Kerry was for the Gulf War so he voted against it. He was against the Iraq

[milkyway]

War so he voted for it.

TIME: Explain why you voted against the Iraq-war resolution in 1991 but voted for the Iraq-war resolution in 2002.
Kerry: It's very simple. I was for kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I was for using force if we needed to. I simply felt, based on Colin Powell's own statements and others', that we needed a little more time to get the support of the nation in the event that things didn't go well. When you go to war, you want the support of your nation. But there was never a doubt about kicking him out—never a doubt about using force, never a doubt about what was at stake. In the case of this instance <2002>, I thought it was important to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I said so in 1998, because he signed an agreement to disarm. And I thought it was critical for us and the world to hold him accountable to it. But there was a right way to do it, and there was a wrong way to do it. George Bush chose the wrong way and broke his promises to us about how he would go about it. It is particularly important for me that leaders keep faith with the American people about how they send young men to die. And I believe it ought to be done with a maximum amount of support and the maximum amount of potential for success.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040209/nqa.html

----------

Spin it however you want, Kerry supporters, but your guy has a whole lot of explaining to do. Unfortunately, most voters will tune it out. Kerry is going to be twisted into knots by the repugs. If Kerry is the nominee, he will spend almost as much time as bush* trying to explain his handling of Iraq (unlike Dean or Clark, who could hammer bush* relentlessly). If things really take a bad turn for the worse in Iraq this year, Kerry's voting for the IWR will provide some political cover for bush*.

Here's my take on Kerry's explanations of his IWR vote:

--Kerry says he trusted bush* and bush* broke his promise.

Millions of people (including most everybody at DU) knew that bush's case for war was bullshit, that the bush* admin was just looking for whatever they could find to justify a war that they wanted all along, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. John Kerry, with all his experience, could not see this? He never heard of PNAC? I'm sorry, but I don't think Kerry is that dumb and naive. (And if Kerry truly was fooled by bush*, how could we expect a President Kerry to make sound judgments?)

--Kerry thought bush* was going to go to war with or without the IWR, so he voted for it to impose some restraint on bush*.

If this were true, then bush* would have been opposed to the IWR. Why would he want the IWR if he thought it was meant to limit what he could do? Bush wanted the IWR to give him the freedom to do whatever he thought necessary.

--Kerry voted for the IWR, but in his speech to the Senate he expressed his concerns and told bush* how the war should be handled.

Sorry, but the only thing that matters is your vote. A cover-my-ass speech in case things go bad doesn't mean a damn thing.

For me, there is only one obvious explanation, and one that I might even be willing to accept to a certain degree: Kerry voted for the IWR because he thought he would have no chance at defeating bush* in 2004 if he voted against a very popular war. bush* was going to war anyway, so why should Kerry send his Presidential aspirations down in flames needlessly? The strategy by Kerry (and the other Senators) for the presidential campaign was to play bush* to a draw on foreign affairs by supporting Iraq, and defeat bush* on domestic affairs.

[moremorfordplz]

1. Well...

For one thing, I don't know if you know this, but Kerry is a war hero. I trust his judgement on these matters a LOT more than I do any of the other candidates. Not been to war? Not a highly decorated war hero? Sorry, but your opinion is worthless to me. Kerry's the only candidate who can call himself a true American hero, a war hero, and so obviously his views on these matters are a lot more trustworthy to me. Any fool can see that he is a war hero and knows of what he speaks. Can't say that for any of the other candidates, and definitely not for Dubya.

"You can't go AWOL without W!!"

Then again I am still hoping Nader will throw his hat in the ring.

[milkyway]

4. Are you saying that only war heros are qualified to be President?

[moremorfordplz]

Let me put it in these terms...

It is a bit like abortion, to me. No vagina? No opinion. No uterus? No opinion. Consider your source. I consider Kerry the only qualified source on this issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Kerry supporter, but I disagree...

I agree in the sense that I believe that somebody who has been in a war really understands war. However, I don't believe that a president necesarilly has to have military service as long as he has good intentions and consults the opinions of those who have been in war. ex) I would have much less of a problem with Bush's foreign policy team if it were being run by somebody like Powell who actually has been in the military as opposed to people like Chenney, Rummy, and Whoreowitz who's understanding of the military is billions of dollars of machinery that can blow stuff up. If Powell were running the show, chances are we wouldn't be in Iraq.

[HFishbine]

25. In that case

only 18 - 24 year-old males should vote on whether or not to go to war. Agree?

