John Kerry Has Always Supported Bush's Military Operation In Iraq

[Itsthetruth]

Why are some progressives still surprised by John Kerry's pro-war actions? Kerry's supporting Bush's request for another 81 billion to fight the Iraq war is hardly shocking.

Remember the presidential campaign debates?

John Kerry was clear and consistent in his position on Iraq during the debates. He supports the Iraq war. He supports the occupation of Iraq. During the debates Kerry expressed his agreement with Bush's goal in Iraq and clearly opposed bringing our troops home until the Iraq war against the insurgents is “won”.

John Kerry was asked by moderator Lehrer: “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

Kerry quickly responded in no uncertain terms: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership .... that I’m offering.”

Did Kerry mean that he planned to bring our troops home soon, so that no more GI’s would die in an occupation based upon lies and deception? Not at all.

Kerry, the great Vietnam "war hero" parading around with a chest full of medals proclaimed “We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq. Now we can succeed.”

In case anyone had any doubts about Kerry’s willingness and determination to stay the course and continue the occupation of Iraq, John Kerry assured us: “I have no intention of wilting. I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that.”

The bottom line is that Kerry and Bush have always agreed the United States cannot “cut and run” from Iraq. Kerry has simply insisted that he has a better strategy than George Bush to defeat the insurgents in Iraq.

And if anyone thought that John Kerry opposed Bush's policy of preemptive military strikes he cleared up that misunderstanding. As Kerry said during the debate: "The president always has the right .... for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Your title is untrue

as is the majority of the isinuation you make here.

[trumad]

2. Wow

You really know jow to twist a yarn.

Kerry believes in preemption only if America is going to be attacked. JK would not have attacked Iraq if the inspectors, (which he would have allowed to do their jobs) came back and said Saddam had no WMD's.

[mattclearing]

17. Perhaps he should have read the IWR before he voted for it.

I like John Kerry, but the resolution makes clear: weapons or not, here we come.

[blm]

5. Plus, most every post has been an attack on Kerry.

.

[Sterling]

48. Kerry sucks what can you say?

Goes for about %50 of our party if not more these days.

[LittleClarkie]

49. One of the Senators who voted against Condi "sucks"?

I thought our honoring of "The 13" who voted against Condi Rice would last longer than that.

And further, one of the Senators who also voted against Gonzalez "sucks"?

Do you think you might be able to elaborate on the ways in which Sen. Kerry "sucks"? Pray tell, does he also "blow"?

[Vektor]

63. Maybe he meant

Kerry needs to be sucked....

[Itsthetruth]

6. Kerry Supports The Occupation. Period.

He refused to join 23 Senators in voting against the invasion of Iraq. Those 23 Senators knew exactly what they were voting against and John Kerry knew what he was voting for. He wasn't naive.

He supported the occupation of Iraq after the invasion and supports that occupation today.

He still claims to have a better plan to defeat the insurgents and win the war in Iraq.

I take the man at his word.

I believe he is telling the truth. Do you think he lied during his "debate" with Bush on Iraq? I don't.

And when he now says he'll vote in favor of the 81 billion Bush has requested to pursue the war I believe him. And when Kerry continues to say he wants a much bigger military force I believe him.

I only quoted what Kerry actually said during his "debate" with Bush. If you want to "explain" what he "really meant" please do so. But, I don't think he needs anyones help. He said what he meant and meant what he said no matter how much anyone tries to pretty his remarks up.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. the mocking phrase: 'the great Vietnam "war hero" parading around...'

greatly undermines any arguement you try to make. It belies your prejudice.
Better luck next time.

[blm]

19. Yeah, and Brit Hume used FDR's quotes precisely, as well.

.

[Redleg]

67. Why don't you reserve some of your anger for Bush, the guy who actually

sent U.S. troops to war in Iraq. What's your game here?

[rucky]

3. ouch

i glossed that stuff over at the time (not like we had much of a choice). With a clearer head, It's apparent that we are just pawns in a battle over which set of elites get to control the world. Participatory government is purely for show, and all the real decisions are made behind the scenes.

[blm]

4. Do you contend that Kerry would've attacked Iraq before weapons inspectors

were allowed to finish?

Because that is what Bush did.

You don't seem to understand that Kerry believes we have no choice but to stabilize the country to allow UN troops and our allies to take over so we are no longer OCCUPYING Iraq and our troop numbers are greatly reduced.

