Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

1. *ducking*

.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. Nope. Jimmy Carter did the same thing

He positioned himself in ways that ensured he would get elected, and that was ultimiately what was more important.

1976, April 3: Answering a question about public housing, Carter says that people should be allowed to maintain the "ethnic purity" of their neighborhoods. Despite the controversy which ensues and the anger of many in the black community, Carter sticks by his wording over the next few days before apologizing for his remarks on April 8.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/timeline/

[Vikingking66]

2. here's my thoughts

If Kerry had voted against the bill, he would be in a much better place to criticize Bush now. Now, he will have more trouble getting elected because Bush can use that vote to deflect criticism of his Iraq policy.
Had Kerry stuck to his guns, he would have been the flat-out favorite of the left, who went to Dean instead. Ironically, Kerry is closer on many domestic issues to the left, but fewer liberals will support him than will support Dean because they feel that in the clutch, he failed them.

[sangh0]

3. I dont get that

Why does anyone's vote on IWR help or hinder someone's ability to criticize Bush*? How can Bush* use the vote to deflect criticism when all the Dem has to do is to say "I voted for a multilateral UN effort which Bush* promised, and then went back on his word?" followed by "And since then Bush* has mismanaged the invasion and it's aftermath. Bush* policies have been a failure that endangers us all"

I would also like to point out that a recent poll of Dems shows them preferring a candidate who voted for IWR but is now criticizing Bush*'s handling of Iraq.

Are you sure that your assumption (on Iraq, candidates who voted for IWR have less credibility than those who didn't) reflects the opinions of others, and not just your own?

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. You know how I feel.

He should have just said NO.

Oh and no matter how hard he tries, Kerry can never undo the damage. Not unless of course he can raise the dead. A feat I am sure is out of Saint Kerry's hands.

[sangh0]

7. Don't know, don't care.

.

[WilliamPitt]

16. "Saint Kerry"

You find that hyperbole helpful? Locate one thread where Kerry is called a saint by even his most ardent supporters. You can't.

Hyperbole = unhelpful. Just sayin'.

[Andy_Stephenson]

39. True no one has called him a saint...however

he is treated as one...I am still incensed over the war vote. We have a deal and I will stick to it...But I don't have to help him win the primary.

IMHO He has serious character flaws.

[sangh0]

42. Spinning

"No one calls him a saint, but we treat him as one"

Yeah, right! That makes sense (non-sense)

[Loyal]

77. I don't even bother to listen

to what you have to say anymore. All ya ever do is hijack Kerry threads and spout ya bullshit. It's really lame.

[Andy_Stephenson]

91. Obviously you are listening

or you would not comment.

[Loyal]

129. Oooh

Nice avatar. :eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

10. Simply because it's the highest profile vote out there, sangh0

That is why so many people don't support Kerry based on his IRW vote.

Personally, I don't support him due to another vote: his vote in favor of Fast Track trade approval, especially after his amendment (a decent one) was defeated. In my mind, with his support for corporate trade (anyone who says it's "free" is deluding themselves) is one of the biggest neutralizers of what should be a tremendous advantage for Democrats among working class Americans.

Not that I was happy about his IRW vote, nor am I now, but I can understand his rationale. But the trade issue is completely boggling to me.

[sangh0]

12. I dont think so

I know a lot of people assume that it is the "highest profile vote out there" and that how a Dem voted on IWR is going to be an important issue in most Dems minds or most liberals minds, but I disagree and I'm interested in hearing the evidence to support this assumption. In talking to people IRL, I rarely hear about the IWR vote. I suspect that the DUers' who claim the IWR will be important are just voicing their own opinions instead of giving an objective analysis of what others are concerned with.

[IrateCitizen]

15. Among DUers it is the biggest factor -- IRL you're right, it isn't.

And to be quite honest, I haven't had enough in-depth conversations with people IRL about who they do or don't support. Then again, most of my friends and/or acquaintences tend to be either generally apolitical or so far off the radical scale that they consider Dennis Kucinich to be too conservative simply because he's a Democrat. ;-)

IOW, I don't really have an answer for your question. Sorry. :shrug:

[w4rma]

66. Kerry's free trade support is a major reason (w/ others) that I oppose him

Also, his lack of chosing good priorities to fight on in this campaign is another major problem I have with him. Kerry seems to like to debate about minor wedge issues, rather than major life changing issues.

Sure, he's followed Dean a little bit on trade, but he's also attacked Dean's position on trade by siding with Lieberman. I just don't trust Kerry to do anything other than continue Clinton's and Bush's policy on free trade and/or make fair-trade anything more than lip-service if he won.

[IrateCitizen]

73. The Democrats' stance on trade is truly mind-boggling to me

Unless, what has been rumored is in fact true, and they have completely given up on going after working class votes anymore and have decided to concentrate solely on the upper middle class....

[Vikingking66]

113. here's the logic

In the campaign, Kerry criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq situation. Bush responds by saying "if my position is so bad, why did you agree with it?"

At base, the IWR did not require UN agreement, and it was obvious that Bush wasn't going to listen to the UN on Iraq. If Kerry says he voted for a multilateral effort, all Bush has to do is show that there were Demcoratic alternative resolutions which required UN participation instead of mere consultation.

[sangh0]

118. Thanks for the explanation, but I still disagree

Is Bush* responds by saying ""if my position is so bad, why did you agree with it?", the Dem can counter it by simply saying "The vote I have for IWR came before you lost the support of the entire world. It was a vote for the use of force as a last resort, not the first resort. It was a vote for a multilateral response, not a unilateral response."

[eileen_d]

4. This does seem to be what's happening

on DU, anyway. I still would prefer to see Kerry in office before Dean.

[PeaceProgProsp]

19. He is in a good place to criticize him now BECAUSE he voted yes on IWR.

Who do you think is more credible criticizing Bush now? Dean? He's like the boy who cries wolf. He criticizes everything. Kucinich? He's an isolationist. He votes against everything that leads to US engagement overseas relating to protection of US national security interests. Kerry? Hmmm. Well, he is good on a national security. He doesn't cry wolf. He seems to agree with the majority of Americans.

Kerry doesn't need to be the favortite of the left. He has to seem like he's representing the interests of a majority of Americans. See Blair's speech below.

[IrateCitizen]

27. You obviously aren't as familiar with Kucinich as you are with Kerry

Kucinich? He's an isolationist. He votes against everything that leads to US engagement overseas relating to protection of US national security interests.

Let me ask you a question. Why does the United States have overseas interests that are vital to its national security? Could it be that the "American way of life" is predicated on the ability of an extreme minority on the planet to consume a disproportionate amount of its resources? Could it be that military force, both overt and covert, is required to secure that access?

