misled every one of us," Kerry said. "That"s one reason why I"m running to be president of the United States."..."

[jpgray]

15. Thank you (nt)

[Justice]

17. I Wasn't Misled - I Knew The "Evidence" Did Add Up

I knew the evidence didn't add up - how is it that Kerry, who sat on intelligence committees couldn't figure it out.

[sangh0]

19. Gore, Clinton, Dean

all thought Saddam had WMD's, partially because they knew we sold them to Saddam.

[emulatorloo]

36. Because they saw reports we never saw

because they were "Top Secret."

[CWebster]

37. lame

other Dems had access to the same reports and didn't buy it.

[emulatorloo]

41. We aren't talking about other Dems

and I don't know if they have the kind of commitment to being vigilant on arms proliferation that Kerry has. DK has his convictions and I am proud of him for them. They voted how they did, and I respect them for that.

Kerry voted how he did for solid reasons, he has been consistent about it from day one. If you don't agree with the vote, that's fine. But I don't believe the evidence is there for you to ascribe the kind of base motives that you do. I think he has been consistent about it from day one, and it was never and up down vote on unilateral pre-emptive war.

ON EDIT clarify

[sangh0]

42. Furthermore, I bet CWebster has no cite

I don't know of any Dems with access to intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD's who voted against IWR.

[Egnever]

63. You mean like this from MTP?

(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you misled by the intelligence agencies? Were you duped?
SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t

[sangh0]

65. Like I said, CWebster can't back up his assertions

The quote provided does not support his claim that there were Dems who had access to the intel and voted against IWR

[killbotfactory]

52. Kerry said the public knew everything he knew

I don't buy that "secret evidence" bullshit.

[windansea]

18. don't shoot windansea

Bonifaz and Kaus are referring specifically to:

"In the crucial days after the president withdrew his efforts to gain United Nations support for his war and before the president launched his invasion, Senator Kerry remained silent. The president had, indeed, failed to build an international coalition, and yet the senator did not speak out."

[sangh0]

20. Bonifgz and Kaus are turds

What "crucial days" are they referring to? Kerry has been speaking out consistently as demonstrated by the quotes that have been posted. We have posted Kerry quotes from both just before and just after the invasion.

[Virgil]

33. Byrd opposed the war, Kerry went along

"He misled every one of us June 18, 2003

Excuses, excuses. I was here too and I was not mislead. I opposed the war as an illegal aggression under a new directive marketed as "pre-emptive" war. Of all the countries of the world, the only countries whose people supported the war were the US and Israel and maybe Kuwait. There were world wide protest and did Kerry join a protest? No. He voted for the IWR.

The tax cuts that needed 60 votes to pass in the Senate passed with Democratic votes. I am trying to see how he voted on that, but he has in no way stood up like Byrd.

I just happened to catch a great speech by Hollings of SC in the Senate the day the Senate voted their Constitutional responsibility to negotiate trade and treaties over to the White House and give Busch trade authority. Hollings gave a fiery speech where he denounced the act as not living up to the responsibilities placed on Congress by the Constitution. He would say "The Fix is on." I am going to see how Edwards and Kerry voted on that. They surely did not stand up in any way like Hollings as the presidential trade authority sailed through the Senate like the tax cut bills and the Patriot Act.

But to come out and say the President mislead him is damning. Why was he following the President? He should have been on the Senate floor to hear Byrd speak. Why was he following the President? I did not follow the "bellicose" , using Byrd's word, tantrums of a guy I knew was a lunatic. Did he not know of PNAC and why did he not take to the Senate floor and read it in personal fillibuster at some point even if it was on a real fillibuster on something else?

I am ABB all the way, but I do not want Kerry or Edwards that were in the Senate and let all this happen. It is great to be able to admit mistakes, but the mistakes and silence we got from them should not be rewarded with the Democratic nomination. They were part of the problem and I do not now want to hear they are the cure.

[windansea]

35. this is the problem with Senators

running for President...

