here's what Kerry's Iraq vote means to me

[grasswire]

A couple of weeks before the vote, I watched John Kerry with Chris Matthews on the Hardball College Tour at the Citadel. Kerry kept telling these young men and women how wrong Bush's plans for Iraq were. He argued over and over that he would not send troops to Iraq, yadda yadda yadda. He sounded very sincere and heartfelt.

Days later, he voted to give Bush a blank check to pre-emptively attack a sovereign nation, knowing the possible costs in American blood and treasure, knowing the probability of quagmire.

Now he says he voted to give Bush the power to threaten Iraq.

This is a sequence of events that displays a craven character, not a principled leader. I despise this kind of manipulation.

[blm]

1. ALL war resolutions are tools for coercion and threat.

The BLANK CHECK Bush wanted would have completely bypassed the UN, further inspections, and an open field to bomb Iran and Syria after the fall of Baghdad. Kerry and others negotiated with the White House to PREVENT a REAL BLANK CHECK. It cost them their vote.

Too bad so many have trouble comprehending that. Or maybe you prefer that NO Democrat negotiate with the White House for the better bill? Maybe you WANTED Bush to have the REAL blank check?

[dfong63]

5. you can't negotiate with a power-mad tyrant

Or maybe you prefer that NO Democrat negotiate with the White House for the better bill?

yes, i would have preferred that NO democrat give this power-mad tyrant the veneer of legitimacy for his criminal war. whatever vaporous concessions those sellouts "got" in their negotations, wasn't worth it.

[blm]

9. Tell that to the Syrians and Iranians

and the American soldiers who would be deployed there after the bombing.

Tell that to the poll numbers that show Bush's credibility has taken a nosedive with the American public based on his overreach to show evidence to Congress and the UN.

Tree meet forest.

[grasswire]

10. to blm

Blm: "Or maybe you prefer that NO Democrat negotiate with the White House for the better bill? Maybe you WANTED Bush to have the REAL blank check?"

What I want is consistency. Going from an anti-Bush-war-plan position to voting support to weaseling about the flip-flop exhibits situational ethics and craven manipulation.

[blm]

17. No...it means he was one of the lawmakers stuck

negotiating with the White House because it was his field. That's how it is done. If you don't like it, then change the process.

[polpilot]

2. Manipulation? Why 'Heartfelt Kerry' had a tear for the woes of the less

fortunate just the other day. I'm sure what he 'meant' was not how wrong bush's plans for Iraq were but that 'Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong' as he stated this week.

Make no mistake about John Kerry's position on the war. He is 'against' the war because he knows first hand of the horror of war and he is 'for' the war provided Chimpy gets the UN approval but if he doesn't then Bush is just 'a good man trying to do good things' (Kerry's characterization of Bush on Meet the Press 8-30-03) and he's 'for' flying over Iraq with the bombs and dropping them but NOT for them hitting the ground. This makes him a potential 'strong' commnader-in-chief- BUT anti-anti-war/war unless the polls dictate otherwise...then he's pro pro war or pro pro anti-war. Clear???

Dean '04...

[disgruntella]

3. burma shave! nt

[MaverickX]

4. no it means...

He understood military force would need to be used against Iraq at some point to get them to comply. Dean could care less about this because it would've somebody else's responsibility to deal with Saddam.

[edward]

6. So you found the 'weapons of mass destruction'?

That crazy Saddam is going to use them. Please call the Whitehouse.

[MaverickX]

12. no but

You can't expect to search Iraq for WMDs in 4 months. You guys wanted to give UN inspectors 2 years to search.

[edward]

15. We didn't want to destroy Iraq either.

Gee whiz, even Blair said the danger is imminent.
The whole thing was phony. If Iraq had weapons they would have used them.

[MaverickX]

16. I disagreed with the imminent threat..

I felt we could've waited for quite awhile to invade Iraq. It probably didn't really require regime change.

[dfong63]

7. check your history

He understood military force would need to be used against Iraq at some point to get them to comply.

force was already being used against Saddam. there were daily sorties over the so-called "no-fly zone", and had been for years. US and British planes attacked Iraqi targets virtually at will. and by the time the invasion force arrived, there were no WMD's to be found. Saddam had complied without the need for additional force.

Dean could care less about this because it would've somebody else's responsibility to deal with Saddam.

Saddam was not a threat to the US. so yes, it was "someone else's responsibility" to deal with him. not ours.

[sangh0]

8. Check Dean's statements

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

That's not what Dean said. Dean said he thinks Saddam WAS a threat

[MaverickX]

13. wow

Saddam was not a threat to the US. so yes, it was "someone else's responsibility" to deal with him. not ours.

Not necessarily. Assuring rogue nations don't spread WMDs is the entire world's responsibility. Do you only support involvement in international affairs when we're directly attacked?

[ima_sinnic]

11. Kerry is just more of the same old crap

he's a hack, and an "insider," willing to say whatever the people want to hear, from one day to the next, but voting the way the money interests or political expediency dictate. Supposedly he "knows all about" Iran-Contra and BFEE--too bad he doesn't have the balls to come out and really say anything about what he "knows," the way a real leader would.

So what's to stop him from promising one thing while he's campaigning, but then going back to his private agenda after he's president??--just like he did with the war vote.

I'll take an "outsider" any day--someone with no connections to BFEE or to CORPORATE INTERESTS who can buy his/her vote. Kerry is 2nd from the bottom in my candidate preferences, one small small step above Lieberman.

[MaverickX]

14. by hack and insider

You mean understands politics better than you I think. Kerry tries to balance ideology with public opinion but guess what? In a democracy public opinion matters. You want a President like Kucinich totally driven by ideology, screw input from the public.

[blm]

18. Show me the BFEE and corporate connections.

Especially considering that Kerry wouldn't take corporate pac money throughout his career in the Senate. And worked with Wellstone to try to get corporate money OUT of politics, and helped craft the Kyoto Accord which big business DOESN'T like.