Kucinich's views on these things are much closer to mine, not because they are isolationist, but because they are TRULY internationalist. He views it as a necessity to work in cooperation with other nations in order to secure peace, and a large part of that has to do with abandoning this false equality of "providing for the common defense," as outlined in the Constitution, with the "protection of American overseas interests". The latter is a twisted bastardization of the very ideas of democracy and self-determination, and instead lays bare the core upon which this country is now built, which is consumption, consumerism and selfishness. Democracy and self-determination are just hollow terms used to justify the forcing open of markets and access to cheap natural resources for our plunder.

That isn't an isolationist view. It's the view of those of us who realize how dangerous our current path really is, and how drastically we need to deviate from it.

[PeaceProgProsp]

35. America is like Janus with regard to foreign policy.

We do a lot of bad things, but we've done some good things too. I don't know how we could do the good things that we do if we followed Kucinich's policies. But, maybe I don't know them well enough.

[IrateCitizen]

45. All the more reason why a narrow group shouldn't act alone

Perhaps my impression of the motivation of nation-states is slightly different from yours. I tend more toward a Chomskyite view in that the inherent nature of the nation-state is one of immorality, and that those who lead nation-states are those who are most attracted to power -- and therefore often the least-equipped, morally speaking, to wield it. I also see the terms "democracy" and "self-determination" that have been repeatedly used throughout the years to justify US overseas interventions as being hollow words invoked to conceal the true goals, which are inevitably opening markets and securing access to natural resources. These are not selfless aims -- they are selfish ones.

Personally, I think a LOT of this could be solved through the strengthening of international bodies, enabling the nations of the world to operate in true cooperation with each other in addressing the common problems we face as inhabitants of the same blue marble hurtling through the universe. But then again, that true cooperation would involve a certain deal of getting past the inherent immorality of the nation-state. But, perhaps if the most powerful nation on the earth were to exercise its leadership in moving toward this kind of arrangement, it would compel other nations to act in a similar manner, helping this wish to become a reality....

In any event, America seeking to make the world in its image, to ANY extent, is a recipe for disaster in the long run. And that is why I recoil in disgust at any suggestion that America is somehow "justified" in intervening abroad in the name of "humanity" or "democracy" -- because our history has shown our intervention to be propelled by naked self interest. The only thing that has kept our governments somewhat in check, especially in regards to domestic affairs, has been the wondrous document under which our nation was founded. But more and more, even that is being diminished to the status of a mere piece of paper with empty words.

[dfong63]

6. so 1000s of people had to die because Kerry couldn't admit he was wrong

[sangh0]

9. Brilliant!!

It's all Kerry's fault. That's why we went to war. Kerry's vote is decisive, regardless of what anyone else does. In fact, rumour has it that it was Kerry who gave SCOTUS the 5 votes that selected Bush*.

[blm]

11. Kerry had NO control over whether or NOT Bush went into Iraq.

Bush HAD the votes to go in his way already. Kerry did the BEST he could under the circumstances by negotiating for Bush to preserve the UN process including a presentation of evidence, and by curtailing Bush from extending the battle into Syria and Iran.

If Kerry hadn't done that, along with Gephardt and others, then he would have been derelict of duty. SOME Democrats had to show up and negotiate for that better deal.

[Andy_Stephenson]

90. "Kerry did the BEST he could under the circumstances"

Malarkey! He (if he were a true leader) Would have stood up to Bush* and maybe...jut maybe he would have changed the minds of many others. I see it as a copout vote and always will. I hope to God he does not get the nod...but I will have to vote for him if he wins it. But then I expect Will to keep his end of the deal. Oh and on the off chance he does win...How much do you want to bet he does not go after Bushco? Anyone want to take the bet??? I'll bookmark this thread and we can check back if he does.

[PeaceProgProsp]

21. Kerry's vote didn't cause 1000s to die. And, you know SH was a brutal

dictator who ruined the lives of thousands, so the strict cost-benefit analysis of death and misery isn't going to support the conclusions you'd like to draw.

[CWebster]

23. So

how many Iraqis have died as the result of American aggression? Do you even know and does it even matter to Senator Kerry? Does the humanity of the Iraqi people even matter?

[PeaceProgProsp]

25. If Kerry is trying to be president to bring an end to that sort of thing,

how does advocating a candidate and a political strategy almost certain to result in a Repulbican victory MORE ethical than what Kerry did?

[bearfartinthewoods]

79. where was your consideration

for the humanity of the hundreds of thousands of iraui's who died at sadamn's hand?

[SEAburb]

8. in the final analysis, if Kerry had voted against the IWR

it still would have passed and we would still be in the same situation in Iraq.

[CWebster]

13. except

Kerry's hands wouldn't be dirty.

[PeaceProgProsp]

29. But he could still become president. If he opposed the IWR

Bush would have turned it into a way to blaim Democrats for the mess in Iraq.

He'd say Republicans never got the support they needed from key Democrats like Kerry.

Believie this: Kerry has more authority on this issue because he didn't look like an isolationist before.

[sangh0]

31. Kerry's hands aren't dirty

To assume that they are is to assign responsibility to him for the invasion, when we all know, you included, that the invasion is Bush*'s responsibility.

[eileen_d]

14. Sssh! Don't introduce reality into this situation!

Somebody's brain might start to hurt. ;)

Of course, their brains already hurt from the 20/20 hindsight they project onto the situation.

The Bush administration is the primary party responsible for this war. Those who voted IWR share responsibility, but IMO it's a pretty damn tiny sliver of it compared to Shrub and his minions.

All things considered, I'd prefer to see Kerry win in 2004 over any other candidate. Not that I'd hold my nose to vote for Dean. I just don't see how Dean's record OVERALL holds up to Kerry's.

[PeaceProgProsp]

17. I agree. Here are Tony Blair's brilliant thoughts on oppostion vs leading

If these people are committed to becoming president to do good, then how is it unethical to preserve the possibility of getting elected. How are they more ethical by making points without ever getting in a position of actually leading.

This is what Blair's speech at the Labour Party conference a couple weeks ago touched on: it's hard to lead and it takes courage to lead. It's easy to be in the minority and shout about ethics and complain.

Here is what Tony Blair said to the Labour Party:

In a host of ways, from a strengthening of the law against racial violence, to equal rights for same sex couples, setting up the Disability Rights Commission, action on domestic violence, changes that will never be reflected in an opinion poll, rarely hit a headline, rarely be heard outside those who benefit from it, in a world where a grain of sensation gets more attention than a mountain of genuine achievements - that's the difference you have made to Britain.

