Kerry and the war

[ProfessorPlum]

look, it has nothing to do with IWR or Biden-Lugar or anything else.

It has to do with last spring.

Kerry laid it out in his speech before the vote: Saddam's a bad guy, and also unpredictable because he makes bad judgements. Therefore, it is important that the US holds the threat of invasion over his head so that inspectors can go in and find out what is going on.

Kerry added that if Bush just invades, THAT HE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SPEAK OUT about it, and he would be very p*ssed and it would be a betrayal, etc., etc.

Let's ignore Kerry's reasoning for the vote - threatening a war against someone to make them show their cards as far as nuclear weapons may not be the greatest strategy, but it was one that Kerry could get behind, and because of his foreign policy experience, I'll leave that judgement up to him.

The question (the problem, really) I have with him is this: He is not known as the "anti-war" candidate.

Why?

Did Chimpy fulfill his promises to Kerry? No. Did Chimpy kick out the inspectors in order to have his invasion anyway? Yes. Kerry says all of this.

In fact, Kerry did make some noise about "domestic regime-change" in the spring, which was great. But then the media-hos put up a great cry and called him unpatriotic and he shut up.

Dean and Kucinich continued to complain about this illegal war, and put up with the media fallout from that.

The point is, I don't feel I can trust Kerry on very important matters. His position prior to the IWR vote was that he would oppose Bush if he didn't do it right - and that was a bluff. Bush called his bluff, and Kerry backed down.

Forget IWR. Kerry will have to (and already has) cede the moral and legal high ground for this stupid waste of life and money to Bush. He will let Bush get away with it.

Otherwise, Kerry would be known as "the anti-war candidate".

People get pissed at Dean for hammering Kerry on the war, but Kerry had every opportunity to oppose what was going on, and he totally ran away from that fight. He could have stolen that mantle from Dean, IF HE REALLY MEANT what he said the night before the IWR vote.

It is the misrepresentation of his resolve to actually hold Bush accountable that is the sticking point with me. It indicates that he will let Bush off scott free on any important matter - what could be more important than the deaths of thousands, and the war-profiteering going on right in Bush's inner circle?

Don't give me Biden-Lugar. Tell me why I should trust Kerry to follow through on anything.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. On all the issues, Dean speaks the truth

JK and JE just tell people what they want to hear.

good example: Mexicans getting citizenship for military service.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Your post is full of false statements

For example

"In fact, Kerry did make some noise about "domestic regime-change" in the spring, which was great. But then the media-hos put up a great cry and called him unpatriotic and he shut up. "


Whereas in reality he stuck to his guns:
Kerry: "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 Says US Needs Its Own Regime Change

Kerry: "This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

[krkaufman]

8. Orig poster's point still stands

A sound-byte quip does not substantive and outspoken criticism make.

The original poster's point remains; Kerry never fought back until he could do so from the cover of several other Presidential candidates already doing so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. The 'point' is based on falsehoods.

As I have demonstrated. Repeating those falsehoods doesn't make them any more true.

[HFishbine]

31. Those comments came after the fall of Baghdad (nt)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Absolutely false -- and here is the proof.

You say "Those comments came after the fall of Baghdad (nt)"


That is WRONG:


April 3, 2003
Kerry: "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 Says US Needs Its Own Regime Change


April 7, 2003
Kerry: "This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism


April 9, 2003
CNN.com - Saddam statue toppled in central Baghdad - Apr. 9, 2003


I don't think it helps your argument or credibility to keep making statements that are so easily demonstrated to be false.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. "Mr. President, do not rush to 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.

John Kerry , Foreign Policy Speech at Georgetown University, January 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[IndianaGreen]

What did Kerry do on March 20, 2003, when the war began?

NOTHING!

[bigtree]

17. Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2

"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 ...

[ProfessorPlum]

26. And yet . . .

Is his position on the war different from Dean's?

Are you trying to say he was just as against this war as any of the more anti-war candidates? Because I think he would disagree with that.

In essence, you can pull out quotes where he complains about the war, while others of his supporters here say it would be stupid of him to oppose the war.

Kerry's position on the war itself is unknowable, and seems to be all things to all people.

