Real Deal Kerry?

[abburdlen]

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out." John Kerry October 9th, 2002

fast forward FIVE months

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world’s cause. We're in this together. We want to complete the mission while safeguarding our troops, avoiding innocent civilian casualties, disarming Saddam Hussein and engaging the community of nations to rebuild Iraq." John Kerry March 20th, 2003

Aren't we glad to know Kerry was the first to speak out when Bush broke his word.

John Kerry: The Professional Politician

[Democrats unite]

1. Just my two cents.

It has come to my attention that we are supose to give Kerry & Edwards a pass on this vote because they were mislead. Bush is claimg the same thing. Where does the madness end? If we are to hold Bush accountable for his actions, we should also hold Kerry & Edwards accountable for thier actions. If by chance either of these two become President and screw up again, are they to be forgiven again? To me it's the same arguement, different parties. Edwards has an excuse, no experience, but in the same breath that doesn't look good on a Presidential resume. Kerry has no excuse, how long has he been in the Senate? It's all about accountability people & it might as well start in the primaries.

[blm]

2. Sorry, but, once a mission is started NO responsible

Senator privy to the concerns of the military would signal anything but a confidence for those doing the fighting.

Even Dean released a statement at that same time in support of the mission and was in no doubt that Saddam had to be disarmed of his WMDs.

[abburdlen]

3. I will be the first to speak out.

is just empty rhetoric then?

Okay.

[Eloriel]

4. That's his finest talent

Don't knock it.

[EXE619K]

5. LOL!

That pic is a classic!

I hope it wasn't "shopped".

:D

[abburdlen]

6. google

Kerry and Blah

[blm]

7. He did speak out against it when Bush signalled

he was going in 48 hrs. He said Bush was rushing into it and there was no reason he couldn't hold off. Maybe you weren't paying attention at the time.

Once the mission started, you have other concerns. Sorry you're so offended that Kerry cares about the mindset of those on the ground doing the fighting.

[abburdlen]

8. Could you

provide a quote please of him speaking out just before we invaded

[bigtree]

14. John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003

"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush." Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keywo ...

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Oops! Must Have Forgotten That Part...

It was easy to miss, being the vast majority of the speech and all.

[blm]

42. You NEVER looked for it yourself BEFORE you declared he never spoke out?

Don't you think you should do some research BEFORE you post your claims that Kerry never spoke out?

If you found the March 20 quote, surely you could have found others from earlier that month, February and January, eh?

Unless one was on a mission with a narrow political agenda and this was put up to obfuscate and not inform?

Or do you always put out false information FIRST and then demand others to defend it?

[Democrats unite]

15. As usual the point is missed again

Kerry gave him the tool to succeed!

[bigtree]

20. Authority to commit forces didn't originate in that legislation.

That authority was already available to the president through the loopholes in the War Powers Act. The resolution references that. The president had the same authority that decades of presidents have used to commit forces without congressional approval. The president can commit forces for up to 60 days before Congress can act. It's unlikely that Congress would vote to withdraw after the forces are committed.

The IWR was an attempt, by some Democrats, to avert or forestall war. You may not accept their words, but Democrats like Sen. Kerry were very vocal in their opposition to unilateral, preemptive invasion.

Indeed some were able to insert language to that effect into the bill. John Kerry among them:

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;

He originally didn't intend to go to Congress. If he had committed forces, Congress would then be loath to retreat and remove the troops.

The president clearly disregarded the intent of this legislation which was to provide the threat of force to force Saddam to let inspectors in, and steer Bush back to the U.N. He wasn't inclined to go. His position at the time was that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted.

Bush was responsible for the nation's rush to war.I'm certain that Bush would love to blame Congress for his unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation. I won't.

[Democrats unite]

29. And you don't think this didn't make it easier for him?

They need to take responsibility! Thats one of the main reasons for kicking Bush out!

[bigtree]

31. He could have thrown himself on the tines of the White House fence.

I sometimes think that would be the only thing that would molify those who refuse to accept his words. But you would have me believe yours. Right?

[gate of the sun]

32. Yes he needed to stand up

he needed to vote against it.....sometimes I think the only thing that would molify you would be for all of us to ignore what he did. If he would have stood up then and only then would he have been a "leader" worth voting for.

[bigtree]

34. He did stand up

Others did also in their opposition to the resolution. It's a shame that some would disregard his intention to restrain Bush's push to unilateral, preemptive war in their argument against the war. The resolution was seen by some as a vehicle to hopfully limit Bush's push to war. That is the same goal that those who opposed the resolution sought. John Kerry and other Democrats just had a different approach.

The president clearly disregarded the intent of this legislation which was to provide the threat of force to force Saddam to let inspectors in, and steer Bush back to the U.N. He wasn't inclined to go, sure. But the resolution sought to steer him back there. That is the rational for the support some Democrats gave the legislation.