So why is it so tough?

Government's tough. Fulfilling but tough. Opposition was easy.

All our MPs had to do was to go back to their constituencies and blame it on the Government. Some of them still do.

May 1997 was a unique moment. An abundance of expectation surrounded our arrival. A sense of hope beyond ordinary imagining. The people felt it. We felt it. Instead of reining in the expectation, we gave it free rein. It was natural, but born of inexperience. We thought change was a matter of will. Have the right programme, spend the right money and the job is done. But experience has taught us: the job is never done.

If we expected bouquets every day, we should have stayed in Opposition. We shouldn't want thanks. It's a privilege to do the job, however tough.

This speech is a brilliant summation of the state of international liberalism. That ideas like the ideas in this speach take such a hit from the right, and that the media and ahistorically-thinking narrow-focus left wingers are encouraged to criticize this, is probably a pretty good indication of how powerful these ideas are and of how threatening they are to fascists.

If you haven't read this speech, and you consider yourself informed, well, you aren't.

Every Democrat and every liberal should read this.

[CWebster]

20. Opposition is tough.

but they all rolled over and followed along with the poodle. I am sorry but Kerry's claim does not wash no matter how he or his supporters attempt to spin it as one of concern for US security.

It was bullshit then and it is bullshit now and the whole world knew it.

Everytime Kerry starts his circular justifications he insults me personally and he insults every person who stood up to the idiot war fever wind passing over the land.

[PeaceProgProsp]

22. Opposition in gov't is easier than leading.

Opposition that isn't strategically designed to result in leadership is the equivalent of masturbation. You satisfy yourself and your ego, but you never make a difference in anyone's life.

I see a lot of Democrats who'd rather be right and ineffectual than lead and actually make a difference in people's lives.

[CWebster]

28. Hey, if they are not up to it get out.

They are paid to represent us not jockey themselves for political gain.

Leadership IS leading for and connecting with your constituients. Obviously Kerry was out of touch and he is still trying to have it both ways.

[sangh0]

32. If you really believed that

you'd be leading the way yourself instead of posting on the Internet. For someone who seems to think they know about leadership, you don't seem to exercise it very often

[CWebster]

37. Lead? I am just enjoying exchange during my dreary 9-5.

And you, enjoying yourself or demonstrating some sort of leadership that anyone would be enticed to follow?

[sangh0]

40. Hypocritical!

You claim to value leadership so much, but you won't even practice it yourself. You just demand it from others.

Whether or not I'm a leader is irrelevant because you don't see me demanding leadership from a group known for their craven ways. I don't whine about a lack of leadership from politicians because I think leadership should come from the people, and leading people to expect it from politicians is just a way to distract people from their own responsibilities.

[CWebster]

43. Don't be ridiculous

But if you want me to lead, come over here sos I can instruct you properly, my little friend.

[sangh0]

52. Some leader

You need proximity in order to exercise leadership?

[PeaceProgProsp]

33. Oppostion that doesn't result in leadership is like masturbation.

You're just doing for yourself to make yourself feel happy.

"Jockying for political gain" -- yeah! Exactly. I want a Democrat to gain the white house so that we can have a world as different as possible from the one we're living in. Leadership isn't about getting the bouquets and the banquets of constituents whose lives aren't better as a result of you making a stand. Leandership is about making a real difference in people's lives. You can only make a real difference in people's lives when you're at the top. And for Kerry, the top is becoming president.

[CWebster]

38. Desperate rational

in other words, I will demonstrate how I can be so easily duped as a prerequisite of leadership potential.

Yesireebob, that one works.

[sangh0]

41. I agree wiht one thing you said

You can be easily duped.

[Eloriel]

64. You're full of platitudes and

authoritative-sounding pronouncements that literally have no meaning. I mean literally. Sop, that's all.

You can only make a real difference in people's lives when you're at the top. And for Kerry, the top is becoming president.


What does "real difference" mean? "People's lives"?

Why does leadership require being at the top? (Hint: it doesn't. There are plenty of leaders who don't even have leadership positions. It's a personal quality, not a mantle.)

And just why couldn't Kerry make a difference at some other level? Are you suggesting he hasn't so far in his career? Are you further suggesting that It's okay that he hasn't, he'll be gang-busters once he becomes President?

No need to answer -- AFAIC, these are rhetorical questions designed out the mental masturbation YOU'RE engaging in.

And while we're at it, if you're suggesting that Kerry's YES on the war vote was leadership on his part in any way, shape or form, boy, have I got a surprise for you. If you're saying that his war vote can be excused because boy, just watch what a great leader he'll be once he's President and that craven, politically expedient (by your definition!!!) vote will help him be president, I've got an even bigger surprise for you. I'm personally sick up to HERE with politicians who put political expedience over people's lives -- and in this case I mean their VERY lives (as in war, as in life and death and dismembermbent). IOW: your argument trying to explain and defend Kerry's vote is precisely what's wrong with his vote and, in fact, what's wrong with HIM.

Eloriel

[sangh0]

70. Spinning

What does "real difference" mean? "People's lives"?

It means making people's lives better, as opposed to "standing on principle" and achieving nothing to better anyone's life but your own.

Why does leadership require being at the top?

I would suggest being less literal. I assumed the reference to political leadership, and in our political system, the winner takes all. That's particularly true when it comes to military issues because the President is also CINC.

And just why couldn't Kerry make a difference at some other level?

He has, but in case you haven't noticed, we're talking about war, and Senators don't command the military. CINC does.

[PeaceProgProsp]

72. These aren't platitudes:

In a host of ways, from a strengthening of the law against racial violence, to equal rights for same sex couples, setting up the Disability Rights Commission, action on domestic violence, changes that will never be reflected in an opinion poll, rarely hit a headline, rarely be heard outside those who benefit from it, in a world where a grain of sensation gets more attention than a mountain of genuine achievements - that's the difference you have made to Britain.

This is a tiny fraction of the difference they've made since the Tories got the boot.

Read Blair's speech if you don't get it.

[Hep]

18. Wait a sec

I'm not attacking what you're saying, but I think you should clarify this part:

I still believe that he was trying to remain consistent with his 1997-98 position calling for the disarmament of Saddam, and that he felt it would be irresponsible to call for Clinton to deal with the Iraqi threat but then balk when Bush decided to deal with it.

Did Kerry want the US to invade Iraq ever since 1997-1998?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. Good question re: method

Kerry as CiC would NEVER conduct such an abominable campaign as have Rummy and Bush.

[Hep]

56. I knew that

But you have to be careful. The key to Kerry's IWR vote is the *IW* part. As CiC he would never engage in such a thing, and I agree. But what exactly is the person trying to argue in explaining away his yes vote?