Dean has said the same.

[Itsthetruth]

10. Germany & France Would Have Sent Troops To Iraq? Hardly

Germany, France, Russia etc., made it clear during the election campaign that they had no intention of sending combat troops into Iraq so that U.S. troops could be brought home if Kerry was elected. That idea is at the best silly and no serious person believed that scenario. Especially John Kerry!

Ya. I can just see it now. Russia, France and Germany marching their troops into Baghdad and Basra so that U.S. troops can board those planes home. There were be millions in the streets of Paris, Berlin and Moscow demanding "No Troops To Iraq!". That's a real fairytale story.

[blm]

13. If Iraq's stabilized it's a different story for allies. Now, try answering

the question. Are you contending that Kerry would have invaded Iraq BEFORE the weapons inspectors finished their work like Bush did?

And, why did you not include Kerry's very clear statements throughout the campaign that we cannot remain to be seen as an occupying force? He specifically said that once we stabilize we would work to assure the Iraqis we had no intention of staying, unlike Bush who plans to keep his puppets there for the OIL

[merh]

7. You again!

What does the Gannon story make you nervous so you bring up these tales to try to distract everyone?

[Itsthetruth]

12. Gannon Story Is More Important Than The War Against Iraq?

81 billion for the Iraq war and the thousands of wounded and dead GI's that will result from approving those funds is a much bigger story than Gannon.

Gannon is an interesting story but it won't impact the very lives of soldiers and economic well-being of the people like war appropriations will.

[merh]

29. You are distorting the facts to slam dem leadership and to distract

from the Gannon story. The gannon story and Plame can be the nails in the casket of the admin or the dominoes that topple their fake monarchy, thus, it is more important than the lies you spew!

Have a good stay!

[Redleg]

68. Kerry didn't start the war in Iraq. Bush did. Now go and criticize Bush.

EOM

[Cocoa]

8. I agree the vote for the funds shouldn't be a surprise

but not with that last paragraph about Kerry agreeing with Bush's preemption policy, he doesn't.

That quote from the debate was just Kerry defending himself against charges that he would "seek a permission slip" before going to war. Kerry just states the obvious that no president needs such permission.

[zalinda]

11. Kerry DID NOT vote for the war

He voted for a show of force. War was supposed to be the last resort. How hard is that to understand. Bush lied and didn't "show force", he just went ahead and went to war. As for voting for more money, we're there now, we have to finish it. How hard is that to understand. The only thing Kerry did wrong was to TRUST Bush.

zalinda

[IrateCitizen]

15. But it was a "show of force" based on fraudulent evidence

Hell, if a "commoner" like me who read the reports of Hussein Kamel (Saddam's SIL who defected and confirmed that weapons stocks were destroyed) along with those of Scott Ritter knew that there was absolutely no imminent threat, then why in the hell didn't a bunch of Senators like Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, et. al. know?

Would JK have launched a pre-emptive strike on Iraq the way that Bush did? No. But are the foreign policy aims of JK and George W. Bush really that far apart? Not really. Both are primarily interested in the perpetuation of United States hegemony across the globe. The primary difference lies in the naked application of military force vs. a more covert and veiled application.

[IrateCitizen]

16. How do we "finish" it? Like we "finished" Vietnam?

This is the problem with the United States. We don't know how to admit a mistake and take the steps necessary to correct it.

People said we couldn't pull out of Vietnam back when it was raging. Well, thousands of dead GI's and millions of dead Vietnamese later, we finally pulled out. And you know what -- the situation stabilized itself.

It saddens me so much when I see us committing the same mistakes over and over again. US troops are the CAUSE of the insurgency. The situation won't stabilize until they're withdrawn. Sure, there are risks with such a strategy -- but it's clear that the current course is FUBAR.

Iraq Veterans Against the War
Peace-Out Conscientious Objector Support Network

[Itsthetruth]

18. 23 Senators Merely Voted Against "A Show Of Force"?

Are you claiming that the 23 Senators who voted against invading Iraq merely voted against a "show of force"? They didn't see it that way. But if true, why did they vote against a "show of force" or whatever other interpretation you'd like to give their vote and why did John Kerry refuse to support them?

