Kerry slams “Bushes, the Cheneys, the armchair warriors" on “immoral” war

[ProSense]

Snip...

Clinton’s attempt to strike a moderate stance on the divisive issue of the war contrasted sharply with the angry words of another potential presidential contender, Sen. John Kerry, the party’s 2004 standard-bearer, who called the war “immoral” and a “quagmire.”

Snip...

Kerry, who was hammered for cautious statements on the war in his 2004 run for president, referred to the “Bushes, the Cheneys, the armchair warriors whose front line is an air conditioned conference rooms.”

Kerry called Iraq a quagmire and compared it to the Vietnam War, in which he served.

“It was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong and could not be won. And in 2006 it is both a right and an obligation for Americans to stand up to a president who is wrong today,” the Massachusetts senator said.

Kerry said it is time to “end a war in Iraq that weakens the nation each and every day it goes on.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13297488

[saltpoint]

1. Kerry's right. He was right in the early 70s and he's right this

afternoon.

This puts still more pressure on BushCo to explain to Americans why young men and women are in Iraq. We are yet to hear a convincing rationale since no WsMD were located.

[LittleClarkie]

2. He's in full throttle now

He might have taken longer than some would have wished. A very deliberate man is he. But he's there now. And I'm very proud of him. THIS is the man I supported for president.

[paparush]

3. Its SO too bad that Kerry voted in favor of the war Resolution.

It really undermines his credibility on this issue.

I know, he's basically come out and said, "Hey, we were lied to. I'm guilty of believing the President." But still, I'm just saying, its a shame Kerry voted like he did.

[blm]

5. Why? Had no Democrats bothered negotiating that Resolution, we would've

had NO WEAPONS INSPECTIONS and no further diplomatic efforts and Iran and Syria would have been the next IMMEDIATE targets.

Is that what you would prefer? Because Bush already HAD the votes to have War HIS WAY.

[neoblues]

6. How do you figure?

Those are some sizeable leaps. Besides, if Kerry hadn't voted for the war--it wouldn't have changed a thing. It would've taken a significantly larger negative vote--and no doubt the Bush mal-Administration had other plans up their sleeves.

[blm]

8. I think you misunderstood - I acknowledge Bush was going in anyway -

the Dems HAD to participate to get a better bill - and that is what people seem to forget in their efforts to attack the Dems who supported the IWR. The alternative was Bush having a bill he REALLY WANTED that would have given him a free ticket to Iran and Syria, too.

[neoblues]

74. We may have a difference of opinions.

To hear Kerry tell it, his vote to authorize the use of force against IRAQ was intended to provide Bush with credibility to strengthen his ability to threaten Saddam (to be taken seriously), and that he was disturbed when Bush just used the power to up and invade without having proper plans (at least for the aftermath). Not that I'd consider anything Lieberman has to say as having much validity, but he found such an explanation "unbelievable" and said Kerry should explain exactly how he felt he had been misled. Of course, Lieberman also "couldn't" understand how someone could vote to authorize force and then fail to vote for appropriations to enable the war. Which, is really rather obvious--a commonly understood mechanism by which Congress "is supposed" to be able reign in a war-minded President--by simply not providing the funding. Alas, when tested, such a notion falls flat on its face, because--at least nowadays, the President has no qualms against making the case that anyone who doesn't vote to provide for the troops (which he's already irrevocably committed) isn't just trying to prevent the war, but is really a "traitor" and doesn't care about our people in uniform.

Kerry's explanation did sound reasonable to me, as awkward and seemingly predictably ineffective as such a strategy would be, but I wasn't there and somehow wasn't copied on any of the memos. However, according to other accounts and analyses I've read, there was a great deal of political pressure (and political threats) levied against Democrats to go along--or they'd face the Republican smear machine and be lucky to get reelected--as no one would vote for anyone who didn't stand up for our national security and/or support our troops (which, even by then, had already set up camp in the middle east--and would probably be invading no matter what). That, and the fact that the Bush Administration had provided Congress with misleading (ie. "fixed", "cherry picked", etc) intelligence reports and information--making the case for war seem stronger than it should have been. The intelligence community generally did think IRAQ had WMDs, though the extent to which they had them was anybody's guess and they should never have been quoted as saying so without also including their disclaimers that they really just didn't know. Truth be told, few Congressmen even read farther than the five page summary of the National Intelligence Report they'd been provided with anyway. Thus, Democrats, by and large, caved into the pressure whether they had any reservations or not and/or believed the intelligence as provided and consequently voted to support the authorization.