[sangh0]

58. Answer

But what exactly is the person trying to argue in explaining away his yes vote?

That Kerry and other Dems felt they could negotiate a less horrible resolution but only if they were willing to vote yes.

[Hep]

63. do you see how fundamentally flawed that is?

That Kerry and other Dems felt they could negotiate a less horrible resolution but only if they were willing to vote yes/

This makes no sense. You can't negotiate something AFTER you pass it, can you? I'm obviously not getting your point. Can you make it more clear (dumb it down) please?

[sangh0]

71. Huh?

The negotiations over the IWR occurred BEFORE the vote. Daschle, along with other Dems including Kerry, negotiated changes in IWR that made is less horrible BEFORE the vote. The only reason they could do that is because they were willing to vote Yes if Bush* and the Repukes gave in some.

[Hep]

82. Oh!

OK. How did they make it less horrible?

And perhaps you should rephrase it. Less horrible is still horrible, you know? I don't mean to sound like a semantic jerk, but...

[sangh0]

120. Not a semantic jerk. It's a good question

1) It required Bush* to adhere to the War Powers Act
2) It required Bush* to go to the UN, where he lied in an effort to gain the UN's support, lies which hurt his credibility and which could conceivably (albeit unlikely) lead to his impeachment.
3) Most importantly, it limited the action to Iraq, and not the entire Middle East, which was the original resolution authorized.

[Hep]

122. All I can say

is that I know that the focus of my outrage is this administration, not any one person who voted for the resolution. I would have voted against it, but I can't blame anyone for having faith in the system, which was circumvented by Bush* et al.

[blm]

84. He wanted Hussein held accountable as per the UN resolution.

They expected Hussein would be overthrown by Bin Laden at some point, because Hussein was on the top of his hit list. This is no small factor.

The sanctions were also hurting the Iraqi people themselves. The only way to end the sanctions was for all WMDs to be destroyed, something that Hussein was exceedingly coy about, and Scott Ritter, himself, testified to their existence in front of Kerry's hearings on Iraq.

[Andy_Stephenson]

92. "The sanctions were also hurting the Iraqi people themselves"

and occupation isn't?

[blm]

94. Kerry already called for an end to the occupation, Gbnc.

If you weren't so intent on faulting him.....

[Andy_Stephenson]

100. We should not be there in the first place blm

that is what I fault him on.

[blm]

102. He didn't put us there, or have any control over the decision.

He curtailed the action in the only way possible. And you cannot acknowledge that fact.

[Andy_Stephenson]

104. No I can't

because he voted yes. Yes means YES where I come from. Perhaps in your part of the country it means maybe or no. But here Yes is YES. No matter what preceeded he voted yes. I have never waverd from this and you know that. I will vote for Kerry if forced to...But I will not repeat not vote for him in the primary. Believe me I don't want to vote for him but I will. Then I will hold you and every other Kerry apologist accountable if he does not go after BFEE full tilt from day 1.

[RichM]

30. One problem with this, is that the same logic could be used to justify a

great many other infamous actions that we would not feel too comfortable seeing "justified." The same logic could be used by many congresspersons of the 60's & 70's to rationalize votes for Vietnam appropriations, etc.

Further - if this logic was valid, it would imply that to act OTHERWISE would have been UNethical, right? IOW, one could argue that it would have been UNethical for Kerry to vote against the IWR, because it would have reduced his chances to gain the White House, & ultimately become a force for peace.

Kerry can't be permitted to assume his own magnificent virtue as a valid rationale for taking unethical positions on votes. If he was allowed to do this, ALL 9 candidates would be justified in doing the same, since all 9 would be convinced that they, too, had to take an unethical position, to maximize their own chance of eventually being in position to be able to do highly ethical things!

Even Bush, or other highly-placed Republicans, could say, "Yeah, I went along with the party's position on Iraq, because I knew that they'd do it anyway, even if I tried to oppose it myself."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. You make a very good arguement on why Kerry acted sans calculation

and voted his conscience. And now I know why he was so bent out of shape a year ago as he spoke to the Senate on how he was going to vote- becasue nobody would understand him either way, and he was fucked no matter what.

[Eloriel]

74. Not quite

It's because of his unprincipled vote (self-serving, politically expedient) that he's fucked no matter what. Or rather until he renounces his vote.

And I'm just fine with that.

When you vote (or otherwise conduct yourself in alignment with your principles), you at least have that. And in Kerry's case (and Gephardt's and Edwards'), they'd have looked like principled men instead of having to figure out some twisted way to make their war votes LOOK like principled votes.

Eloriel

[NewYorkerfromMass]

76. unprincipled in your opinion

[sangh0]

36. That makes no sense

During the VN war, no party had a lock on the legislation. Right now, the Repukes have The House, The Senate, and the WH.

Further - if this logic was valid, it would imply that to act OTHERWISE would have been UNethical, right? IOW, one could argue that it would have been UNethical for Kerry to vote against the IWR, because it would have reduced his chances to gain the White House, & ultimately become a force for peace.

NO, the reason it would have been unethical is because if he were to vote NO no matter what the IWR said, then he wouldn't have had any leverage to negotiate a less damaging IWR. Because Kerry, and others, was willing to deal, the Dems were able to limit the IWR to Iraw alone, and require Bush* to go to the UN, and to report to Congress.

Even Bush, or other highly-placed Republicans, could say, "Yeah, I went along with the party's position on Iraq, because I knew that they'd do it anyway, even if I tried to oppose it myself."

You can't help oversimplifying the arguments of those who disagree with you, can you? It's just too easy to misportray Kerry's vote as being motivated by politics and nothing else, just as it's easy to ignore the crimes of OBL in order to make a point.

It's much harder to make an argument that takes into consideration the arguments your opponents are actually making.

[mrgorth]

44. Klaus Von Stauffenberg

tried to kill Hitler and end the Third Reich. In the end he and many of his cohorts were killed, his rebellion failed and Hitler had to be defeated the old fashioned way. Still, at least people can look and say that some germans tried to stop the madman and madness. You have to vote your conscious and if you're wrong you're wrong. Thus, I disagree with your assesment. Interesting thesis though.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

47. no, because his very action of "lying"

cancels out the honorable intent.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

49. Not really, Pete

it was pretty easy. unless I am a simpleton, which I am sure sangha will attest to. ;-)

[sangh0]

54. That's the thing about simpletons

Everything is easy for them. Just ask Bush*

[blm]

50. yeah...like those detectives who infiltrate the mob or KKK...

how dare they lie for the greater good.