I have yet to read a reasonable explanation, or excuse, for Kerry's refusal to join those 23 Senators. Someone, anyone, please offer an explanation that has some credibility. I'd believe "he had presidential ambitions and didn't want to be attacked by Bush for opposing the invasion". That's believable.

While we're on this subject let's not forget John Kerry's call for the invasion of Fallujah.

During the September 30th presidential debate, John Kerry attacked George Bush from the right when he criticized Bush for backing off from an invasion of "Fallujah and other places".

Kerry said: "What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You've got to show you're serious in that regard."

I suppose a few might grasp for straws and insist John Kerry didn't really mean what he said about Fallujah. I think he did. The fact that John Kerry did not speak out against Bush's invasion of Fallujah pretty much settles the matter.

Bush took Kerry's advice.

[blm]

21. Because generals on the ground complained Bush was holding OFF Fallujah

because they knew it would be bloody and didn't want the bad news BEFORE the election. Unfortunately, his political calculations were making it worse as the insurgents were arming themselves and fortifying with the full expextation that Bush would attack AFTER the election.

The generals on the ground were not happy about that as they knew it would cost MORE lives of their men, as well as innocent Iraqis.

Surely any well-read Democrat was aware of that aspect of the debate. Unless, of course, your intention was to blame Kerry for Bush's evil and deadly calculations.

[Itsthetruth]

23. Just A Question Of Timing?

I take it you think the city should have been invaded earlier. I think the invasion and destruction of Fallujah should not have occurred at all.

Sorry. We just disagree on that one.

[blm]

26. No. But Kerry was explaining what the generals were saying about Bush's

calculations and how it would make their jobs more difficult and deadly. Kerry was pointing that out in hopes that the media would do their job and examine how Bush's political calculations were making Iraq MORE dangerous for the military. The decision had already been made by the DOD to go in....the wait till AFTER the elections was the story.

Why do you twist the post and portray MY stand as FOR attacking Fallujah? When people build a straw man, they usually do so knowingly.

And why don't you answer questions forthrightly in the first place? My main question above remains avoided while you go off on other attacks.

[Itsthetruth]

27. I'm Sorry If I Misunderstood Your Comments

I'm sorry. In re-reading your post you didn't advocate the invasion of Fallujah. However, you seemed to be defending Kerry's statement "What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You've got to show you're serious in that regard."

Was that a wrong interpretation of your comments?

I don't think Fallujah should have been invaded and destroyed either before or after the U.S. elections. I hope we can both agree on that.

[blm]

31. Kerry was agreeing with the generals who said Bush had already decided to

invade Fallujah but was holding off which made it a deadlier decision all around.

Again, you are blaming Kerry for saying what he would do differently to make it a less deadly situation and yet you can't seem to muster the strength to attack or blame Bush for his CALCULATEDLY uncaring decisions leading to MORE death.

[sampsonblk]

57. Not again

We all - including Kerry - knew what was at stake when he cast that vote. Your spin is making Kerry look even worse.

[MsTryska]

14. click on the link.....and then educate yourself:

http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/kerry-speech-10-9-2002.htm



yes it's long. suck it up and read it anyway.


have a nice day.

[Itsthetruth]

20. The War Resolution Circumvented The Constitution

I have read it many times. It's a rather long and lame defense of his vote giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq. And what's really bad about Kerry's vote is that it relinquished the right of Congress to declare war! It circumvented the Constitution by giving Bush that power to wage war without a formal declaration of war by Congress. Doesn't that upset you?

In his speech John Kerry presented the arguments the Bush government used to justify the invasion of Iraq saying: "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?"

Now when it was obvious to everyone that U.S. troops deployed were about to invade Iraq did Senator Kerry speak out loud and clear and say: "That's not what I voted for. Don't do it!"?

And after the invasion began did Senator Kerry speak out eloquently against it? Senator Byrd and a few other Senators did.

Today Senator Kerry attacks Senator Kennedy for merely suggesting the withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq. He supports the "stay the course" and "we can't cut and run" interventionists. Kerry continues to lend aid and comfort to the right by defending the occupation of Iraq "until" the insurgents are defeated and the war is "won".

Kerry's on the wrong side once again. He won't be a candidate for President in 2008. That's good.