If Kerry was right and honest in his interpretation--that Bush really did need a "big stick" with which to threaten Saddam in order to get him to... well, by that point, I suppose the argument was that he should step down--no more tedious demands that he disarm, but rather that he must go... well, I probably would have voted for it. After all, they didn't really yet know just how utterly mendacious, abusive towards tradition, intentionally defiant towards rules and restraint and downright consumed Bush was with crushing Saddam Hussein. They figured they could trust him and that he wouldn't do anything as insane as actually invading--despite the clear preparations for war and the over the top rhetoric... Obviously, I'm assuming that at least many of the Democrats didn't really think he'd break with the whole world, ignore the U.N., Nuremberg precedents and go it alone in such an invasion. If so, little did they know. Appropos quote (said jokingly): "International law? I better call my lawyer" --GWB.

Speculating on what would have happened if they hadn't agreed is almost as hard as predicting the future. Perhaps even if they'd managed party unity, they would've still been beaten. Though, if they had, we'd still have gotten the same authorization--nothing more, since that was what they were voting on. Of course, if they could have managed to delay the vote... well, no, because they'd have needed to delay it by a month or even several months to have made much difference. What was needed was to be able to send the weapons inspectors in for one last set of searches--another couple of months worth. They couldn't have managed anything like that. Any delay, though, might have had more profound effects--because owing to the time of year and subsequent climate effects, the military had set some deadlines--and time was running out. I'm not sure I give that one much credence because all it would have meant was having to do the job in dreadfully high desert temperatures--unpleasant but it doesn't seem likely to stop the show. Alas.

Curiously, at the time, the majority of citizens was against the idea of an unprovoked invasion, not only because it would be a violation of international law and stand as an example of a scary new policy of preemptive war, but because it would be war and involve American casualties. Amazingly, once we went in and following the almost hypnotic, ubiquitous multi-media coverage... and seemingly conflating support for the troops with support for the war itself, public opinion reversed dramatically. If asked, most people wouldn't even remember they'd ever been against the war. Be that as it may, since things haven't gone well and continue to provide a continuous stream of bad news... that public opinion has finally turned against the war (just a bunch of flip-floppers, the public, that is).

Okay, back to the topic at hand. I read other's who, after having discovered how explicit and all-encompassing the IWR is conclude that it's ridiculous to think that anyone who voted for it could possibly claim that "they weren't voting for war". Literally speaking, they're right--it basically says it's okay for Bush to make war and that they agree with his reasons. However, it's probably rather rare for Congressmen to actually agree with everything written in every document they vote for. Even more obviously, it seems that anyone who would say that their claim is ridiculous doesn't have much of a grasp of human psychology or the virtually constant act of rationalizing one's actions/thoughts/behaviors. Everyone does it, practically all the time. In order to relieve the pressure and get through the situation, many Congressmen signed something they probably didn't agree with--and rationalized that "Well, Bush won't really be so rash as to actually use it..., but now the world will take him seriously". Then again, perhaps they were indeed caught up in the fervor, went along and later came up with that rationalization. However, knowing the general ideologies of the Democrats involved, the latter seems less likely. Plainly they agreed to something that was absurdly deferential to the President and in doing so forsook their duty as members of Congress to oversee the President (and giving up the responsibility of declaring war, a-priori was certainly abdicating their role in the process--though it certainly streamlined the process of starting a war).