For the record, I don't see Kerry as supporting IWR as a political maneuver. I think he negotiated for the better deal and PAID for that better deal with his vote. He did his DUTY.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

53. I understood the exercise.

I'm just naturally compelled to set the record straight on Kerry's duties in the negotiation process.

;)

[sangh0]

55. "the complexities of the other POV"????

You mean there's more to it besides "Kerry voted for war!!!"???

Who knew? :shrug:

[salin]

59. thanks sangha

I guess I am now a simplistic thinker? You and I differed on the war vote at the time, and we continue to do so. But I will not suggest that your POV is simplistic or noncomplex, I ask that you do not use a broad brush to do this to my POV. Sometimes in sarcasm, we throw spikes at those we may not intend to.

[sangh0]

61. You are one of a kind

and so my generalizations don't apply to you. You are the only poster I've seen who both disagrees with the IWR vote, and still recognizes the difference between supporters like Lieberman and Gephardt, and Kerry and Edwards.

[salin]

65. ah flattery will get you...

well a blush. But I have seen others reflect a similar view point. It just gets redundant to voice, and there are many of you to point it out for us ;-)

One is actually more likely to see the distinction made on threads related to Gephard (because lets face it, threads on Lieberman are never balanced and have few attempts to make themselves balanced).

I find the whole... the war vote meant or didn't mean... (fill in the blanks) threads in both directions, rather pointless exercises. Have yet to see anyone get an aha in the course of the thread. Just seems to be more devisive in the long run in terms of drawing more lines i the sand that end up serving as barriers later.

Thanks for recognizing that there can be complex POV that come from the other perspective on the issue.

[salin]

57. Kerry and Edwards are, in my book, in a very different situatin than

Gephardt and Lieberman. There were numerous ongoing negotiations to try to modify components of the resolution that were working across parties (in particular with Sen.s Hagel, Lugar and Spector). The decision to join the president in a publicity stunt to put pressure on congress, was a decision not just to support the war vote - but to undercut fellow democrats work to try to place some modifications/restrictive language into the resolution. The negotiations fell apart within hours. Their actions (along with DLC chair, and my senator Evan Bayh) are very different than the very hard place given to Kerry and Edwards.

I recognize the complexities, and that it is easier to hold controversial positions and discuss them when one didn't have to vote on them, thus straight comparison of Dean and Clark (or Sharpton and Braun), are not equal comparisons.

However, the vote doesn't just "go away" for me. It is there and factors into my overall read of each candidate. It makes it much less likely for the candidate to rise to my "first choice position". Sue me. But it does not prevent me from later coming on board. I understand the complexities, and I understand that these candidates (Kerry and Edwards) are far superior to the bozo in chief. But I can not quite so easily do some of the rationalizations that some of ya'll are capable of. But then I have never expected perfection in a candidate. I like to know the warts, and anticipate potential future actions based on those warts, and if possible by reading those indicatins become involved with larger groups of likeminded folks who are involved civically to try to tip the scale (in terms of decision/actions) of said office holder taking certain actions before it is inevitable. (okay naively I still believe in democratic participation and that it sometimes can have an impact.)

Sorry, but I will not be convinced that the war vote wasn't really a vote for the war resolution. Can't do it. But, as I said before I don't do a cross comparison with those who didn't have to vote for the resolution, nor will I let it color my ability to get behind a particular candidate. In the end I will look at the whole candidate and thier campaign. The war vote will be a part of that picture - just not the sum of the picture. As is my wont, as an independent thinker, to do.

[vision]

60. Kerry said that he would hold Bush responsible

How has he done it?

Has he lead filibusters in the Senate to derail Rupublican laws?

I was happy that he voted against the 85 billion on the recent Iraq bill but where was he before the vote?

He should be in the Senate stopping almost everything that the Repubs send down the pipe.

He said he would hold Bush responsible for the Iraq vote. I am waiting for him to stop something that Bush has tried to pass. Until he does it consistently I don't see how he is holding Bush responsible.

Over three hundred American soldiers have died and Bush has not appeared at one funeral. Has Kerry commented on this? That could be a way to hold Bush responsible. Kerry could be beating the drum everyday on the Senate floor and in the press but I don't see it happening.

To me it was a political vote, he had little opposition to re-election, that has served little purpose. If he was "holding" Bush responsible in a visable way I would respect his vote more. But so far I rarely see it.

[sangh0]

62. How he is DOING it

1st of all, no one does anything by themselves in the Senate. It takes 51 votes to get something passed, and 40 to stop something. However, within those parameters, Kerry has contributed to making part of the reconstruction funds a loan, and more importantly, he's going to teach Bush* a lesson on Election Day 2004.

[vision]

93. How many admendments has he offered?

I did appreciate his vote on the recent Iraq funding and acknowledged it. But what else? Like Avis he has to try harder and should be fighting tooth and nail everything that Bush puts out.

[sangh0]

126. I don't understand the relevance of amendments

IMO, the important thing is not who proposed the amendments, but who supported them and who didn't.

[HFishbine]

67. Logic Error, Logic Error

"then why not vote in a way that helped get him into the White House"

You are trying to rebut the argument that Kerry's vote will hurt his chances for the White House. Fair enough. But you cannot build your argument on your desired conclusion. Your assertion that his vote increased his chances is your end point, not a supporting argument.

(There's a term for this. Any debaters? I saw a web site not too long ago that had definitions and explainations of a variety of debating falacies. Anybody know where it is?)

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HFishbine]

69. Found it

If anybody's interested, this page offers some great insight into debate and logic errors:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

The case I was trying to describe above described as:

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"

Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."

So, back to Kerry's vote, some are trying to tell us it was wise for him to do it because it makes him more electable, but they haven't told us why it makes him more electable.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hep]

83. Is this it?

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

[welshTerrier2]

78. No No No No No .... and one more thing: NO !!!

this is just a terrible line of thought ...

i am not going to keep an open mind when it comes to political expediency arguments justifying bush-enabling votes ... it is wrong to measure kerry's vote by the standard of "bush would have invaded anyway ..." ...

let's establish a few basic facts here ... there was NO imminent threat ... that means that people of good conscience should have known that the invasion was not justified ... it was either self-defense or it was not ...

secondly, we either knew that bush was a lying pile of doggy doo or we did not ... anyone who read the PNAC program and watched the propaganda machine should have known the evidence was all fabricated ... all of it !!! this is not to say that people should have known Saddam did not have WMD's ... most believed he did ... but the evidence presented was clearly nonsense ... and possession of WMD's did not, in my view, meet the "imminent threat" standard ... and Kerry, himself, acknowledged that he did not believe there was an imminent threat ...