Which is why I do not like it.

Say what you will about Lieberman, but you knew where he stood on the war.

[HFishbine]

33. When quoting a source

It's cutsomary to put a "<snip>" or some other indication when you are excluding something. Among the paragraphs you skipped over is this:

That said, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, truly the personification of evil. He has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, perpetrated environmental disaster, purposefully destabilized an entire region of the world, murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, flouted the will of the United Nations and the world in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, conspired to assassinate the former President of the United States, and provided harbor and support to terrorists bent on destroying us and our friends.

From that perspective, regardless of the Administration's mishandling of so much of this situation, no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

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.

[bigtree]

37. So what ?

Don't pretend you read the whole speech. If you like I'll post it all next time. His support that you highlight is couched in very strong language. To pretend that support means support for the whole thing is disingenuous at best. And you accuseme of leaving something relevant out. Get real. He has made countless statements in opposition to the war. Your argument is a circular one, ignoring his true intent in voting for the IWR to supplant it with your own interpretation. You have skimmed by them all of his opposition to point to a word. Have your differences but don't twist his words.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. He has made countless statements

None of them indicating to anti-war people that he is on the same page as them.

[bigtree]

45. I'm anti-war

I've marched several times. I gave away t-shirts on which I applied 'Support Our Returning Soldiers' on the front, and a peace sign on the back. Unprompted, I supplied water and food at a march, and rain ponchos at another. I marched my last protest in silence.

John Kerry is all over my page, man.

[LuminousX]

74. Is John Kerry anti-Iraq War?

[HFishbine]

67. Here's what.

Yes, I read the whole speech. All eight paragraphs.

The point is simply that you selected passages in which Kerry condemns the Bush administration (not the war). I added the passages in which he justifies the war. Simple.

[JVS]

75. So, you are completely content to quote that speech selectively and drop..

context?

[CTLawGuy]

18. "son...

don't drink that beer I just gave to you. Drinking beer is bad for you."

[bigtree]

25. 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.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. forget IWR!!

I want him to oppose this war NOW! And I would have been happy for him to fulfill the promises he made on the eve of IWR by opposing it last spring as well.

[bigtree]

41. If you don't listen you won't hear anything.

Yours is a hollow argument in the face of his continuing opposition to Bush's unilateral, preemptive invasion. You should not be leading readers to believe that you actually have read all of the material posted that spells out his intentions and rational. You don't represent him that is clear. Why don't you spend your time defending your own candidate?

[ProfessorPlum]

43. I picked through every word of his pre-IWR speech

don't tell me what I have and haven't read.

In that speech he makes it very clear that he is holding Bush responsible for how he uses his authority.

That was a bluff on his part, and Bush called it.

Kerry's response? crickets.

He might be cursing Bush under his breath - who knows? But he didn't ever join the anti-war candidates in denouncing the war.

[bigtree]

47. It's only a bluff in the sense that Kerry's not God.

He is running to get the authority to stop Bush, btw.

And you haven't read enough if all you hear is crickets. And you haven't listened.

[HFishbine]

32. So, Kerry issues a cautionary warning

Where are Kerry's condemnations when it became clear Bush wasn't living up to his expectations?

[bigtree]

42. Most recently, in Will Pitt’s article, Kerry said:

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

[NNN0LHI]

4. I don't know if you or I can trust Kerry to come through or not

All I do know is that Bush can be trusted to keep screwing things up if Kerry can't beat him in November. That is good enough for me.

Don

[oasis]

5. Kerry will be president. He will be making the decisions. What's he

supposed to follow through on?

[ProfessorPlum]

7. great answer

how about any of his stated positions?

[oasis]

22. I'm willing to wait and see. Some would rather continue to be governed by

"the devil we know".

[sandnsea]

6. No

Kerry was only quiet while troops were on the ground. As soon as the "major military operations" were over, he was right back in Bush's face.

As the year goes on, I suspect people will see that his position was 100% right every step of the way. Being willing to protect the country against the possibility that Saddam was developing weapons; but wanting to allow the inspections process to be completed and work diplomatically with the world community. If we'd done it Kerry's way, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. Of course we wouldn't

but Kerry had no power to make Bush do it "Kerry's way".