You can relate whatever points you agree or disagree with up to this point as you want (I'm open to suggestions, corrections and improvements), but it's really the following latter portion of your argument I don't understand. You say they "had to" vote for the IWR because the alternative was a resolution that was even more favorable to Bush. The thing is, somehow I missed that proposition as well as any discussion of how the fear of it supplied the pressure required to get Democrats to approve the lesser resolution. I haven't read or yet heard mentioned anything about such an alternative resolution involving a superset of the IWR. If true, perhaps it should be called the MWR or "Middle-east War Resolution" as it would allow for unchecked war-powers against IRAQ, IRAN and Syria... Heck, if we're going that far, we might as well have drafted the TWR or "Total War Resolution" in which Bush can go to war with anyone, anywhere, anytime and for any reason whatsoever. OhWait... he can do that already. (gulp) Anyway, if you can direct me to anything describing this alternative and how the fear of it forced the Democrats to vote for the IWR, I'd be happy to check it out (and even revise my opinion if it's convincing enough; no fixed minds here--limited only by the availability and quality of input).

[LittleClarkie]

9. I dunno. If he keeps coming out like it's 1971, then I think his cred is

still intact.

He's apologized. He's said he was wrong. He's taken his share of the responsibility. He's going gangbusters now, whether his cred is intact or not.

So are ya going to call your Senators or ain't ya.

[paparush]

34. I tend to agree with you there...he has consistently been vocal against

the war and saying, far to kindly, that were were 'mislead'.

What he should be screaming is that we were LIED to, repeatedly, by an administration with a coordinated agenda to conjure false evidence to support their campaign of LIES.

[LittleClarkie]

40. Here ya go

He comes pretty damn close right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2676328#2676353

Complete a very simple. "I was wrong. The war is wrong."

[paparush]

61. Thanks! nt

[GOTV]

10. Even worse...

... was saying during the campaign that, even if he knew then what he knows now, he'd STILL support the invasion.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Newsweek explained that to my satisfaction

It was a fuck up to be sure, but then having a new conference at the Grand Canyon when your candidate has a hearing problem WOULD be a fuckup.

[blm]

14. Not accurate - supporting the resolution that could have prevented war

is not the same as supporting the invasion.

In fact, Kerry consistently said Bush didn't HAVE to go to war and that the IWR had weapons inspections and diplomacy efforts that were WORKING, so Bush shouldn't RUSH to war.

Maybe the left and the media should have supported Kerry more on that, because it really was the truth.

[GOTV]

15. I understand the difference...

... it was still an incredibly stupid meme to put out there into the media.

And NOW, now that he's calling the war immoral, the question will form in people's minds "but, he said he would've supported the invasion even without WMDs and ties to Al-Qeada. Is he still flip-flopping". Some people will think that on their own and the rest will be told to think that by the media.

And then Kerry will have to try to explain to people why voting for IWR was not the same as a vote for the invasion and people will start to tune out and wonder why everything has to be a dissertation with those liberals and why can't they just say what they mean and who's on American Idol tonight.... Ugh, it's so frustrating to be prescient.

Point is, he screwed himself over, big time, by answering that question in a way an intelligent and thoughtful man should have in the presense of his collegues and not answering it in a way appropriate for the news which would have required him to use the question as a springboard to attack the current administration.

[ProSense]

18. "Wrong" does not mean supporting the invasion.

Kerry says he was wrong believe Bush would abide by the resolution, he has said Bush misled the country with faulty intelligence, but he has never supported Bush's illegal war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

[GOTV]

22. Thank you for the link but....

... I don't see the support for your statement that "Kerry says he was wrong believe Bush would abide by the resolution". I'm not sayingn Kerry never said it, just that your link doesn't seem to support it.

I only skimmed the page because it's quite a few paragraphs and deals mostly with issues that are not part of this thread.

Unless it's in one of the many links from that page.

[ProSense]

23. He has said it many times and this is paraphrased. Here in his own words

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

[blm]

20. Well, let's just see how well anyone does in dealing with Iraq -

the media can alter any of their actual positions to fit their storyline.

Just like the corporate media turned Dean into a radical, anti-war leftist when he was actually NONE of those and, in fact, supported the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR and governed for 11yrs as a centrist. But, the truth didn't fit the media's storyline for the Dems did it?