[MsTryska]

22. I wouldn't want us to just exit out of iraq either.

we went in there, incorrectly.


we shagged it senseless, and left it without a decent infrastrusture.

and you want to just leave it in a shambles?


i'm going with the Pottery barn rule on this one. You break it you buy it.


that being said, i wholly disagree with the Bush Cabal on what occupation entails, but you don't jsut leave a mess that's ALL your doing and walk out.

[blm]

28. HAHAH. Kerry "attacked" Kennedy now, you say?

You are really twisting this to make Kerry responsible for the war to let Bush off the hook.

Kerry would have let the weapons inspectors do their job. He would NOT have invaded unless the inspectors found a damn good reason to. Yet you are DESPERATELY trying to claim that Kerry supports Bush 100%.

Why?

It sounds exactly like the twisting and rationalizing from the RW talking points.

[karynnj]

30. Kerry DID speak out in the lead up to war

He did write an op-ed (NYT) in the Feb-Mar, 2003 time period that asked Bush to give the inspectors more time.

Also, I don't think Senator Kennedy thinks Kerry attacked him - They were actually at a Boston event, descriptions of which were posted here where each was very supportive of each other.

[LittleClarkie]

46. You quote Kerry's speech, but you leave out parts that refute what you say

I just posted this a bit farther down, but I'll repeat it here, as you are pulling things out of context and misrepresenting Sen. Kerry's words and intent.

"So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime."

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

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 and immediate inspection 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 among the first to speak out."

If anyone wants to read the whole thing in context, I have it reprinted on my site.

http://kerrycrat.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Research&action=display&num=1104648362

Always good to read stuff in context.

[Pastiche423]

24. Had he known now

what he knew then, he still would have voted for the pre-emptive war.

It's not difficult to understand.

[zalinda]

56. That is a quote that

was a mistake. I read that when the question was asked, Kerry was at the Grand Canyon and didn't hear the entire question. Many people don't know, but he has a hearing loss, from Vietnam. Should he have answered the question when he didn't quite hear it, of course not. But, he assumed it was a question about something else (can't remember now, too late at night), that he had heard over and over. I'm not excusing him, but I won't condemn someone without all the facts.

zalinda

[Blue_State_Elitist]

25. It's a surprise for many

because of Kerry's long anti-war career.

[Disturbed]

34. Most Dems have the same view as J. Kerry regarding Iraq.

Except for about 20 Dems they voted for the resolution. Saying that those who voted yes didn't know that the Bush Junta would invade would make them real stupid. That can be debated. Were they stupid?

Now the U.S. will be in Iraq for at the very least 4 more years at a troop strength of 130K. That number may be reduced but at least 75K will remain for many years at the 14 bases being built. The U.S. will NOT give up the strategic territory that has been paid for via lives and money. No amount of protest will change that. The only thing that oculd change that is Congress by not funding the agenda. That will NEVER happen.

[Vektor]

32. Inaccurate baseless attack, but nice try.

"Kerry, the great Vietnam "war hero" parading around with a chest full of medals"

Hmmm...where have I heard this sort of inflammatory talk before?

Yeah....like cellophane.

[Itsthetruth]

36. Kerry's "Flip Flops" On Iraq Helped George Bush

Your're right. John Kerry fought like hell against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He was a lonely voice in the United States Senate as he took the floor day after day against Bush's war plans.

Oh. I'm sorry. My mistake. That was Senator Byrd who did that.

Senator Kerry must have had his speech writers working overtime to devise a statement on the Iraq war resolution that would cover his ass and keep all wings happy in the Democratic Party.

Millions of anti-war, anti-invasion people didn't vote for John Kerry. Why? Because John Kerry was trying to be all things to all people. He was for the invasion but had some carefully muted reservations. He was both for and against the Iraq war appropriations. He's for the latest Iraq war appropriations but
again has some questions. He's against withdrawing our troops from Iraq but in favor of getting out .... eventually!

And that's one of the main reasons why John Kerry lost the election. He refused to take a clearcut stand on issues like Iraq. So millions who wanted an end to the Iraq war and wanted our GI's brought home without needless delay sat out the election.

And the Republicans used his conflicting statements and wishy washy positions in a highly effective propaganda campaign claiming Kerry was a "flip flopper" on the issues. That image was easy to spread with Kerry's unintentional help. We have to admit the truth and can't blind ourselves from the reality of Kerry's stands. John Kerry was a flip flooper!

Kerry should have won the election in a landslide. He could have. But, not campaigning as a great potential war president and trying to take on Bush from the right.