[WiseMen]

16. Kerry slammed Bush on "rush to war" and attacked Bush from the start.

The media basically suppressed Kerry's attacks on Bush because they were part of the war campaign.

Note Kerry speach after the IWR vote, During U.N. Inspections

Senator John Kerry
Remarks Georgetown University
Thursday 23 January 2003
"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"

………

And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.

Mr. President, do not rush to war!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htm


After the war started, Kerry faced charges of treason from Ann Coulter and the RNC as he continued to speak out:

April 4, 2003
''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/04.html

April 7, 2003
(AP) Presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that democracy affords rival Democrats the right to criticize President Bush even with the nation at war.

The Massachusetts senator has come under a withering attack from Republicans for suggesting that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change. Traveling through Iowa, Kerry rejected what he called "phony arguments" from the GOP that political candidates should mute their criticism of the commander in chief.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/politics/main547730.shtml

Bush sidestepped process on war in Iraq, Kerry says


By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES (July, 22, 2003)

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry yesterday said President Bush "circumvented" the process laid out in the congressional resolution authorizing action against Iraq, which Mr. Kerry supported in the Senate last year.



http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030721-103628-1890r.htm

[windansea]

22. from Kerry's speech

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Are you trying to point out the consistency of Kerry's position?

[windansea]

31. nope...just that he was hedging his bets

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Kerry was always consistent on disarming

through the UN process. He tried to get Clinton to ratchet up the pressure on Saddam in '98.

That is the whole point of the resolution. The threat of force to back up negotiations to get Iraq to follow the relevant UN resolutions.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. "Mr. President, do not rush to war"

Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are, in the truest sense, not just issues of international order and security, but vital issues of our own national security.

So how would this approach, this bold progressive internationalism, differ from the Bush Administration's erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement? The answer starts by understanding the nature and source of the threat we face.

While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. A new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy. It seeks a war of Islam - as defined by extremists - against the rest of the world and we must be clear its epicenter is the Greater Middle East.

It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond...broadly speaking the western Muslim world...what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress.

<snip>

it's clear that we need more than a one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe. We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.

The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.

Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our alliances. This isn't a task that we should or need to shoulder alone. If anything, our transatlantic partners have a greater interest than we do in an economic and political transformation in the greater Middle East. They are closer to the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports. Prime magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism.

<snip>

destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

<snip>

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
-- John Kerry 1/23/03
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[windansea]

25. funny how you snipped diferent parts of speech

than I did....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. What is your point?

[CWebster]

23. Hell, Kerry was offered the opportunity

to sign on to a second resolution, with Kennedy and Byrd, to retract the first one. Kerry declined. How many voters do you think know that? They probably only see Kerry as a safer bet after the media set out to cast doubt on Dean's electibility. The media has yet to target Kerry, but he is ripe for the picking.

[emulatorloo]

39. George Bush is ripe for the picking; Kerry's position will resonate

with People.

Here's as simple as I can put it.

Kerry is against arms proliferation
They said saddam had WMDs and was getting nukes
They had top secret briefings w never saw
Kerry tried to do the responsible thing - Disarm Saddam War as a last resort
GWB manipulated evidence and broke his promises

A lot of people feel manipulated too -- they don't like weapons proliferation, and the President said he had top secret evidence proving that Saddam was getting nukes. He said he would work w the UN. etc etc etc

Turns out was all made up.

Which is going to resonate more with people?

A snarky "I knew it all the time, I was so smart" even though I didn't see everything and my balls were never on the line.

Or somebody who tried to do the right thing on arms proliferation who got lied to?

[CWebster]

48. You have yet to answer to the Democrats who voted against it

and the millions who demonstrated on the streets of the entire world, against it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0123-02.htm

[salin]

27. I hate to bring this up...

but wasn't this the timing that Kerry's cancer was discovered? It was important (the value of early detection) for him - as a human - to get immediate attention, as prostate cancer can be completely irradicated IF caught and removed before it has spread. I know this, as I lost my father to it. They thought they had found it early enough and began the surgery... but alas it had spread (barely)...