[karynnj]

36. that's a misquote

he didn't say he was for the invasion. You are taking one comment and ignoring a million others. I think he will handle it as he has recently, saying that he was wrong to give Bush his vote - and go from there - without the dissertation - just as you recommend.

Who does that comment really hurt him with? I think most anti-war people know with near certainty that he would not have gone to war as President. If he wins the nomination, I doubt that will be a major issue. I really suspect that it comes mostly from those preferring another candidate or still resent Kerry winning the nomination. Otherwise, why aren't stronger, repeated Edwards comments that he was actually FOR the war throughout 2003 repeated.

[GOTV]

45. Yes, that's true...

... he said he stood behind his IWR vote which is not the same thing as supporting the invasion. I think to most Americans it IS the same thing. I've had to explain that many times.

"I think he will handle it as he has recently, saying that he was wrong to give Bush his vote - and go from there - without the dissertation - just as you recommend."

Let's hope so.

"Who does that comment really hurt him with?"

Those in the middle that thought that maybe he was a political opportunist. This could reinforce that perception.

Listen to the MP3 that was referenced in this thread. Even there where he admits his regret the next thing that comes out of his mouth sounds like he's trying to equivocate.

He should say "Like many I supported the President, but he lied to us, and I regret my support". It will be hard to stick with that when they come back at him and say "Yeah, but why did you say the IWR vote was the right vote in spite of the lies in 2004?"

[ProSense]

49. Why should he say that? It's not true! You want him to lie?

Which is more important: expressing regret for trusting Bush or trying to stop the war?

[GOTV]

51. Trying to stop the war is the most important...

... and he can be more effective at that goal if he can explain his IWR vote. People wrongly look at that as a flip-flop.

[ProSense]

53. Agree : stopping the war is most important, the rest

I'll leave to your faulty perception of what really happened! OK!

[karynnj]

64. The flip flop language is the problem

Kerry answers it easily - he was wrong. For those wanting a more detailed answer, he's given it. In fact he's given answers at all levels of complexity. He is an honest man.

[GOTV]

68. But why did it take so long to realize it?

He was wrong would have been a great response in 2004. But in 2004 his opinion was - he was right.

What has happened since 2004 to convince him he was wrong that did not happen in 2003 or 2004? People will ask him that. Kerry must know that better than anyone and if his answer requires people to understand the difference between the IWR and the actual invasion well, I have no faith that they will understand. But "flip-flop" they do understand.

I just hope he doesn't feel that he's admitted his IWR vote was a mistake and now it's done and behind him. At the first sign that Kerry is a threat the GOP will remind everyone of this.

[karynnj]

66. Because the proof he lied was the Downing Street Memo

that became available in 2005. Kerry was the most prominent person to speak of the DSM and he wrote a letter demanding the Intelligence committee do the Part 2 investigation of the WMD and got 9 Senators to sign.

In 2004, we KNEW the intelligence had been wrong. We didn't know that Bush and co manipulated the intelligence. The lies WERE not not proven in 2004. In Kerry's Oct 26 Georgetown speech - those lies and distortions were listed as the new information that made him realize that he was wrong to trust Bush.

I don't like your sentence - as it could easily be interrepted as supporting the President in attacking Iraq when he did - which you have agreed he never did.

[GOTV]

70. Messaging is tricky business

"I don't like your sentence - as it could easily be interrepted as supporting the President in attacking Iraq when he did - which you have agreed he never did."

Yes, I agree. I don't envy politicians and how careful they need to be with every statement. Clearly it's not a strength of mine.

[bdamomma]

28. I agree

Kerry did not support the war,(and didn't he (Kerry say that) and that war was the last resort after exhausting all options, they (bush cabal) did not let the weapons inspectors finish with their assessment of the so called WMD's. What do you guys think?

[karynnj]

38. I remember Kerry saying what you said in EVERY rally I

watched on CSPAN, on the debates and in interviews. (Reading your post, I can virtually hear the words you typed - along with "wrong war ..."

[wisteria]

25. Please don't repeat misleading statements. Go back and research

the statement. You will see, it doesn't apply to this matter.