Kerry argued that he strongly favored more diplomacy and that war should only be used as a last resort ... i couldn't agree more !!!

and for this reason, he was dead wrong to go along with bush ...

now, as to the "it would have happened anyway" argument, the problem is that the role of a leader is to lead and to educate and to persuade ... Kerry's role, if he really believed the war was unjustified, was not to seek a politically expedient path but rather to do everything he could to educate the electorate on his position ... perhaps if there had been a real democratic opposition, the IWR would have required more accountability ... perhaps an invasion would have required a higher threshold of proof ... the point isn't to suggest that anti-war forces would have succeeded ... the point is to say that perhaps a few more minds would have been changed ... perhaps a more clearly defined exit strategy would have been developed ... perhaps bush's failing popularity would have started sooner ...

by going along with bush, americans were left with a one-party government at a most critical time ... and what message did this unity send to the rest of the world ... it made it seem like there was virtually no real opposition ...

your post comes at a most unfortunate time ... this is not the time you should be trying to justify Kerry's vote on politically expedient grounds ... give it a rest already ... Kerry's IWR vote was an atrocity ... and why do i say his vote came at such a bad time
???

Kerry's campaign seems to be showing a new energy over the past couple of weeks ... his performance on last night's Tweety show was excellent ... and I, one of his harshest critics because of his hideous bush-enabling IWR vote, greatly appreciated his courage and vision to stand in opposition to the madness of the war by voting against the $87 billion ... that vote has allowed me to "look past" Kerry's IWR vote ... it's not forgiveness ... it's a willingness to take a real second look at Kerry ... of the candidates who currently seem viable, Kerry may well be the democrats best chance ...

i'm very far from giving him an endorsement, but i would say to the many DU'ers who jumped on the Dean bandwagon early in the campaign (as I did), that a second look doesn't cost much and might be the best thing for the party ... Dean has many fine qualities ... so does Kerry ... go read Kerry's website ... learn about the candidate ... make the best choice ... my advice would be not to rush to judgment to hastily ... i'm afraid doing so may not bring about the results we all seek ...

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

85. academic speculation or bona fide argument ??

it seemed to me your base post when beyond merely proposing an academic hypothetical ... i came away with the feeling that you were asking us to "allow for the possibility that Kerry's vote may have actually been influenced by political expediency" ...

the following line from your post was consistent with your "let's explore" theme:

But let's assume for argument's sake that Kerry's was a purely political vote.

but then you seemed to use phrases that walked a little closer to the edge:

then how is his vote unethical ... the use of "is" seemed to change the tone of your post ... i would have preferred something like: "if kerry thought ... then how WOULD (conditional) his vote be unethical?"

and here, i think you crossed the line from speculation to argument:

The ethical aspects of the issue are far more complex than they're made out to be by Kerry's detractors. ... if you had stated, if Kerry had believed that ... then the ethical aspects WOULD BE (conditional) far more complex ...

and finally, swimming upstream against a hypothetical proposition (i.e. WHAT IF Kerry had thought ...), you just couldn't resist coming to the defense of his vote yet again:

I still believe that he was trying to remain consistent with his 1997-98 position ...

perhaps i did miss your point entirely ... i hope you can see what may have led me down the wrong path ... don't mean to nitpick on the language ... i can see where you're coming from ...

my key point was that this is not ever going to be a good issue for Kerry (at least not in the primaries) ... his supporters would fare better asking DU'ers to focus on his excellent opposition to the $87 billion and his non-IWR excellent voting record ... even as a theoretical point, a new perspective on Kerry's IWR vote brings discussions better left unbrought (is that a word?) ... let sleeping dogs lie ...

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

87. no problem, pete

my strongest theme regarding Kerry right now is that DU'ers, even totally dedicated Deanies, should never stop learning about the candidates ... it's OK to be for Dean and still learn about Kerry ...

it's OK to agree with Kerry on many issues even if you support Dean ... it's OK to say Dean is wrong and Kerry's position is better on some issues ...

DU has become foolishly partisan ... too many pro-Dean or pro-Kerry threads seem to argue that "my candidate is always right because i support him" (i'm not referring to your posts) ... we have time and we're wasting it if we don't take the best ideas from each candidate's campaign ...

DU needs a little bit less cheerleading and a little more analysis of the issues ... issues should lead us to candidates ... not the other way around ...

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[poskonig]

80. Here's how Kerry should get out of this:

Saddam did not let the inspectors in until November. The IWR was signed in October. Therefore, Kerry could argue that there was no way to tell Hussein would let the inspectors in, and letting Bush pile troops on his borders facilitated that end.

This makes Kerry appear

1) Responsible
2) Concerned for the security of the United States
3) Serious about stopping weapons proliferation
4) Not tied with the Bush foreign policy
5) Principled, not calculating.

[PATRICK]

89. Conceding and maneouvering

away the lives of thousands and putting a "conditional" seal of approval on the means because a few of the ends seemed justifiable. That is hard to get over OR not knowing Bush would take the opening and use that to more easily blast away the women and kids.

The way I ee it the Dems spread out according to the safety of their seats(pun?) from most outspoekn(Byrd, Kucinich) on across the spectrum to the squelched Daschle. Maybe leadership isn't that clear a concept anymore.

Or must we hope that the rest of the world will stop Bush?

[quaker bill]

95. Kerry on the war, yesterday

Kerry put up an interesting argument. My reading is that he was trying to state the he was right to give Bush* the absolute authority to go to war. In short that he was right to give Bush* license to be wrong.

He stated that the premise of his vote on IWR was stated was that the intelligence on Iraq was very compelling and justified a war under the "right" circumstances. He also said for a commander in chief to go to war, he has to be able to look the dead soldier's parents in the eye and be able to say "it was necessary".

A question, How much less important is it for a Senator to be able to do the same? It is no less important to my mind. I think that is just what the framers had in mind when they drafted the constitution to require congressional consent.

He falls back on the conundrum, War on Iraq would have been right if Bush* had proceeded properly, or perhaps if Russia, France, and Germany had signed on.

Bombing innocent civilians over non-existant WMD's is never right regardless of who signs on. It is not a matter of personal or diplomatic style. There simply was no way to "do this right".

Kerry's line on the war has gotten better over the months. It still does not work for me, but it might for some.

I see a problem here and it probably applies to all IWR supporters. If they continue to say that the intelligence was compelling enough to eventually justify a war, then when Bush started it and who he got on board first was just a judgement call. Bush can just say that Germany, France, and Russia were owed a lot of money by Saddam and would never have come on board. So Bush* might say proceeding without them was the only way to do what "we both agreed was right". "I had the job and the guts to exercise true leadership on this". Checkmate.