I believe the result would have been the same if the resolution had failed. Bush had insisted all along that 1441 gave him permission to do whatever he wanted. The resolution clearly mandates against unilateral, preemptive war. That's where in the public debate we get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, to the American people, and the international community in his rush to invade Iraq.

[Democrats unite]

40. 500 + servicemen are dead because of his vote

He helped Bush until people understand that.

[bigtree]

10. Sen. Kerry, in his own words:

"He talked about keeping Americans safe, but has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator." 01/28/2003 Response to President Bush's State of the Union http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003144&keywo...



"I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. But I also believe that a heavy-handed approach will leave us to carry the burden almost alone. That's why I was one of the first Democrats to speak up and urge President Bush to go to the United Nations - because even a country as great as the United States needs some friends in this world.

The President says that war should be a last resort. He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war. I have seen it with my own eyes. If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room. I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines. And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to."
03/14/2003 http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003617&keywo...



I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism—it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands—it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world. We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world. 01/23/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003082&keywo...



"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush." Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keywo...


In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.

"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.

"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10IRAQ.html?ex=1074920400&e...



The Massachusetts senator has stood by his vote last fall for the Iraq resolution in the face of criticism from anti-war Democrats and rival Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor who opposed the U.S.-led war. Kerry qualified his support Monday, saying it was the correct vote "based on the information that we were given."

"The president promised to build the international coalition, to do this as a matter of last resort, to go through the United Nations process and respect it," he said. "And in the end, it is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently. And I think in that regard, the American people were let down."

Kerry said he voted for the resolution with the understanding that the administration would build an international coalition before attacking Saddam Hussein's forces.

"It seems quite clear to me that the president circumvented that process, shortchanged it and did not give full meaning to the words 'last resort,"' Kerry said in a 20-minute conference call with reporters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/21/n...




The resolution was designed to get Saddam to let inspectors back in by backing the 1441 U.N. resolution with the threat of force. Inspectors were let back in and pulled when Bush rushed forward. If Bush had given the inspectors more time perhaps they would have taken the question of WMDs off of the table. That was the effect of the resolution. Allowing the inspectors to reenter Iraq and proceed with verification. We could guess, but they would verify. Bush pushed ahead of Congress in his invasion. He cut the inspectors off with his rush to invade. No Democrat advocated that, save Joe Leiberman and Zell Miller.

Still some will insist on holding those who sought to reign him in responsible for the sins of Bush. It makes no sense, politically or otherwise to claim that Senators like John Kerry advocated or acquiesced to unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation in their support for the IWR.

The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. Congress would be loath to remove forces after they are committed.

The only imput that Congress had to the president's rush to war was a 'no' vote, which would not restrain the president, and to attempt to place restrictions on the president's behavior through a resolution. Sen. Kerry and other Democrats chose the latter. They didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote.

Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.

[Skwmom]

9. I really think Kerry's "real deal" slogan

came from DU and other boards where people referred to Clark as the real deal. It really upset me that he uses that slogan. But it will come back to bite him because Kerry isn't the real deal. The Republicans are going to go crazy attacking Kerry on that slogan.

[bigtree]

12. Wrong

Real Deal came from an expression a black vet used to describe John. But, go ahead and spin.


Republicans. OOOO!
:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

[Virgil]

11. What gets me is we had inspectors on the ground.

If they had real intellegence about WMD, why did they not insist on finding them? This is just crap. They wanted to launch the war machine. What was the hurry as they could have kept the inspectors without problem and tripled their numbers?

It is crap on the surface of it and the only one that really called BS with any voice was Byrd. Both parties fail the laugh test on responsible service. Our so called leaders are "miserable failures."

In Congress we have the corporate Borg. Most of them have been assimilated into the corporate mind. Way to warmonger Kerry as if we needed another one.

[bigtree]

13. Orwell would be facinated by the twisting of Kerry's words and actions

by his opponents on this issue of the IWR.

Now some would have us believe that Sen. Kerry is a warmonger. They would have us believe that the liberal senator from Massachusets who is vigorously defended and supported by the duke of the party, Ted Kennedy, is a warmonger.

I always thought this was odd: Kennedy, who voted against the IWR supports Kerry, who voted for it.

But Tom Harkin, who voted for the IWR, is for Dean.

Kinda makes all of this vitriol over who voted for the IWR silly. Dean doesn't present Harkin as a warmonger because of his vote. Kennedy doesn't present Kerry as a warmonger because of his IWR vote. Clark doesn't bash Kerry for his vote.

Only on DU do we ignore these anomalies in our debate. We push on. Water's deep, but we push on.