My point could be wrong - but I think that the most blatant moves from this administration (in terms of underminding the UN Inspectors) was around the time that Kerry was dealing with his own emergency (and thankfully had much greater success than did my father.)

I would take folks like Senator Biden more to task. He gave the most impassioned speech on the floor of the senate before the vote on the "holding the president to his word"... but who now continues to back the administration's policies more than he backs the questions of fellow democrats who express a sense of betrayel.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Google confirms the time frame

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/11/204339.shtml

[salin]

44. Sometimes folks forget - that context can matter.

On this one - just chalk up the memory (of timing) to that old file-drawer memory that just sorta captures the essence of stories and their timing (relative to other stories.)

[mzmolly]

34. Kerry is a good little go with the flow Democrat. He said he voted for

the war because "If I were President, I'd want the authority to go to war." HUH? What about if you were a Democratic senator who was SUPPOSED to represent your friggin constituants JOHN?

[sangh0]

40. Most Dem voters support(ed) the Iraq invasion

and want a candidate who voted for IWR. You can keep trying to pretend that your opinion is favored by the majority of Dems, but you're only fooling yourself.

[salin]

45. again... while most will probably vote this way... at the time of the

resolution the public was split - and polls showed that when the UN was dropped from the equation (re US goes in without UN support) support dropped to 29%. It wasn't cut and dry then, and it isn't now either.

Drives me nuts that folks on both sides treats it as such. Everything is complex.

[redqueen]

46. Wow

That's one I haven't heard yet. Most Democrats supported the IWR? Really?

Is that why the capitol was flooded with calls and letters? They were supporting the war?

Is that why Dems lost in just about every race? Because they were happy with our current crop of 'leaders'?

[salin]

47. Not to mention that it isn't true that most dems voted for it - I believe

that the majority of democrats in the house voted against it. My memory could fail me, of course...

[sangh0]

51. My post was clear

I was speaking about Dem voters, and not Dem Congressperns

[salin]

55. clear

but not necessarily correct.

[sangh0]

57. It was correct

Your point was also correct in that the #'s did change over time. However, if you review the polls, at no time was a majority of Dems opposed to the invasion. Before the invasion, a majority of Dems said they would oppose it if there were no UN approval, but as soon as we did invade (w/o UN approval) polls showed a majority of Dems supported it.

[salin]

60. We agree

there was a time when the majority of the dems - under specific conditions WERE opposed to invasion... as you say (and this was during the lead up to the vote) the majority of dems (and the population as a whole) was AGAINST invasion IF there was no UN Approval and Participation.

It is thus incorrect to either say the majority of dems did or did not support the war - it depends on conditions and the timing (and the length of the media prewar campaign) - it was (and remains) very complex.

We (in general) need to stop treating complex things - including public sentiment - as if they are binary, cut/dry and one-dimensial. It is rarely the case.

[sangh0]

49. Breaking News!!!

1) The several million who protested were vastly outnumbered by the rest of the 280,000,000 Americans.

2) Most of the votes in Iowa went to two Dems who voted for IWR.

3) Name one Dem that voted for IWR and was defeated in 2002 because the Repuke opponent criticized the Dems support for IWR?

[salin]

56. but voting for it didn't innoculate them from charges of being "with"

Osama and Saddam. The republicans have grown so arrogant that they will make the same argument using the same propgandistic pr against any democrat regardless of how the democrat actually voted. The democrats have to be prepared for this. Voting for the IWR, nor having military experience serves as an innoculation against Rove's ugly (but sadly often effective) manipulative dirty politics.

[sangh0]

58. True, but irrelevant

There was an argument made that voting for IWR will hurt a Dem chances because most Dems were against the invasion and agains IWR.

The facts show otherwise.

[salin]

62. as I said

above - things are rarely as simple as we like to make them. Not a net positive nor a net negative it would appear. I seriously doubt, if polled, that most people would cite this as a reason (the war vote) they voted for the candidate.

