Kerry can turn his IWR primaries weakness into a strength vs. Bush

[jpgray]

I'm seeing alot of posts on this topic, so I'll put up a general thread. All Kerry has to say to Bush is this (in broad strokes):

"The American people and I trusted you, and you betrayed us. You told us Saddam was an imminent threat. You told us that he was developing nuclear weapons. You told us he held thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons. You told us he had connections with Al Qaeda.

You lied. You lied to me, you lied to my colleagues in Congress, and more importantly you lied to the people of the United States. I know now it was a mistake to trust you, but in my defense I can at least say I trusted the president to do the right thing, small comfort though it must be to those families who have sons and daugthers in Iraq.

You have no such excuse--you lied to receive the authority, and you betrayed our trust by abandoning the inspections and shunning our allies.

So the people have to decide--do they vote for me, someone who trusted his president to do the right thing? Or do they vote for you, one who has consistently abused the trust of a nation following the tragedy of September 11th?"

This is how I would act in a debate if I were Kerry--these are not quotes. Kerry has to turn this weakness (and it is one) into a strength. The avenue open to him is the fact that his support of giving Bush authority assumed (supposedly) he would do the right thing with it. This exactly mirrors the public's opinion. In the public's mind, they were betrayed by Bush, and since Kerry can lay claim to that exact betrayal, they can identify with him.

You don't go from 90+% approval to 50-49% without people being PISSED OFF--people know he lied. They trusted and supported him at one point, and they learned he didn't deserve either. Kerry can play up on that, because he went (in theory) through the same thing.

I personally believe Kerry's vote was more or less politically motivated, but this isn't an issue Bush "wins" in a debate--Kerry can turn it around like this *so* easily.

[poskonig]

1. This is how moderates feel.

Perhaps this explains Kerry's good head-to-head numbers against Bush.

[lastknowngood]

2. Nice try but

we all knew * was lying if he as a senator didn't know that is sad.

[jpgray]

3. Every candidate but Kucinich believed Saddam had WMDs

There are statements from each one that denote this (Dean and Kerry for sure). The vast majority of the population believed this as well. Well, it looks like they were lied to, and Kerry can use it.

So can any candidate, but Kerry really needs to.

[Tansy_Gold]

40. But there were others who didn't believe it.

I just happen to find it interesting that in all the discussion of how the candidates voted on IWR, little mention is made of their supporters.

Specifically --

It is frequently pointed out that Howard Dean did not "support" the war. Of course, he can safely say he wouldn't have voted for the IWR because he was never given the opportunity, which in my book is rather like a man saying he would never have an abortion.

John Kerry and John Edwards are almost as frequently put into the "I would never vote for him" category solely on the basis of their votes in favor of the IWR, which they made on the basis of what they believed to be accurate information and honesty from the Administration.

Now, be that as it may, I haven't seen much discussion of the fact that Sen. Tom Harkin, who voted FOR the IWR, offered a great deal of support for Gov. Dean, and Gov. Dean with his anti-war platform didn't decline the "pro-war" Sen. Harkin's support. Does Gov. Dean's anti-war stance wipe Sen. Harkin's pro-war vote off the slate?

If so, how does that work with Senator Kerry? He voted for the IWR, but he has the endorsement of Senator Edward Kennedy, who voted AGAINST it! Does that mean Sen. Kennedy's anti-war vote wipes Sen. Kerry's slate clean? Or do the endorsers automatically take on the stance of the endorsee? (As a true boomer who grew up in the 60s, I find it telling that the staunchly anti-war Peter Yarrow is actively campaigning for Sen. Kerry.)

I just think it's important to look at the big picture and examine who is endorsing whom and why and what the records of the endorsers are, too.

But that's just the early morning opinion of

Tansy Gold

[For PaisAn]

41. frankly I don't care

about the stands/votes of the candidate's endorsers on this issue. Who knows what their reasons are for endorsing any particular candidate. I only care about the candidate's stands/votes on this issue.

[krkaufman]

26. Exactly

Bush: "Yeah, so I lied. But do you think the American people want a President that can be as easily hoodwinked as you were?"


The real flaw in your hypothesis is that it has Kerry telling Bush that he "lied." Has Kerry yet uttered the "L-word" in relation to Bush, or has he just continued to wobble with "this Administration misled"?

[sandnsea]

4. The vote was not political

Earlier today there was a thread that they were blaming Clinton for Iraq and pulling up old 1998 quotes. And I thought from Kerry too. Oh goody, perfect!! That's proof Kerry was absolutely consistent in his thoughts on Saddam and voted in good faith.

He did vote in good faith and I wish to god people around here would clunk that into their heads.