He only had the power to make Bush's royal f*ck up a major issue.

And he failed to do that - until others had already made it an issue.

He didn't even try to become Bush's biggest detractor wrt the war.

And mark my words: Kerry will certainly not make Iraq an issue in the general. He is too vulnerable on it, for a person who was "100% right every step of the way" - he will drop Iraq like a hot potato.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Thats because there is nothing to gain politically on the war.Only to lose

Dean learned that the hard way.

Don

[ProfessorPlum]

12. I think you've just proven my point nt

.

[NNN0LHI]

16. Psst. Come here. I got something to tell you

Bush is the commander in chief. And you are suggesting that maybe our best chance of beating Bush, and perhaps our only hope of ending this insanity is to have him take a firm position on a war that Bush controls every single detail of? Yea, sure Professor. What are you doing? Giving classes on how to lose elections or something? I'm sure Rove agrees with your position. And thanks for your advice. But I will go with my better judgment on this one.

Don

[HFishbine]

34. For Sure. Case closed.

Yes. The point was made: Political expediencey matters more than principled stands.

[sandnsea]

14. No no no

Dean sounded like a "lefty-loony" on the war. He lied about his Biden-Lugar support, etc., which pissed some people off. For the people who believed his "against the war from the beginning", he came off like a loon because it meant he was willing to ignore the possibility of WMD in Iraq. He had no plan to deal with it to begin with and had no credibility to deal with it now. All he did was spout stuff against Democrats and Bush with no solutions. He's against the Iraq war. Okay. What else? That's why Dean lost on the Iraq war. That's why Dennis lost on it too.

[ProfessorPlum]

29. to oppose this war

is neither loony nor lefty. It is only good sense. Dean's message consisted of much, much more than just wanting proof that this war was necessary. And he never ignored the possibility that Iraq had WMD, as some posters here are so fond of pulling out those quotes where he says he agreed with the president that they might be a threat.

Dean's position and Kerry's position on the war, up to the time it started, were essentially the same: If Saddam really has weapons, let's go to the UN, try to build a coalition, if that fails and we are sure of the threat, we should invade unilaterally after all other options are exhausted.

We invade, and Dean's position becomes: We have not proven that this war is justified. Kerry's position becomes: I support the President's decision.

Kerry, will never, at this point, push Iraq as an issue. The Democrats as a voting body, are in the process of declaring that they don't want Iraq as an issue either. That is their prerogative, I suppose. But it sets a horrible precedent.

[sandnsea]

70. There's the problem

He just says he opposed the war from the start. Never saw a problem. That's the impression he leaves with his rhetoric and that's why he lost.

Kerry's position was that Bush had not exhausted all diplomatic measures, the inspections process, etc. That war wasn't necessary at the time Bush chose to start it. But that he supported the goal of disarmament and that Saddam had not been fully cooperative in the inspections process, which Hans Blix stated, thereby contributing to the situation himself.

And this is not gone. You will actually start to see Bush truly sweat. Now that Howard's fat mouth is out of the way.

[underpants]

15. My God that made since

I sure hope that people read it and realize that in the REAL world things are done for more than one reason.

Thanks Don.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Dean lost not because he criticized Bush over the war.

But because of the way he did it.

[sandnsea]

13. You're so wrong

First, he was instrumental in getting Bush to the UN, focusing on the WMD, and stating that there was a process that had to be followed. It's engrained in every person's mind whether they realize it or not.

Second, you apparently have no idea how pissed he is about the WMD lies, the way Bush handled this whole thing, or who he is as a person if you think he's going to drop Iraq like a hot potato. Half the reason he has vets on board is because THEY are pissed about Iraq. And it isn't just Iraq, it's the whole way Afghanistan has been handled too.

This election will be all about Iraq and Bush's stupidity on handling military matters and the overall "war" on terror.

People still just don't get how those Niger lies or Plame leak got exposed in the first place. Joe Wilson. On the Kerry campaign. Connect the dots for chrissake.

[ProfessorPlum]

30. No, I don't have any idea how pissed he is about WMD lies

because I haven't seen him express any opposition to this war. Instead, he's busy kicking Dean for saying we weren't any safer with Saddam captured.