[blm]

37. John Kerry was a "flip flopper" you say. Only the twisting of the RNC and

their lapdog press pushed that meme, but noone who stayed abreast of the entire campaign and the truth could agree.

This sounds like a deliberate attack on Kerry calculated to make it seem like it's from the left. It doesn't help that you always brush past Bush and the GOP unless you agree with them about their attacks on Kerry.

[karynnj]

38. If these millions opted not to vote for Kerry,

they are resposible for 4 more years of Bush. Even if I conceeded every point you make which I don't, the fact that Kerry said clearly that he was against the US having long term bases in Iraq and because he had an exit stategy should have been a reason to vote for him. This plus the little fact that he was way less likely to start new wars.

They knew Bush and knew how evil he was. Kerry's history should have allowed them to vote based on the fact that he couldn't be worse.
(They might then have been pleasantly surprised as his administration worked as hard as it could to rectify these problems.)

P.S. I don't believe millions of anti-war people stayed home. You can't have it both ways (Most of Kerry's votes were just ABB and then claim they didn't vote.)

[LittleClarkie]

47. Actually, his IWR statement was very similar and right in line with

earlier statements he's made about Iraq, like this one from 11/9/1997:

http://kerrycrat.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Research&action=display&num=1104649998

I would further dispute the "flip-flopper" meme (no wonder we lost, if our own side likes using RW talking points. Le sigh) with the website:

www.kerryoniraqwar.com

He's actually quite consistent.

[Vektor]

58. I'm surprised you are even still beating this dead horse...

The "election" (ahem) is over. You got the result you wanted. Kerry is no longer running against your guy.

You can stop the smear campaigning now.

You can convince yourself of whatever you want if it helps you get through lunch break, buddy, but I SUPPORT KERRY. More now, than ever before, thanks to people like you.

Rant and name call until you are blue in the face, I've been listening to that canned rhetoric for years now, my support hasn't wavered one iota - nor will it.

I don't buy it at all.

Again, inaccurate baseless attack, fueled by your own negative opinion and nothing more.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[chlamor]

35. Kerry voted for the war-Kerry is still for the war- Comments by JFK

My overarching question is-Why did he not come out ardently against this atrocity and international crime during his campaign? He knows how the functionings of war operate and that the war profiteers bleed us all. He knows how corrupt and dishonest Cheney and Co. are. Our military needs to be cutback as do our international engagements. Who out there with any clout is going to state that. I believe Kerry and other Senators should be speaking out unequivocally against this massacre. Here is what Kerry said yesterday: Kerry said he plans to file legislation to increase the size of the military by 40,000 -- 30,000 in the Army and 10,000 in the Marines -- to help support the country's efforts in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism.
"The war in Iraq proved that a lightning-fast, high-tech force can smash an opposing army and drive to Baghdad in three weeks. But there is no substitute for a well-trained and equipped infantry to win the peace," Kerry said in remarks delivered Monday
Kerry also used the speech to renew his criticism of the Bush administration, saying it underestimated the level of resistance facing the military after it toppled Saddam Hussein.
Kerry has made some of the same recommendations in the past. During his campaign for president, Kerry also called for an increase in troops, saying the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had strained the military.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/02/14/kerry_calls_

[Redleg]

69. Looks like they're coming out of the woodwork now.

Good use of selected statements- you'll Karl Rove proud.

[Malva Zebrina]

39. Kerry lost because of his vote

he could not hope to win against a incumbant self proclaimed, military dressed up at every opportunity, sitting president who had the bully pulpit, revved up the propaganda, invoked fear in the people, because of that IWR vote.

If he had NOT voted for thewar and the free ticket to Bush to do as he liked and invade (and I do not believe for one minute that he was more stupid than I, who was aware of the evil lies of Bush, and I am just an ordinary citizen) he would have had the opportinity to bring to the forefront all the LIES told by Bush, Condi, Powell and the entire PNAC agenda. He could have done it if he had the will to do so. He may be a nice man, but he has been in the beltway good old boys club far to long and played it that way.

He lost because of that, imo, and I for one do believe now that he indeed, thought the war and the invasion was a good thing for America to do and voted to support a filthy known liar and his lying minions, to give him free reign to murder thousands upon thousands of children, and is complicit in that slaughter for not understanding that George Bush had fascism on his mind and for not seeing the direction Bush was taking. There was enough evidence before that vote for NO Democrat to ever believe this cowardly , evil and fake cowboy

He misjudged and played a political game that once played was hard to defend and he lost because of it.