[Anwen]

9. I don't understand...

Are you saying that only war heroes have the aptitude for making decisions?

To paraphrase Jon Stewart: "Whaaaaaaaa?"

[faithfulcitizen]

13. So, Kerry's the only war hero in the race?

What are you smokin'? seriously, I wanna know... Clark has more medals than the # of times Kerry didn't show up for a vote this year! :smoke:

including 40 from other countries! And you can call him Sir General Clark, thank you very much. Perhaps, that's why 55 Ambassadors just endorsed him?
http://clark04.com/press/release/221/

:toast:

Though personally, I don't believe you HAVE to be a war hero to be president, but it sure would help this year!

http://www.wewantwes.com/wesismore.htm

http://www.wewantwes.com/respect.htm

[moremorfordplz]

14. Hmm

What was that about him trying to start WWIII in Eastern Europe? Please refresh my memory, but there is little heroic in that, to me. I'd have more respect for him if he had actually fought on the front lines and saved lives, like Kerry, not just sent others to their deaths.

[eileen_d]

20. OMG - let me "refresh your memory"

As a 25-year old Army captain in Vietnam, commanding a mechanized infantry company, Clark was on patrol in the jungle, looking for Viet Cong, when he was shot four times. Commanding his troops despite his wounds, he gave a series of orders, and his soldiers quickly overran the enemy positions. His bravery in battle earned him a Silver Star.

http://clark04.com/about/

[HFishbine]

26. D'oh!

Oh, yeah. Well, there's that.

[Tim_in_HK]

22. No offense

but you should really study up on candidates before you criticize them.

[Tim_in_HK]

21. What about Clark?

I guess you forgot about the actions of Clark in Vietnam as well, and also his actions in Kosovo.

Some Kerry supporters have very selective memory.

You want to know how Bush will spin that:
John Kerry served admirably and with distinction in Vietnam. He has courage and is a patriot.
However, what he doesn't have is clear judgement, or stong principles. He did not support going to war with Iraq in '91, which was a great victory, and did support the IWR in '03 to give powers to the president (although now he says he doesn't). He also voted to cut funding for CIA intel activities; were these the types of activities that could have prevented 9/11? He also supported cutting funding for defense projects on unmanned aircraft weapons, which have proven to be of great success not only in Afghanistan but also in the war on terror.

Sorry, war hero only gets you so far. These are big things to explain for Kerry. I don't know how he's gonna do that.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Napoleon was a war hero, Hitler was a war hero...

Napoleon and Hitler were decorated for heroism in war, yet one was an imperialist tyrant and the other was the greatest butcher in modern history.

Being a war hero means shit when it comes to electing someone to the Presidency. This "war hero" mantra effectively keeps women from becoming President.

I rather have a candidate that recognizes the futility and tremendous waste of war. There are war heroes that recognize this, Wesley Clark for example, and that would never support a war except in self-defense.

Kerry fails that test!

It is not just Kerry's moral failure to oppose the war in Iraq, but his continued silence to the horrors of the American occupation, that betrays a serious character flaw in the Democratic front runner. Kerry's criticism of Dean when Dean challenged Bush assertion that America was "safer" with Saddam's captured shows Kerry to be a willing accomplice to the crimes America is committing on Iraq.

Iraqis still suffering, says Bishop Gumbleton after visiting Iraq
By Robert Delaney
Catholic News Service

DETROIT - Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton of Detroit said Jan. 24 he was "shocked and discouraged" by what he saw on his most recent visit to Baghdad.

<snip>

"Without exception, people said things were worse now than before the war," said Gumbleton, who was an outspoken critic of U.S. military action both before and during the war. It was his seventh trip to Baghdad, his first since the war.

He said U.S. officials live and work in the Coalition Provisional Authority's compound, nicknamed the "Dream Zone," and some of their statements about improved conditions make it appear they never get out to see the reality ordinary people experience.

"Inside the Dream Zone, they don't know what is going on in the city. Paul Bremer (U.S. administrator) has said electricity has been restored -- well, in the Dream Zone, sure, but not in the rest of the city," Gumbleton told The Michigan Catholic, newspaper of the Detroit Archdiocese.