[Virgil]

19. Byrd is the only one that stood up

If anyone had listened to the world it would not have made any difference anyway. Remember the inspectors. It was all BS and only Bryd would say so. It was an illegal act even if they had them. They would have had to have presented an immediate threat to justify war. It was all crap. That is not twisting anything. War was no last resort. It was we are ready now. Let's occupy.

You are making it like it is complicated.

[corporatewhore]

35. you are fogetting kucinich he knew it was all bs

[corporatewhore]

16. Ahem you forget about Kucinich he knew there were no wmds from the beging

and there for did not vote IWR

[ModerateMiddle]

22. Timing

the inspectors were NOT in Iraq when the resolution passed. The credible threat of force is what got those inspectors INTO Iraq.

[sandnsea]

37. Oh those silly facts again

People are either totally clueless or don't give a shit. I don't know which is worse.

[corporatewhore]

18. John Real Deal Kerry gave American workers a Raw Deal

In bushes fast track for the FTAA kerry wanted an ammendment to include workers rights but his ammendment was left out and gave his own personal stamp of approval on Bushs FTAA fastrack

[bigtree]

24. John Kerry on Free Trade

John Kerry on Free Trade

All new trade must include labor and environmental standards

Q: Should the US seek more free or liberalized trade agreements?

A: I support free trade, but I don't support what the Bush administration calls free trade. I will order an immediate 120-day review of all trade agreements to ensure that our trading partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations and that trade agreements are enforceable and are balanced for America's workers. I won't sign any new trade agreements unless they contain strong labor and environmental standards.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, "Trade" Jan 25, 2004

Veto FTAA and CAFTA until they have stronger standards

Q: Your views on labor rights?

KERRY: I have been fighting to have labor and environment standards in trade agreements. I worked to make sure we had it in the Jordan agreement and in the Vietnam side agreement. You didn't need it in Chile is because they have high standards and they enforce them. The important thing is, I would not support the Free Trade of the Americas Act or the Central American Free Trade Act until they have stronger standards in them. If they sent them to my desk, I'd veto them.

Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004

[corporatewhore]

27. then why did he still vote for the fast track even though it did not have

the amendment on if you look at his record you can see wto gatt and nafta why the fuck should i trust him

[bigtree]

28. Why should anyone take stock in your angry rant?

The answers are there for you, but you are seething. It's hard to see clearly through so much emotion.

Perhaps if you had some facts and references for your argument it would be more convincing. Your complaint doesn't comport with the facts at hand.

[corporatewhore]

30. happy to oblige

"Just last year, the Massachusetts senator tried to position himself as the leading Senate proponent of measures designed to preserve the ability of American states to protect workers, farmers, the environment and consumers in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement the Bush administration is crafting in closed-door negotiations with other countries in the western hemisphere. While Kerry sounded like a good player, he ended up breaking with fellow Democrats to back Bush's plan to establish a "fast track" process to negotiate the FTAA agreemen
"http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0930-09.htm

[ModerateMiddle]

21. John Kerry on Iraq and Foreign Policy:

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.

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.

Foreign Policy Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003

http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[cindyw]

26. You beat me to it. That speech is the logical answer to the charge

that Kerry said nothing about Bush going to war.

[mikehiggins]

23. Senator Treebeard doesn't like to rush into things, that's all.

Just like he didn't want to back up Clark when the Michael Moore thing blew up and Clark refused to denounce him.

Treebeard just told Gebala and Novak that we really shouldn't concern ourselves about what people did thirty years ago, pretty much exactly what the GOP is saying right now.

Of course, Treebeard is giving Clark's answer about not having all the facts, which is another technique of the Senator from Massachusetts. He's a man who can say nothing with a whole bunch of words.

[bigtree]

25. Gee Mike

Senator Treebeard? An Ent.

"Ancient beyond reckoning, Treebeard the Ent was one of the last of his dwindling kind, the long forgotten tree shepherds of Fangorn Forest who once strode throughout the woods of Middle-earth. A wise and slow to act people, the Ents were persuaded by Treebeard, after his fateful meeting with Merry and Pippin, to awaken and lend their long slumbering might to fight against the darkness threatening their world."

[gate of the sun]

33. I hope you are being sarcastic......

treebeard you disgrace the name.

[sandnsea]

36. Post the rest of it

And post his speech from January 2003. He spoke out against Bush, repeatedly. That one paragraph is the ONLY comment of its kind and is ONLY because troops were on the ground.

[oasis]

38. "Kerry is the most qualified candidate for president" or "Real Deal Kerry"

The message is essentialy the same but, "Real Deal Kerry" makes for a more practical bumper sticker.

[corporatewhore]

39. after IWRNAFTA/GATT/WTO and fastrack to ftaa=RAW DEAL

[LuminousX]

41. the only exit strategy is victory

Check, please, this guy is a doofus. Nice soundbite, totally meaningless.