[GOTV]

32. I think it does apply...

... the the matter of the post I replied to.

[wisteria]

27. Self delete! n/t

[Mass]

13. SO Murtha and others should stop calling for an end to the war?

Actually, it increases their credibility, not the opposite.

Only idiots like * cant recognize when they make an error.

[GOTV]

19. Has Kerry said he made an error?

I agree with you that it's a good position to take. That is: "I supported our president in his stance against Iraq when I believed in him but now that I know he lied to us I no longer trust him or support his policies."

However I don't think Kerry is saying that. During the election I think his point was, it was right to support pressuring Iraq with militiary force but that the war was being foughth incompetently. How he's gone a step further and called the war immoral.

Where has he admitted a mistake relative to the Iraq war?

[Mass]

21. AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Sorry if you are not listening

He has said it about 1 million times in the last few months, including today, in this speech,

We were given evidence that was not true. It was wrong and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution,

. He has said that so often that the media do not bother repeating it. For any informed person, it is a known fact!

He has also said earlier, during the campaign, that, if he had been president, he would not have gone to war. What part of "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" dont you understand.

[GOTV]

26. The part I don't understand is....

.... is how "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" equates to an admission of a mistake. It simply isn't one. He was saying "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" during the 2004 campaign during which he also stood by his vote for IWR. I understand that those two things are not contradictions and so I'm not saying they are. I'm saying he did not admit to a mistake by saying "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place".

It doesn't help him in his war with the media that he now says "It was wrong and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution". If he can't do a better job of explaining this it he's only given the media more evidence to call him a flip-flopper. Which was a very effective media criticism.

And what speech was were you quoting? You did not provide a link and I could not find a reference to that phrase in Google. Is it an actual quote or are you paraphrasing? I'd like to see the actual text.

[Mass]

29. Sorry, I dont feel inclined to answer to you. Get informed. May be

after that we can talk. The text of the speech is lower in the thread, if you are not too lazy to read it!

[GOTV]

35. If you don't reference your quotes...

.... you should expect to be asked about it. Nowhere in that post that contains that link does it indicate that it has anything to do with Kerry admitting a mistake. And it only make sense to ask for a link when you cite "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" as evidence of admitting a mistake. Maybe you tend to hear what you want to hear.

In anycase I think it's a good start that he is admitting an error now but he's got a lot of ground to cover since he was not willing to admit the mistake in 2004.

As I said in my original post on this thread, his defense of his vote was a major error and an opportunity lost. It may be unsalvageable at this point because he's openned himself up to "He was FOR the IWR vote before he was AGAINST it" attacks which might be more damaging than admitting the mistake will help.

It's too bad he didn't admit the mistake upfront. I mean, what has happened between now and 2004 to make him regret the IWR vote he didn't regret then? It's going to look bad.

[ProSense]

31. Here are the links again to

what Kerry said before the war, during the campaign and since

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

[GOTV]

39. Yes, I saw them already

The first does not seem to show him admitting a mistake.

In the second he does say he "regrets" the vote. Unfortunately it's a non-googleable audio file.

But even there, he sounds like he hated doing it - admitting the regret. And it's not as strong as it could be.

But it's a start.

[ProSense]

41. "first does not seem to show him admitting a mistake" Before the vote? nt

[GOTV]

48. ???

I don't see, in the the text at the first link, where Kerry has admitted his IWR vote was a mistake.

That post covers these folowwing myths. Most of which have nothing to do with the IWR vote:

Myth: Kerry did not speak out against the war before it started.
Myth: Kerry didn't speak up about withdrawal, so it's too little too late.
Myth: Kerry cut and run even though he said he’d count every vote
Myth: Kerry should have fought the election because there was evidence
Myth: Kerry has done nothing about reform since the election

Is it somewhere in the thread? somewhere in one of the subsequent links?

[ProSense]

42. Are you pretending not to understand? n/t

[GOTV]

50. What I'm trying to understand....

... is where, on the pages of text you referenced, is the text that supports Kerry admitting he made a mistake voting for the IWR. It talks about almost every other Kerry related topic.