Sorry--I voted for him because he was ABB. He was not my first choice, and I will never waste my vote again in that way because it is too precious to me.

[EST]

42. AAAAA-men!

Couldna' said it better m'self.

[KG]

40. yes, he and many of the dem leadership.

they are part of the power elite. not that much separates them anymore from the republicans anymore.

[TayTay]

41. Kerry voted for the resolution because

at the time, he thought a cogent case for enforcing the UN sanctions had been made. He was lied to, as were the rest of us. The Senate did not have access to the real story on the build-up to Iraq and, apparently, neither did Colin Powell when he made his arguments before the UN. What part of 'we were lied to' is so hard to get understand? A lot of Dems bought into the 'urgent threat' situation and a lot now regret it.

The funding resolution that will come before Congress will pass. (I think with near unanimous support.) Cutting and running or not funding this does not solve the problems we now have in Iraq due to the incompetent manner in which * went to war. (I think everyone on DU can agree that the war was bungled badly. That innocent people have died needlessly and that money has been used to fund bribes and enrich the coffers of American corporations. Right?)

But we are in Iraq. We have 'broken' large areas of that country. Iraq is in an extremely sensitive political area of the world. We cannot simply write the country off and go home. That would abandon a lot of innocent people to suffering, oppression and possible death. We have to help the country get back on it's feet, become a stable political entity and help the people of Iraq with food, shelter, energy and infrastructure problems. (It would be cowardly to just walk away from this obligation, not to mention a violation of our committment to basic human rights.)

John Kerry didn't start the war, Geroge Bush did. Bush is the one who is responsible for this colosal screw-up. Kerry is proposing some funding to help Veterans of this war get benefits, get medical help if they need it and help families deal with the emotional and financial aftermath of the death of a family member in war. I think this approach is sensible. And I approve of the funding measure.

[Itsthetruth]

43. How About The 23 Who Voted Nay?

And why did 23 Senators part company from John Kerry and vote against the pro-war resolution?

I'm sure that John Kerry had a good excuse for not joining those 23 Senators who voted against Bush's resolution. Perhaps someone can tell us what it was.

John Kerry had to be the only United States Senator who failed to understand the resolution authorized Bush to invade Iraq whenever he choose. And surely he wasn't the only Senator who failed to understand that voting for the resolution permitted Bush to engage in a war without coming back to Congress for a Declaration of War. All the other Senators understood this, but not Kerry? Now that's really farfetched. Those who voted for and those who voted against the war resolution understood the meaning of their vote. It was for or against an invasion of Iraq. Congress understood that. The mass media understood that. Every progressive and liberal in the nation understood that. Everyone "got it" except John Kerry? Give me a break. The man is smarter than that.

Well, if it's really true than John Kerry didn't know what was happening in the nation and Ira and was bumbling around confused and bewildered about Iraq and what his vote meant, than perhaps Kerry wasn't truly qualified to be the man with the finger on the button.

Kerry knew exactly what his vote meant. That's why he didn't object to the invasion when Bush announced it was underway.

[LittleClarkie]

45. Excuse no, reason yes

"So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime."

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

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 and immediate inspection 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 among the first to speak out.

[Itsthetruth]

44. How Else Can A Colonial War Be Conducted?

"I think everyone on DU can agree that the war was bungled badly. That innocent people have died needlessly and that money has been used to fund bribes and enrich the coffers of American corporations. Right?"

Yes. I can agree with that. And I can also agree that Kerry insisted he had a better plan for winning that colonial war. However, how else can a war of colonial conquest be conducted no matter who the band leader is?

That's just how wars like that have always been conducted. I've never seen a nice and paternalistic war of colonial conquest without graft, bribes and needless civilian deaths. That's just the way it is whether it was during earlier U.S. military adventures in Latin America or more recently in Vietnam and now Iraq.

The United States government does not play very nice when trying to conquer people in another a colonial war. That's just the way it is and you won't change that. You might try and put a liberal face on such a war, as was the case when LBJ sent a half million troops to Vietnam, but it's not any better for the people being conquered.