The "I was lied to about Iraq, the war was wrong, and I am running to kick this lying b**tard out of office" position would have been much stronger. It would also nicely correspond to the facts we have learned since the war began.

Assuming, as you suggest, that Kerry's Iraq vote was for political expediency only compounds the problem to my mind. If the standard Kerry proposes for Bush* applies, would he be able to say to those parents of a dead soldier, "This war was necessary for my re-election". How on earth does that fly?

Don't get me wrong, I like Kerry. He is not my first choice, but if he gets the nom. he gets my time, money, and vote. But this was an ugly and ill-considered vote and there is no spinning over it. It will cripple his run for President, because this is one of our best issues and he won't be able to use it forcefully.

[blm]

97. You may be interested in MWO's assessment from last night.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=568722&mesg_id=569200&page=

[quaker bill]

98. It is interesting

So perhaps as I said, his line works for some.

Many who supported the war in concept at the time are perhaps still in denial. We all want to believe our troops are doing a "good thing". They are not prepared to admit that the entire thing was, as Senator Kennedy said: "a fraud cooked up in Texas for political purposes".

I knew it at the time, and if I, a wetlands ecologist working in Florida knew it, how could a Senator in Washington not?

Again, Mr. Kerry's vote does not live up to the standard he sets for shrub. Further, it still leaves him drawing "shades of gray" distinctions between his position and Bush*.

[blm]

101. No Senator controls a decision for war.

One can only negotiate for a curtailing of that decision where possible.

[quaker bill]

110. His vote is a statement of conscience

Kerry puts the decision in the firmest terms of conscience. He said:

"Can you look the parents of a dead soldier in the eye and say: this was necessary"

This is a high standard. It is the standard he wishes, in his own words, to apply to Bush*. I think it is a reasonable standard and wish Bush* had applied it.

I also wish Kerry had applied it to his vote. In his own words, he did not.

I can get with the notion of barter and political negotiation when it comes to agricultural subsidies. You strike the best deal you can. Hell, I do it every day.

This vote authorized the use of "all necessary force" apparently to include the dropping of 2000 pound bombs on a city with a civilian population of 4 million people. This was a decision with substantial moral content, old testament style.

It was gut check time. In response to the original post, the entire notion that he did this to further his chances of re-election is morally repugnant. It is not something he could say to the parents of a dead soldier. All I can say is what would Paul Wellstone think?

A man who once ran Vietnam Veterans Against the War needs desperately to come up with a better line than this.

[blm]

115. When a parent withholds medicine as a matter of conscience, a child dies.

Kerry and the other negotiating Dems could either seek a better remedy that curtailed Bush where they could or withhold ALL support which would lead to the certain deaths of even more.

Any Dem lawmaker charged with the responsibility to get a better deal and DIDN'T bother to negotiate would be DERELICT OF DUTY.

[sangh0]

121. It's called "The Goldilocks Theory"

The choice is never merely one of "Yes or No". If you're willing to negotiate and compromise, there's always an alternative that falls in between.

[killbotfactory]

96. Opposition to the Iraq War needed all the help it could get.

If more democrats had spoken up about what a horrible idea invading Iraq was, instead of fearing a dip in the polls or being branded unpatriotic by Tom Delay, or wanting to get the issue off the table as quickly as possible because they don't poll well on the issue of national security, who knows what could have happened? It's that kind of politics that I hate. And invading Iraq was such a horrible, horrible idea. Everything that's happened so far has been completely predictable. But no, Bush just spouted nonsense about 9/11, mushroom clouds, and Al Qaeda, and the democrats rolled over and played dead. They gave token critisicm of Bush on the leadup to war, and then played dead again when he invaded.

I don't support that behavior. No one will trust democrats on national security as long as they keep acting like poll-watching sissies who are afraid of presenting a coherent viewpoint, and keep letting republicans define the terms of debate.

I disagree with Kerry's political maneuvering.
I disagree with his vote.
I disagree with his vague doublespeak on the issue in a vain attempt to position himself to best exploit the Iraq situation no matter which way it turned out.
And at a time when I was ashamed of what my country was rushing headlong into such a horrible and obvious mistake, Kerry wasn't on my side.

Sorry, I don't see any nobility in his actions.

[quaker bill]

99. I concur

see my posts above.

[blm]

103. Baloney...It's all political agenda for you. Kerry and Dean

aren't all that different in their original positions and you know it. If Biden-Lugar had passed with Bush still taking us into Iraq, you'd be listing all the brave reasons for Dean's position on it here. You use distorted PERCEPTION to further smear Kerry. MWO sees it, too in certain Dem operatives.

>>>>>>
John Kerry patiently explains to Chris Matthews that sometimes things are complicated in life (Hardball -10/20):

MATTHEWS:   I don’t hear that clarity in your answer right now-the clarity of being for or against the damn war.

KERRY: Well, Chris, God bless you, but I have to tell you, man, sometimes in foreign policy, certain things are complicated. Life is complicated. And the fact is, that there was a legitimate rationale for the United States to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but there was every reason in the world to hold him accountable properly.
>>>>>>>>

A new poll shows a majority of Democratic voters in three early primary states saying they prefer a candidate who originally supported action in Iraq, but who has since criticized Bush's disastrously incompetent handling of the issue.

As we have said many times, it is a Rovian/media whore lie to present an Iraq position like Senator John Kerry's as inconsistent.  Those who level that charge, including other Democrats, do so dishonestly, as they fully understand there is no inconsistency in Kerry's Iraq record.  Cheap claims otherwise are made in the hope that a segment of Moron-Americans will be convinced.  (Claims that Democrats could have defeated the Iraq resolution in 2002 are equally mendacious, as is the claim that Democrats could have avoided losses in that election had Senator Kerry and others taken a stronger stand against an Iraq invasion.)

The fact is, the views of most Americans have evolved significantly on the issue in terms of support for the war, and how the Unelected Fraud handled it.  A vast majority, including significant numbers of Democrats, gave the Bush Regime the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but eventually began to recognize later the "war" was based on lies and deceit, and had been badly mishandled to the detriment of American status and security.

Regardless of how aggressively the media whores attempt to sell the myth of support for action in Iraq later followed by criticism of the White House Squatter as a Democratic "liability" - especially for the Democratic primaries - the majority of Americans at large and Democrats will not only continue to understand that position, but, as the poll shows, support it above others.
>>>>>
More at mediawhoresonline

[killbotfactory]

105. No, It's all political agenda for Kerry

I am very pissed off about the war, and I was not impressed with Kerry's statements or actions, and don't see any compelling arguement for why he was right or justified.