As for the intelligence people on Kerry's team, I look forward to them really sticking it to Bush. My prediction is that we won't hear very much from that quarter, as Kerry doesn't seem to want to actually take a stand on this issue, at least publicly.

[HFishbine]

35. Kerry is pissed about the WMD lies?

When? Where?

Was he deaf and blind to the voices of Scott Ritter, Hanz Blix, Will Pitt, El Baradai?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. Someone would have to be intentionally deaf and blind to not realize that.

Kerry talks about it all the time, so I don't see how someone could miss it.

[HFishbine]

69. I'm neither

But with the exception of Kerry's comments today about George Tenet, all I've seen is critisicm of the process. When did Kerry know he was lied to and when did he start speaking up about it

[sandnsea]

77. June 2003

''I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally,'' he said.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0618-09.htm

Unfortunately Dean decided to make the war a Democratic primary issue against other Democrats instead of keeping the focus on Bush. That's why I've never supported Dean.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. What a ridiculous idea. You couldn't be more wrong.

"And mark my words: Kerry will certainly not make Iraq an issue in the general"


I am marking your words, and I promise to remind you of how absolutely wrong you are.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Don't forget, Kerry was busy battling prostate cancer last year, too

I'm not sure Kerry should be blamed for not making rousing speeches from the operating room.

Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, will undergo surgery Wednesday for early-stage prostate cancer that he insists won't impede his campaign for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

Kerry, 59, held a late afternoon press conference Tuesday to announce his illness. The operation will take place at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and be performed by Dr. Patrick Walsh, chief of urology. The doctor plans to remove Kerry's prostate gland during a two-hour procedure. Kerry will be sedated via spinal anesthesia.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/11/204339.shtml

[HFishbine]

39. Dear Voters

Dear Voters,

Please excuse senator Kerry for his absence from the war criticism. He was sick. Some people may think he has no balls, but rest assured, I only removed his prostate.

Sincerely,

Dr. Anal Angus, MD, PNAC

[LuminousX]

44. Crude.... but hilarious

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. Cancer is hilarious?

[LuminousX]

56. No, the note is hilarious

[LuminousX]

59. That's untrue... Denis Leary showed me I could laugh at cancer

as did Patch Adams. I know my mom made a lot of 'flat chested' jokes after her double masectomy... yeah, everything can be laughed at.

But YOU want to be on a big giant moral high horse. Enjoy the view.

[bigtree]

52. Reprehensible and unforgivable language

Crude and boring. It is a wonder that you don't see how negatively this frames your argument. Nothing but hatred here. Nothing but seething hatred in these posts.

I hope you don't get ill. I hope you live a long and happy life. If you do happen to fall ill, I wish that you have a speedy recovery, and a prosperous future.

[LuminousX]

57. Point taken. Now, is Kerry FOR the war or AGAINST the war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. Ridiculous oversimplification.

We do not live in a black-and-white world.

[LuminousX]

64. All the other candidate's positions can be summed up in a simple sentence

Can't Kerry's?

Which point is closer to his stance on the issue: Pro Iraq War or Anti Iraq War?

Not brain surgery here.

[HFishbine]

71. Thanks for your concern

But since you have no idea of the life I've lead, including my medical history, you really don't know if I'm laughing at Kerry or with him. One thing I can assure you, there was no hatred.

[bigtree]

23. You could accept his many statements, but you won't

"I think the administration has behaved quite clumsily and haphazardly on a lot of foreign policy fronts," Kerry said in an interview with editors and reporters.

Kerry, who has taken the lead among Democrats in breaking out of the party's post-Sept 11 reluctance to criticize Bush on foreign affairs, said he believed a power struggle in the Bush team was at least partially responsible for mixed signals sent to both Israel and the Palestinians.

"It's a most incredible display in my judgment of a kind of amateur hour, and the reason is there is no one person in charge," Kerry said. "Colin Powell is not being allowed to be secretary of state, in my judgment. They restrain him."

Kerry also questioned the tough message directed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, accused by Bush of belonging to an "axis of evil" and developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush has said he will use all available tools to unseat the Iraqi leader.