[latebloomer]

50. You're absolutely right

Kerry has sold his soul to the military-industrial complex that wants to achieve domination of the world. He'd do it in a kinder, gentler way, though, so it's all good.

[Ironpost]

51. Do I smell elephant blood

[elshiva]

52. Ah Smell it too....

[LittleClarkie]

53. No, but you will in a minute... ahahahahahaha...hurk...hurk!

(coff)

Ahem.

Sorry.

Was gone for a minute. Now I'm back.

[Vektor]

59. I also smell it -

- and it's mingled with more than a touch of bullshit.

[lonestarnot]

54. Will not read your post as the title is a lie, just like the election! n/t

[Itsthetruth]

55. I Could Lie And Say Kerry Opposes The Occupation

OK Perhaps you would have felt better if I had written:

John Kerry opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq from day one.

That's why he voted for the resolution authorizing the invasion by the Bush government.

That's why he has voted for the Iraq war appropriations.

That's why he says we "can't cut and run" from Iraq and must "win" the war against the insurgents.

That's why he supported an early invasion of Fallujah.

That's why he wants a bigger military.

If only more timid members of Congress like Senator Byrd had followed Senator Kerry's leadership on opposing Bush on Iraq the invasion would never have happened. But no! People like Senator Byrd wouldn't listen to Kerry and oppose the war. Kerry was all by himself twisting in the wind!

When oh when will Senators Kennedy, Byrd and 97 other Senators demonstrate Senator Kerry's courage in fighting against this colonial war? What a powerful role model Kerry has been for anti-war activists. Without Kerry not a single demonstration against the war would have been held. His militant "call to action" speeches at numerous anti-war protests were inspiring to the millions who heard his call.

How lucky we are that a powerful anti-war candidate for President, John Kerry, took on the rich and powerful military-industrial complex in Washington. Oh yes. John Kerry, the crusading anti-war candidate who fought to bring our GI's home. We are indeed lucky to have such a man leading us.

Now is that what you want to hear and read? OK Only one problem. It would be complete b.s.

Now Senator Byrd, if he was about 10 years younger, could have landslided Bush had he run for President. Byrd's consistent and persistent opposition to the invasion and occupation or Iraq would have clinched his election.

[Vektor]

60. How many tranquilizers

does it take to bring down an elephant of this size?

[Itsthetruth]

61. Say What?

I really don't understand your question. What in the world do elephants have to do with the war against Iraq?

I don't think the GI's are riding around on elephants. They use tanks and humvees.

Perhaps it's a joke. I don't get it.

[Vektor]

62. You're trying too hard.

Psst.
Your trunk is showing.

[Itsthetruth]

64. I'm Hardly A Republican

I'm a Republican???!!!! Hardly. I've never even voted for any Republican candidate in my entire life! You can paint anyone who is critical of John Kerry as a Republican if you like but that would cover thousands of supporters of DU.

Read some of my other posts. Perhaps you'll agree with at least a few of them. I don't think any Republican would agree with, much less post that kind of anti-Bush material.

[Vektor]

65. Fine, whatever.

Read the responses on this thread. MANY people seem to think you are going a little overboard in your hateful tirades, enough to garner suspicion. "Criticism" is one thing, but name calling and hostility, like "Flip Flopper parading around in war medals" is the kind of hate-speak that typically comes from the opposing party. In fact, this is the only source I have heard it come from. It is fine to have your preferences within the party of who your favorite candidates are, but to devote this much time and energy to rabble rousing and mud-slinging does raise a few red flags. What you are expressing is burning hatred, which is pretty alarming. You seem to be so blinded by it that all you want to do is hurl insults at John Kerry.

Also, it is common for "visitors" from the other side to mingle their hateful attacks with a little Bush bashing just to blend in. Forgive us all if we've seen the pattern before.

I don't paint anyone critical of Kerry as a Republican - although dissenters commonly use that rhetoric too. I'll criticize him right now - I don't like the fact that he shoots animals. There. I still love the guy, though, but disagree with him on that.

Like I said, critical is one thing, but what you are doing is just attacking. You are even getting attitude with people who say they like him - that makes it look as if you are here to attack, and not discuss.

[Redleg]

66. Jeebus- let's fucking lay off this shit now, okay? The election is over.

No need to beat us over the fucking heads with this crap any more.

Another point is that you are very selective in how you cut and paste Kerry quotes. I've seen Faux News do the same.