Your statement is the EXACT truth. It is just unfathomable that a person that holds the office of the PRESIDENCY would act like Bush did. Absolutely unfathomable. A Senator can't make their decisions about the security of this country on the premise that the President is a lunatic. Doesn't matter who is in that office, you just don't do what Bush did.

[jpgray]

5. I can only guess at his motivations

So I haven't ruled out anything yet. :hi:

[sandnsea]

6. Have you read everything?

Have you gone back to his Iraq comments from 1998? His book on terrorism in 1997? His concern about terrorism and WMD? This isn't something he takes lightly. There's no way that vote was political.

[Democrats unite]

9. No but it damn sure was deadly!

eom

[jpgray]

10. Again, there is no way to ascertain his motivation with any certainty

I am aware of his past statements, and while I have not read his book, I have researched his background on the issue.

It's certainly possible that he voted with a full belief that Bush would carry out the authorization in the proper way. That is what he said in speech, and he has been consistent (despite what some will tell you) on his statements concerning that betrayal of trust. It's also true that he believed WMD in the hands of terrorists were a big issue before 9/11, and his statements have been consistent on that.

But IWR was not a good resolution, and the case for war was not convincingly made. Perhaps the president made private assurances that we don't know about--I can't factor that in. Given what I know, I imagine politics entered into it somewhere. I could easily be wrong, but that's my best guess. No candidate except Kucinich took this war apolitically.

[sandnsea]

14. Assurances were made

Gephardt said the same thing. I've seen it reported elsewhere. There was a process Bush agreed to and he didn't follow it. Bush himself said at the time there was absolutely no decision to go to war, he just needed the backing of Congress to deal with the UN. I suppose Kerry can just remind him what Bush said the resolution was all about.

[Democrats unite]

15. By someone we all knew to be a liar in the first place.

[sandnsea]

17. Who? Wes Clark?

Your turn. Not going to let Clark get by with not taking responsiblity for his testimony and recommendations regarding Iraq.

"...But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed..."

The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongr...

[For PaisAn]

25. Good one

Turn this around to be about Clark. Look, Kerry VOTED for the IWR, period. What does his VOTE have to do with Clark's TESTIMONY, selectively quoted by you.

[sandnsea]

29. His vote is based on testimony

Clark's included. That's what.

[For PaisAn]

32. Oh, you're so right,

it's Clark's fault. Spin away.

[WiseMen]

38. Don't Know why folk don't accept this.

[For PaisAn]

8. No,

it was fathomable and evident to millions of us.

[For PaisAn]

7. Maybe

but how does he reconcile the fact that he voted against the Byrd amendment which would have limited the resolution to only Iraq? Sorry, I'm not buying this whole thing. He might be able to sell it to most Americans. Then again, people may not be too thrilled with a politician being so easily fooled when millions of people here in the US and around the world were not fooled. He either did not do his homework before voting OR his vote was purely political. Either way it disgusts me. People are dying and he owns some of the responsibilty of that.

[jpgray]

12. Again, every candidate but Dennis believed Saddam had WMD

Millions opposed the war, but most people believed Saddam had WMDs. Again, they will feel betrayed.

There were two Byrd amendments. One restricted the authorization to *disarming* Iraq, the other put a time limit on the authorization. Kerry voted in favor of the time limit, but not in favor of the restriction. Both were good and sound amendments, and I can't tell you why Kerry would vote for one and not the other--they didn't receive much coverage. He should have supported both.

[For PaisAn]

16. Well any informed Kerry supporter

might want to question him as to why he voted against the amendment restricting the resolution to Iraq. But yes, the detailed excuse you suggested for Kerry would probably work with many voters, uninformed as they may be.

[jpgray]

18. That's all I'm suggesting.

I won't give excuses for Kerry on IWR, but I will say that I don't think it's going to kill him in the GE--there are ways he can make it work for him.

[For PaisAn]

21. I believe you're correct

and it's quite disappointing and discouraging in many ways. They really should have you on their staff and I mean that sincerely. I'm curious whether you are a Kerry supporter? I tried to understand his votes but just couldn't do it. I'll support any Dem over Bush but Kerry is at the bottom of my list, he of all people should have known better

[sandnsea]

19. What are you talking about?

The resolution is restricted to Iraq. That's what Bob Graham didn't like about it.

[jpgray]

20. It isn't as restricted as it should be

Byrd's amendments specifically make the authorization valid only for use in enforcing those resolutions from the UN having to do with disarming Iraq. The IWR authorization is for "all relevant UN resolutions" and the generalized "war on terror." The problem here is the "war on terror" inclusion, which apparently wasn't all-encompassing enough for Graham. :crazy:

edit: So if Bush wanted to try to use the IWR to go into Syria, for example, it would be much harder to do it with the Byrd amendment, and much easier with the unaltered IWR.