"They don't know the deprivations the people are putting up with. They don't have jobs. Right now, people are getting the same amount of basic food as they have been getting through the oil-for-food program, but there is the fear that could be running out. The city is just very depressing," he continued.

http://www.paxchristiusa.org/news_events_more.asp?id=797

[corporatewhore]

2. I talked to my congressman as the mediawhores were tryingtosellthewar

lloyd doggett came to austin and i asked him why so many dems incongress were going to go along he told me congress thinks it will be a "good war" low casulities and so that they could capitalize some patriot points on it :eyes:

[stromboli]

3. vote against war unproductive

In a time when the Dixie Chicks were being blackballed and the masses were waving their post-911 war-banners, when people were being accused of treason and the French Quarter in New Orleans was temporarily renamed the "Freedom Quarter", voting against a war hyped with some of the century's best propaganda would have been political suicide. If Kerry believed that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed, whether it was because he was a despotic tyrant or because he was in cahoots with terrorists (or because America neds oil for those SUV's) then he's justified in voting for war. If it was purely a political move to position himself to run against Bush in 2004, it was a wise move. His vote against the war would have done nothing to prevent it, his opinions would have been disregarded by all the other members who were more concerned with checking their mail for white powder, and he'd have no chance at ousting Bush in the long run. As the results have shown so far, Kerry is one of a handful of candidates still in the big picture, and is currently believed to be capable of beating Bush in 2004.

[milkyway]

8. That's exactly what I said is the most justifiable explanation for me. Yet

Kerry and his supporters never say this. Instead they twist themselves into knots trying to defend what they themselves don't believe in.

[mitchum]

12. I've always accepted that as the rationale for his vote

[HFishbine]

27. Me too

And a damn good reason not to support him.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. There's a MUCH more credible explanation

In the intelligence briefings the House and Senate get, Team Bush lied from A to Z. This is probably the case with every high-level briefing since Bush was installed. They have come to find that they can not rely on the President; this puts them in a very dicey situation any time a national crisis develops. And it's not just based around re-election.

These briefings are confidential, or "in closed session". They're also not even widely reported as happening, but I believe that they show up in the Congressional Record. There are similar briefings for governors, diplomats, and functionaries within organizations like FEMA, and certainly the Department of Homeland Security. Bush told the House and the Senate that they had positive proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; the Chief Exec isn't supposed to lie about something so important, especially when it's kept out of the press.

USA-PATRIOT? I think the White House was either convinced, or wanted to convince the House and Senate (or both?), that al-Qaeda had nuclear weapons.

Bask in your cynicism if you wish, but if Bush is messing in public with the "little people," you can imagine what he and his cronies are doing behind the scenes. And I'll repeat it: This isn't just about the candidates who are running for the Democratic candidacy. It is starting to become visible all over Washington. The behavior of Team Bush increasingly resembles that of a psychopathic liar with every new development.

Yeah, ideally, Kerry et al. would have been able to see through the lies. But ideally, Bush would have told the truth.

This goes pretty far beyond electoral issues, especially if you look at the voting records of Democratic Senators with safe seats -- Hillary Clinton, for one. I think a lot of "anomalous" behavior from the Senators and Representatives can be explained by these lies told in secret and later exposed in public. I'd be willing to bet that they form an audit trail leading from lie to lie, even with the Republicans. The Legislative branch has been played for a collection of fools by the regime. If Bush ever comes to impeachment for his misdeeds, it will be a slam-dunk of impeach-convict-imprison.

--bkl

[milkyway]

10. To a degree, I think what you are saying is probably true. But Hillary

is not a good example. If she ever wants to run for President, she needs to establish that just because she's a woman doesn't mean she's a wimp. If she ever runs, she will probably run as the biggest hawk the Democratic Party has ever seen.

[HFishbine]

28. The fallacy of that logic

is that plenty of people saw through the BS, including Dennis Kucinich and 138 other members of congress. All this argument does is support the notion that there were a lot of people in power with very poor judgment (unless you want to fall back on the political expediency argument, which is no less admirable.)

[Dogmudgeon]

29. There is no fallacy

He voted the way he did based on the lies.

The other members voted against it in spite of the lies.

The judgement involved is a little different if you think there is a significant chance that the USA is under attack, immanent or otherwise. I don't think the people who voted either for or against the IWR and USA-PATRIOT necessarily had bad judgement.

When you're in a situation where none of your information is credible, you know you're making decisions based on confusion and "a wing and a prayer". Bush has used this uncertainty to bolster his campaign of prevarication.

All the candidates with "questionable" votes under Bush should be judged on broader criteria -- look at the overall performance and record. The ADA ratings are pretty good in this respect; there may be other groups that also rate voting, but most of them are conservative. You may still find Kerry lacking; at least it will be for a broad range of issues that may be predictable in a more honest environment.