[ProSense]

52. You wanted him to admit a mistake before anything happened?

If Bush had listened to Kerry as he spoke out against launching the invasion and violating the resolution, then Kerry wouldn't have had to say he regretted trusting Bush to stick to the terms of the resolution. If you don't understand that, you need more assistance than I can offer.

[GOTV]

57. I understand what you're saying...

... but you don't seem to have any clue about what I'm saying. I never suggested any hypothetical where Bush actually listened to Kerry for example. That came from your imagination.

I do not want "him to admit a mistake before anything happened"

I simple wish he had admitted the mistake in 2004, which was AFTER the war started.

In 2004 he said he stood behind his IWR vote but now, in 2006 he regrets his IWR vote. I'm glad he regrets the IWR vote and I'm glad he has, at least timidly, admitted it. It's unfortunate he said he stood behind his vote in 2004 because now the media will pounce on his recent admission as a flip-flop.

[ProSense]

58. You're glad he regrets the vote and is trying to stop the war! Good! n/t

[GOTV]

60. absolutely!

[karynnj]

46. Because Kerry in 2004 did NOT see the vote as a vote for war

In October 2002, both Coln Powell and Bush publicly said the IWR was not a vote for war but to give them the weight of the Congress behind them when they went to the UN. All through 2004, Kerry saw being pro-war (which he never was) and having voted for the resolution as different.

In 2004, Kerry argued that it was correct to give Bush this authority, but that Bush used it in a way quite different from what he said he would do. Kerry thought Senators should be able to trust the President not to lie on matters of taking the country to war. In his floor speech, Kerry lists changes made to the resolution that eliminated reasons like regime change as valid and restricted it to Iraq. Kerry took these changes seriously. From the floor speech, without these changes Kerry would not have voted for the resolution. Kerry thought the negotiations were in good faith - they weren't. Kerry is intensely honest, Bush isn't. From the DSM, it is clear that Bush invaded for the reasons specifically taken out.

It's also important to consider March 2003, not October 2002. Bush made the decision to invade as the inspectors were having great success. That invasion was not consistent with the IWR. Kerry at that time was one of the voices against the war. The war would have occurred with or without the IWR. For Kerry, the regret is probably that his name is on the list giving Bush authority not that he made the war more likely. From all his comments in fall 2002 and the first 3 months of 2003, he was hoping war would be avoided.

Consider that in 2003, Bush could have declared the inspectors' work to be a victory and changed the way we dealt with Iraq rather than invading. This was what Powell had told the Senators would happen. Remember the staus quo in Iraq was failing - the sanctions were hurting the Iraqis and other countries were threathening to lift them.

In 2005 and all this year, Kerry has admitted that the vote itself was wrong - and has accepted responsiblity. He is also working as hard as anyone to end the war.

Are you holding other people responsible for their Oct 2002 positions?

[GOTV]

59. Yes, I know, and I've said that in numerous posts on this thread

I'll say it again: The vote for IWR was not a vote for an invasion of Iraq. I've had to explain that in real life many times.

Few people see it that way unfortunately.

It was a major error for Kerry to say that he stood behind his IWR in 2004. He should have admitted then what he is admitting now - that the IWR vote was a mistake.

The problem with admitting it now and not admitting it in 2004, when the lies were already known, is that it can be easily twisted to look like political opportunism in the media.

If he had admitted his error in 2004, they would have hit him with that rock in 2004 and now he'd be past it. Since he only admitted it recently, he's given them another rock to throw at him.

Still, if it's what he believes he should say it and take the lumps that are coming. It's just unfortunate that he's put himself in this situation by not admitting his mistake in 2004.

[LittleClarkie]

37. Here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2676328#2676353

Makes it very clear. That is exactly what he does.

[GOTV]

44. Thanks, Now THAT'S how to reference a quote

I'm glad he's come around. It's too bad that, if he ever becomes a serious contender for 2008, this new tactic, saying that he shouldn't have voted for IWR will be quoted side by side with him saying he WOULD've voted for it even given everything we knew in 2004.