I made the other point - because it often gets bandied about - and it I think it is foolish in light of the campaign against Cleland. I believe it is imperative that we anticipate and prepare (in terms of campaign strategy - on the grassroots front, where I hope all will be very active) to counter anything and everything that will be thrown at us as any "advantage" perceived by supporters in terms of "innoculations" will quickly be wiped out by Rovian campaigning. Best thing is to prepare for it and react more quickly... OR get on the offensive (set the terms of the public discourse on issues...)

[sangh0]

66. I agree, but

IMO, you're raging against the wind.

[Virgil]

64. How about 6 billion against the war?

How about the media frenzy and disinformation in campaign of fear. The American people were no so lopsidely for the war and among the literate it may have well been 50/50. The world numbers were 6.1 billion against with 100 million scared people for.

There is also another war. The War on Drugs. Kerry is in the Senate and the WOD goes on. I oppose the WOD and oppose Kerry on that alone. Now is Kerry for the WOD or what has he done to change substance abuse policy to a harm reduction solution instead of criminal justice and militarization solution?

Kerry voted for IWR and you cannot unspin that. In my book he is also a drug warrior and with me you cannot unspin that either.

[sangh0]

67. How about those 6 billion?

Aside from the dubious numbers, how many of them will be voting in the US Presidential election?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Why would anyone be surprised that Kerry rolled over..again?

And, there are some democrats who actually want to see the "heroic" senator who voted for the war be president. A matter of some amazement to Democrats who would like to see someone who opposes goober's war in the white house.

[emulatorloo]

43. This is Bush's War, not Kerry's

and unless DK is your candidate, I'm going to need more info from you on Howard Dean and General Clark's IWR vote.

Oh I forgot, they didn't have to vote.

General Clark has said several times that he too was misled by GWB et al and believed that there were WMDs - see meet the press sunday.

Gov Dean is still doing his thing, but he never saw the Top Secret intel that Clark and Kerry saw, which must have been pretty hot stuff.

ON Edit spelling

[CWebster]

50. Well that demonstrates REAL leadership

the propensity to be misled by the smirking chimp.

[sangh0]

54. "Oh, well, I tend to believe the president" - Dean

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=24284&mesg_id=24451

"Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

<>

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and... "


Dean agreed with Kerry even though he thinks he's agreeing with Graham

[sangh0]

59. CWebster, you still there?

Where'd ya go?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. And, Kerry was eager to go along with it. And, still defends it.

The "hot stuff" that Kerry fell for (the "I'm really stupid" defense") didn't seem to impress the 23 other senators who didn't buy it. Kerry has his chance to defy goober and didn't. He collaborated with bush when he should have been standing up to him.

There's just too many corpses in Iraq for me to "forgive and forget" or just subscribe to the notion that Kerry is too stupid to see through bush, or that it's "just politics."

[emulatorloo]

61. he defends anti-proliferation, not the rush to war

so stop oversimplifying. Thanks!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Oh, I see! He was in favor of killing people to stop proliferation.

Of course, there are no WMD's in Iraq to proliferate. He was just acting "in case". If he's so hot to stop proliferation why aren't the troops in Pakistan, India or Israel?

Pretty weak. 20,000 plus dead and counting to prove Kerry's "tough on defense" credentials.

[sangh0]

69. Dean said Saddam had WMD's

Dean was "misled" by Bush*

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. But, and it's a big but, he didn't vote to support goober.

And, I don't recall him believing that the supposed, but non-existant WMD, posed an imminent threat to America justifying the invasion and slaughter of Iraqis. Unlike Kerry.

Just curious. If you are against the war, why would you support Kerry (or, Edwards)? Or, are you not against the war?

[sangh0]

71. Dean called for a unilateral invasion

Dean said we should give Saddam a 60 day deadline, and if he didn't comply, Dean wanted us to invade unilaterally.

Just curious. If you are against the war, why would you support Kerry (or, Edwards)? Or, are you not against the war?

Because I'm not a single-issue voter. I think the Americans who die from a lack of health care (or capital punishment, or hunger, or drugs, etc) are just as dead as those Iraqis.