Whether you support Kerry or not, this is quickly becoming the major problem we're facing from the Idiot Bastard Son squatting in the White House. Team Bush is not only trashing the country, it is distorting the underlying political discourse to a degree previously seen only in totalitarian regimes.

Scrutinizing individual positions is never a good idea for making overall judgements -- IMHO. But in a total-lie situation, it's impossible. And the recipient of the benefits of our confusion is George W. Bush.

--bkl

[HFishbine]

30. Sounds like an excuse to me

When Kucinich said he doubted the evidence, he was showing better judgement (at least on the veracity of the evidence) than those who voted for the war because of the "evidence."

It's like this:

MO: "I voted for the war because I was lied to."

CURLEY: "I voted against the war because I thought we were being lied to."

Who has better judgement?

[Guaranteed]

6. Just unbelievable.

I can't believe anyone things this guy can possibly get elected.

[ShaneGR]

7. I supported the 1st Gulf War, and so did Dean

Of course, I didn't support the current Iraq war. But my candidate did. And he stuck by that support, and I still supported him because he didn't run around taunting people about it like Lieberman, or apologizing for it like Kerry. Or waffling about it like Clark.


BUT, I RESPECT ALL OF THEM. I RESPECT ANYONE WHO WOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN A HIGH POSITION. EVERYONE WANTS TO SMEAR, BASH, RIP DOWN, AND KILL EVERYONE ELSE. I respect Dean. I respect Kerry. I respect Edwards. I respect Clark. I respect Kucinich. I respect Sharpton. I respect ALL DEMOCRATS.

So, cheers, have a good night!

[krkaufman]

23. Lies...

On Feb6, at 11:58PM CST sgr2 wrote:
Or waffling about it (Iraq war) like Clark.

A lie.

BUT, I RESPECT ALL OF THEM. I RESPECT ANYONE WHO WOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN A HIGH POSITION. EVERYONE WANTS TO SMEAR, BASH, RIP DOWN, AND KILL EVERYONE ELSE. ... I respect Clark. ...

31 minutes earlier -- sgr2 wrote:
Yeah, I've been waring with Clark people, BUT...... I respect Clark, so I stopped.

Exceedingly disingenuous statements, at best.

[frustrated_lefty]

11. Kerry

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

[revcarol]

15. I hate to tell Kerry this: many, many Vietnam Veterans Against the War

are also against THIS war. Maybe Kerry needed to listen to that organization. That disabled vet who spoke in Washington brought tears to my eyes. How Kerry could be so incompetent or politically expedient is beyond comprehension.

And he voted for the Patriot Act without reading it...

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

16. Your whole premise is absurd!

The voters are not holding Kerry responsible for the war in Iraq. They are holding BUSH responsible for the war in Iraq! And for LYING about WMD's. Where have you been?

This is a LOSER for Bush, and he's like to see the issue go away.

And incidently, the majority of the voting public do not care about the IWR. They are not still dwelling on the past. The war happened, nothing can changed that now. The rest of the world has moved on. They are focused on finding a solution now.

[revcarol]

17. If that is true, maybe people want to know that Kerry would continue

the OCCUPATION, still with the U. S. IN CHARGE so that our men and women are targets, and oh goody, he would try to get some more allies to help us. (Fat chance, since we would still be in charge and making their soldiers targets because they would be seen as U. S. patsies.)

Yeah, that'll do it.

[IndianaGreen]

33. Kerry will turn the Iraq war into a Democratic war

We will still be demonstrating against the war in Iraq by the time Kerry reaches his midterm as President.

We will still have PATRIOT Act on the books, and Bush's "first amendment zones" will be known then as "Kerry's first amendment zones."

[milkyway]

18. Of course it's seen as bush's war. But the repug reply to Kerry will be:

Kerry and Congress abdicated responsibility for the war to bush*. They told bush* to do whatever he judged to be necessary, so how can Kerry complain about the decision bush* made? You can't tell bush* to do whatever he thinks he needs to do, then complain when he does it. Somebody has to make the tough decisions. Besides, it's all George Tenet's fault anyway.

[tobius]

24. Move on

nothing to see here. The issue that wont go away is Kerrys' straddles. Kerry saw the same Intel and supported preempt, now... - well who knows, he'll run with a different explanation during the GE when the memory of what he says in the primaries is a fading memory...

[Jacobin]

31. This is what troubles me about Kerry

He's an opportunist (with a VERY foggy crystal ball) who will do or say whatever he thinks will advance his career without regard to the consequences for people (like soldiers getting their asses shot off) or the country.