"The rhetoric has been a huge mistake, the rhetoric is way ahead of the possibilities," Kerry said. "Frankly, that just makes us look silly and strengthens him to some degree."
http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/19/int3.htm


"I think the administration has behaved quite clumsily and haphazardly on a lot of foreign policy fronts," Kerry said in an interview with editors and reporters.

Kerry, who has taken the lead among Democrats in breaking out of the party's post-Sept 11 reluctance to criticize Bush on foreign affairs, said he believed a power struggle in the Bush team was at least partially responsible for mixed signals sent to both Israel and the Palestinians.

"It's a most incredible display in my judgment of a kind of amateur hour, and the reason is there is no one person in charge," Kerry said. "Colin Powell is not being allowed to be secretary of state, in my judgment. They restrain him."

Kerry also questioned the tough message directed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, accused by Bush of belonging to an "axis of evil" and developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush has said he will use all available tools to unseat the Iraqi leader.

"The rhetoric has been a huge mistake, the rhetoric is way ahead of the possibilities," Kerry said. "Frankly, that just makes us look silly and strengthens him to some degree."
http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/19/int3.htm


“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.”
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189997

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. That's what it comes down to.

[ProfessorPlum]

27. This is all great

yet he is not an anti-war candidate. He has, by his silence in the debates, as much as admitted that. Why not? If he thinks the war is just fine anyway, why hasn't he said so.

He sounds like he is both opposed and in favor of the war, depending on which quote you use.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. "You could accept his many statements, but you won't"

That was what the poster said. Thank you for proving him right.

[LuminousX]

36. Break it down: Was Kerry FOR or AGAINST the Iraq War?

Does Kerry think we are safer now because of the Iraq war?
If Kerry could do it over again, would he change how he did anything leading up to the war?

[ProfessorPlum]

40. Yeah, that is the important question

Would he change anything HE did leading up to the war?

Not would he change anything Chimpy did. We all know that answer to that.

[edzontar]

51. And the crickets chirp--because nobody knows,,,,Kerry is silent...

As the deaths pile up in the war he VOTED FOR.

[LuminousX]

53. I find it creepy

Why won't they say in a simple sentence: Kerry opposed the Iraq War or Kerry supported the Iraq War.

I would even accept, "Kerry supported the Iraq War, but knowing now what he knows, he would have opposed it."

The fact they can't or won't means I, as someone who doesn't support Kerry because he has dropped the ball one too many times, won't be able to articulate his stance. Sure, he can try to woo me as a voter, but I would never be able to campaign for him because he can't be pinned down on BIG, IMPORTANT issues like the war or the Patriot Act.

[bigtree]

58. Circular arguments are creepy

Category:
Fallacy of Weak Induction > Fallacy of Presumption

Explanation:

This is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption, because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance. Other names include Circulus in Probando, Circulus in Demonstrando and Vicious Circle.

A good argument in support of a claim will offer independent evidence or reasons to believe that claim. However, if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have become dependent upon the very point which is contested. The basic structure looks like this:

1. A is true because A is true.

Here is an example of this most simple form of begging the question:

2. You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says, and the law is the law.

Obviously driving on the right side of the road is mandated by law (in some countries, that is) - so when someone questions why we should do that, they are questioning the law. But if I am offering reasons to follow this law and I simply say "because that is the law," I am begging the question. I am assuming the validity of what the other person was questioning in the first place.

3. Affirmative Action can never be fair or just. You cannot remedy one injustice by committing another. (quoted from the forum)

This is a classic example of a circular argument - the conclusion is that affirmative action cannot be fair or just, and the premise is that injustice cannot be remedied by something that is unjust (like affirmative action). But we cannot assume the unjust-ness of affirmative action when arguing that it is unjust.

However, it is not usual for the matter to be so obvious. Instead, the chains are a bit longer:

4. A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.

5. A is true because B is true, and B is true because C is true, and C is true because A is true.

[LuminousX]

60. Great, thanks for the lesson. Was Kerry FOR the war or AGAINST the war?

[bigtree]

54. Your flogging around of the deaths is disgusting.

You don't hold a lock on morality with your views and neither do I. You make no credible connection between the IWR vote and Bush's unilateral, preemptive end run around Congress. Therefore, your attempt to place blame on those in Congress who sought to restrain Bush through the resolution falls well short of any acquiescence on their part in his committing of our forces to war.