I disagree with your take on Biden-Lugar as well.

After reading the transcript of Hardball, and his distortions and nonsense he was saying about Dean, I respect his judgement even less, and he just pisses me off even more.

Here's what he says:

Let me correct you. Howard Dean is not clear and he is not simple. He has, in fact, embraced several positions. One of which is the Biden-Lugar amendment which, in fact, gave authorization to the president but under a slightly different wrinkle than the one we passed. Howard Dean also said he believed there were weapons of mass destruction. He believed that Colin Powell was correct.

Now the question that has to be asked is, once you’ve come to that conclusion, what are you going to do about it?

What you should do about it is precisely what I and Tom Harkin and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and a whole bunch of us thought we should do. Which is, go to the United Nations. Properly go through the inspection process. Build a legitimate international coalition and, in fact, exhaust the remedies available to you. And if you need to go to war, you go to war because you have a sense that the country has come to the point where it has no other option.

A total oversimplification of the situation and Dean's position. Is it because Kerry is an idiot, or is he a liar?

Kerry described Biden-Lugar in his own words:

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar, because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and delivery vehicles. The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted by the resolution, to send a determination to the Congress that the United States has tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great that he must act absent a new U.N. resolution. I believe that this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority that Congress was giving the President.

Slightly different wrinkle? Strike One.

Dean thought there were WMD's in Iraq, he did not, however, agree with Powell or believe they were a proven threat to the US or our allies.

Strike two.

Then he says we should only go to war if it is the last resort, and Bush was wrong. That's not what he said on the eve of war or after, which was his "preference" would be for more diplomacy, but Saddam brought war upon himself, and he supported Bush's decision to "disarm" Iraq.

Strike Three.

Then he says all the intellegence said Iraq was an immediate threat and we had to do something, but the way Bush did it was wrong. I disagree. By Kerry's own admission, there was nothing he knew about Iraq that the public didn't know. And I knew there was no hard proof that Iraq was a threat. I actually was keeping track of the news, which kept discrediting more and more lies on the leadup to war. I guess Kerry didn't pay attention.

And the pitcher throws the ball at the back of Kerry's head as he's walking back to the dugout.

Kerry's idiotic posturing is an insult to anyone who was paying attention at the time.

[Andy_Stephenson]

106. Amen!

I am saving this in ma file. E gads how do you find that stuff? How do you remember the dates.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[killbotfactory]

108. For one.

Kerry is saying there is just a wrinkle of difference between the amendment and the actual IWR. I disagree, and obviuosly, so did he when he voted for IWR. That is my criticism.

That was his position in the beginning. He said there were no nuclear weapons, no Al-Qaeda links, and no evidence that Saddam could attack the united states with WMD. Obviously, he did not agree with Powell, and Kerry lied.

And nevermind that the so called "many positions" Dean had were even self-contradictory by what Kerry said on Hardball.

I was talking about his hardball appearance, not his oct. 9th speech.

Here's a quote:

In other words, in Iraq, we had a legitimate threat, according to every intelligence indicator we were given. But we hadn’t built the coalition. We didn’t have a plan to win the peace. The president rushed to war. I said so at the time. I said I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy. I don’t know how you can be more clear than that.

So, I misquoted. He said legitimate.

He also supported Bush's decision to invade. Kerry is being as clear as mud.

[blm]

119. Only when you throw mud into it.

Kerry's position is clear to those WITHOUT political agendas.

MWO has you nailed on that count.

[killbotfactory]

128. Really? Here's what I've heard from Kerry.

Why did Kerry vote for the IWR?

1.) He wanted to give Bush the authority to invade so that Bush would comply with inspections.
2.) Bush could invade whenever he wanted and Kerry was negotiating so that Bush would go to the UN and minimize any damage that Bush may cause.

Did Kerry support Bush's decision to invade?

1.) He would have preferred more diplomacy, but when Bush decided to disarm Saddam, he agreed with that decision. Saddam brought action on himself, even Blix said Saddam was not complying.
2.) No, not the way Bush did it. I wanted more diplomacy and Bush rushed to war.

I don't care what MWO says, but to me it looks like fence straddling political cowardice.

[Andy_Stephenson]

109. I wonder?

"Dean thought there were WMD's in Iraq, he did not, however, agree with Powell or believe they were a proven threat to the US or our allies..."

Dean was not privy to the information Kerry was, was he?

[quaker bill]

114. Niether was I

But I still thought Iraq was at worst a minor menace, well contained by existing policy.

Saddam was never going to give WMD's (even if he had them) to folks that had issued a fatwa calling for his death. Saddam did not survive 25 years as the dictator of Iraq by being that stupid.

I expected that we would find nothing in the WMD search. He had WMD's in great quantity in 1991 and did not use them against us. We were the only viable threat to his regime. If he could not use them in 1991 against his only true enemy, for whatever reason, why them spend very limited cash on making more?

Remember, before the war, we controlled 2/3 of his airspace and bombed his country on a weekly basis. Saddam was bright enough to figure out that we were the ones that had it in for him.

This is why he spent the year before the war reportedly handing out AK-47's and RPG's to anyone who would offer to use them against us, and apparently planning quite well how to hide out once we got there.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. I am just a wetlands ecologist who is moderately good at chess.

[quaker bill]

112. Thanks again

Well said.

[blm]

117. Your job here is to make Dean a hero and Kerry a hack.

I've read your posts from the beginning. Your principles coincide with whatever Dean needs.

[killbotfactory]

124. I don't have a job

I care about this issue and side with Dean on it.

In my first post I didn't even mention Dean. A lot of other democrats got this issue right, as well as millions of people who opposed the damn war in the first place.

[blm]

125. If you cared about it with the sincerity you say you do,

then you'd side with Kucinich.

MWO has your number. Democrats just trying to score points when their own actual position wasn't that much different.

[killbotfactory]

127. MWO has their own opinion

I don't care about appeals to authority on the issue.

Kerry talked out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, so I'm not surprised he held a similar position to Dean's at one time.

[quaker bill]

111. Wrong.

I am not a shill for Dean or anyone else for that matter.

Character is character. When it came time to vote on a clear issue of conscience, where was the man who led Vietnam Vets against the War?

Was he perhaps voting in fear of Bush/Rove?

Max Cleland got it. Care to question his character or patriotism?

[blm]

116. Your premise is incorrect.

.

[sangh0]

123. "A clear issue of conscience"?????

Given the wide variety of opinions expressed in this one thread, I find it out that you would charactize the morality of this vote as "clear". It sounds as if you are "begging the question" by assuming at the outset that the only conscionable vote was a "No"