[sandnsea]

27. That's Biden-Lugar

Bush already rejected it. It doesn't make alot of sense to pass something that you know isn't going to be signed. And I disagree with the war on terror part. The resolution passed after 9/11 gives Bush authorization to do what he needs to in regards to that anyway. I think people are really reading these Authorizations and Amendments in ways that they aren't intended.

[jpgray]

31. It is vague, check my post below

The "threat" posed by Iraq is too open to interpretation.

[For PaisAn]

23. What are you talking about?

The resolution is not restricted to Iraq, Try looking it up first.

[sandnsea]

28. Here's the Authorization

This is it. This is all.

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.

[jpgray]

30. That's the exact problem

What is the "threat" posed by Iraq? It's too open to interpretation, because it could mean the "war on terror".

The resolution's point that brings this more into play, in what Bush needs to certify to Congress:

(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.

So if he defines the "threat" (mentioned again in (1)) as terrorism, he is still acting in accordance with the IWR. Congress should have made clear what the "threat" was, and that is what Byrd intended to do.

[For PaisAn]

33. Where's SEC. 1 and SEC. 2 ? and

how about a link please.

[jpgray]

34. That's it for defining what the Auth. is for. Here's the link

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/hirc-hjres114report-100702.pdf

The problem lies with what the "threat" posed by Iraq is. It's too open to interpretation.

[For PaisAn]

35. thanks

n/t

[For PaisAn]

36. I guess that is not all,

see post # 30.

[tritsofme]

11. What primary weakness?

If winning big in NH and Iowa is equated to being weak in the primaries, I'd hate to see this guy when he really gets going.

[jpgray]

13. It's perceived as his chief weakness around here (nt)

[milkyway]

22. It's weird that Kerry's IWR vote might hurt him more against repugs than

against Dems. He's dealing with it o.k. right now, but the repugs are masters at sticking a "flip-flopper" label on someone.

[jpgray]

24. Well, there's plenty to mine on the Bush side

"tons of chemical, biological weapons" "sought uranium from Africa" etc.

Down to:

"weapons of mass destruction programs"

Down to:

"weapons of mass destruction program related activities"

It would be comical if it weren't so deadly serious. :(

[kurtyboy]

37. I gotta tell you, I was not a fan of ANY senator who voted for IWR

When I saw Kerry's name on the list, and my own Senator Maria Cantwell, I got pretty damned indignant. I knew Kerry was the best Presidential candidate, but I was pissed and could not support him.

I had a friend from the Dean campaign contact me almost a year ago to get my support for him--I couldn't do it. I was still too pissed to pick anyone. I waited all summer to see if Gore or Clark or Clinton would get into the race. One of them did, and then I waited some more to see if he (Clark) stood up to the vetting that announcing brings.

By October, I had cooled enough from IWR to begin to listen to Edwards, Gephardt, and Kerry about the IWR. I was already a Kucinich fan, but I knew mainstream America couldn't support him.

In October, frankly, I discovered that if I wanted a better America, I'd better not let myself get caught up on one person's vote on one single issue, especially if that vote had some ambiguity built-in.

I met Kerry's daughter, Vanessa, and she gave me some insight on what the vote meant to her father, and the betrayal he felt when the pResident* did not follow through with his committment to the UN process. I began to understand that if I rejected John Kerry on this single vote, I would lose the opportunity to elect the best chance our nation has to re-initiate the healing from a disasterous three decades of GOP destruction (while Clinton presided, the scummy attacks of the right wing acted like a stuck emergency brake on our national momentum).

I couldn't pass up this chance. I shook Vanessa's hand, looked her in the eye, and told her, "Your Dad is going to be the next President of the United States. I'm going to work my ass off to make sure of it." She smiled at me and said, "You're right. Thanks."

It was like a huge burden was lifted from my shoulders. I no longer had the bad feelings about what had happened, just the good feelings of hope for a better future for our country--like a kid waking up at 5:00 AM on Christmas morning, I knew the day had good things in store.

So here I am, busting my butt for John F. Kerry, with hope, and dedication, and joy. If he doesn't get the nomination? Fine--I'll redouble my efforts and bust my butt for the DEM that does. No hard feelings, just the new sense of freedom I gained from looking to a bright vision of a better future for America (Thanks, Senator), instead of living in the bleak past.

Work hard, fellow DEMS, for whichever candidate offers you the best future, but remember that when the nominee is decided, we will all be in this together.

[flpoljunkie]

39. Enjoyed your post. Kerry says there was a right way and a wrong way...

to deal with whatever threat Saddam posed--and at every turn Bush chose the wrong way. Bush acted in bad faith and abused the authority he had been given in the Congressional and United Nation's Iraq resolutions.

If the GOP were not in control of both houses of Congress, Bush would rightfully be looking at impeachment proceedings.

But, since they are in control, the only thing we can do is vote the bastards out in November!