To use these soldiers deaths as a club to bash those you disagree with is sad.

[LuminousX]

55. Barring that, was Kerry PRO war or ANTI war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. What a ridiculous oversimplification.

[LuminousX]

63. Was he both?

Dean was AGAINST the Iraq War.
Kucinich was AGAINST the Iraq War.
Edwards was FOR the Iraq War.
Clark was AGAINST the Iraq War.
Lieberman was FOR the Iraq War.
Sharpton was AGAINST the Iraq War.
Braun was AGAINST the Iraq War.
Gephardt was FOR the Iraq War.


What is Kerry's stance?

[bigtree]

65. All of these would continue the war

To a greater and in some cases a lesser degree they would have the intervention continue with international forces to replace ours.

[LuminousX]

66. I'm not talking about continuing it, I'm talking about

the war as it happened. Did Kerry support it or oppose it?

Would Kerry have done something different knowing what he knows now?

[mrdmk]

76. Let me chime in at this point

We have no choice but to continue the war, we started the war now we must finish the war.

Kucinich was strictly against the war, he voted as such even though it was political suicide at the time.

Dean stated in the media at the beginning of his campaign that Mr. Bush Jr. must be accountable for 911, NAFTA, the Iraq War, and a host of other issue when it was not politically correct at the time to do so.

Now Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, No Child Left Behind Act, the Iraq War. There is no disputing this what so ever.

Ever since 1994 and the Contract With America we have had a sharp turn to the right politically speaking. The powers in the DLC today are the same people in power back 1994. The DLC strategy 1992 was to go safe on every issue and is the same today. Look at where this has us today. We have an orchestrated attack on our Civil Rights, on Education, on Workers Rights, on Religious Rights, the Environment, National Security, International Relations and could go on. This change in attitude started with this

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Since Kerry is out leading in Democratic running the real question is he ready to put this country back onto a progressive course of action. So far his track record does not prove this. What is proved is Kerry's record of playing it safe.

Progressives have been leaving the Democratic Party because of this playing it safe stance. How long can one go on playing it safe on every issue and survive? Just ask the Republicans about playing it safe with their issues and surviving. Playing it safe only goes so far.

[LuminousX]

68. Kick

:kick:

Valid questions seeking Valid answers. Need not be complicated, simplicity preferred. Wow me with bluntness, impress me with substance over style.

[CWebster]

72. "An Open Letter to John Kerry"

Subject: "An Open Letter to John Kerry"

"...Politics, of course, is compromise, and in the life of a politician, there are occasions where political expediency must win out over principle; it’s the nature of the game. Political expedience must never win out, however, when American soldiers’ lives are at stake. I thought you knew that, John; I thought it was burned in your soul, as it is in mine. I don’t know if your decision to vote for the war was political expediency or not; it certainly looks that way from here. It’s a question you’ll have to answer for yourself. Look at that “boonie” hat, John, and think about all that it represents. Take a stroll along The Wall, and contemplate the human waste wrought by political cowardice. Then try to convince yourself that you made the right decision.

And now, as we are forced to witness the almost daily occurrence of more American soldiers dying in Iraq, there’s one other question you’ll need to answer, one that you yourself posed on an April day so many years ago to a roomful of beltway-blindered politicians more interested in saving face than saving lives.
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq, John? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a lie?
We await your answer...

...I believe the best way to support our men and women in uniform is to do everything I can to make sure that if they are asked to risk or lose or shatter their lives in the service of our country, then it should be for something real, something that matters, not for some pigeon-breasted politician's lies or dreams of glory.

I support Howard Dean because he really supports our troops; he tried to keep them from dying in an unnecessary, meaningless war in a foreign land. I served in such a war in my time. I believe it is my duty as an American to work to keep those in the present generation from sharing that fate.

Peter P. Mahoney
First Lieutenant, Infantry
Vietnam, 70-71

1/27/04

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=452&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[LuminousX]

73. Seems like I'm not the only one waiting for an answer