And the juxtaposition will look credible since we don't know much more about the lies now than we did in 2004. It will be easy for the media to sow doubt about Kerry's motives by pointing out that we knew in 2004 that there were no ties to Al Qeada and no WMDs. "What happened since the election to convince him his vote was a mistake" media assassins will ask.

[TayTay]

56. We learned in '04 (and years before that.)

that anyone can be attacked for anything. We need to be prepared for more smears. This is what the RW does because otherwise they would be stuck defending their crappy agenda, crappy ideas and crappy candidates.

Kerry should be himself. Invest in promoting what he believes and let the chips fall where they may. I think he learned a lot of '04. I think that admitting mistakes, making clear goal statements and so forth are proof of that.

Apparently, 1500 progressives today agreed. That was one heck of a speech.

[karynnj]

43. "profoundly regret" the vote he would most like to take back in

his 20 plus year career. By the way it is extremely inappropriate to put quotes on something he never said. Kerry spoke against going to war before the war started. Show of force to pressure Iraq to let the inspectors in doesn't mean to invade before exhausting diplomacy.

Kerry was NEVER an advocate of the war - "wrong war" doesn't mean it was incompetently fought.

[GOTV]

54. I didn't say he was an advocate of the war...

... I said he stood behind his IWR vote. While I understand that's not the same I think that most people see that as the same. If you want the support of most people, as you would if you were running for office, you need to deal with what most people think.

And, in the post you responded to I did not put quotes around anything I attributed to Kerry. I quoted only a statement that I think should be made and clearly labeled it as such. How should such a thing be done?

[karynnj]

62. He has said repeatedly that the vote was wrong

Beyond that he said that he profoundly regrets the vote. He said it was the vote he most wished to take back. He's been a Senator for over 20 years - I assume there are other votes that he things were wrong in retrospect (he's referred to some as wrong). He said it today's speech that "his vote was wrong". I seriously don't get what you want him to say.

The reason I diffrenciated between advocating the war and the vote, is to point out the additional complexity. If you were for war and voted for the IWR, you can say I was wrong to have supported the war. Kerry, in all honesty, can't say that - so what he says that the war is wrong and his vote was wrong.

Sorry about the snarky quotes comment. I like the way Kerry did say it in Oct 2005 and the way he said it today. Your statement implies to me he backed the war more than he did.

[GOTV]

65. I'm not of the impression that he ever supported the war

"I seriously don't get what you want him to say."

I don't have a problem with him admitting that he regrets the vote now. He should regret it.

My major point in this whole branch of this thread is the problem caused by him not admitting the IWR vote was wrong in 2004. But obviously there's nothing he can do about this now.

What he CAN do now, and I hope he is doing this, is realize he's going to be called on it and he better have a good comeback that will shut down the "flip-flop" meme that the media will try to resurrect over this if he ever becomes a contender again.

It's not going to be easy for him though. It would have been natural for him to have said, in 2004, (and I'm going to quote this so you know where my hypothetical statement starts and ends) "I trusted the President, but he lied to us and I should have not voted for the IWR". But given that he said he would have voted for the IWR even knowing about the lies makes it difficult to explain why it took so long to realize that the IWR vote was a mistake.

What has happened since 2004 that has convinced him to reverse himself on the rightness of his IWR vote? He needs to have a good answer for that.

Was it some specific event which turned him around on his support for the IWR vote? He needs to have a good story for that event. Was it a slow realization after seeing all the screw-ups and casualties? With that answer he risks looking like he's too slow and ponderous to be effective as a President.

It's not an easy task and if he can't explain it it will hurt him. And I'm frustrated that all this would not be an issue if he only would have admitted this in 2004.

[karynnj]

67. The DSM proved Bush lied, in 2004 we knew he was wrong

about WMD, but not that he lied. The problem is more likely to be in the primaries.

In the general election if he becomes the nominee, the fact that he will have been saying that he was wrong to trust Bush and regrets it for 3 years. He will likely, as he did today, throw in one line saying the war was wrong and his vote was wrong. He has answered this question every time he's gone on a talk show (as the pundits have amnesia). At this point, he is not defensive and handles it well.

Kerry is one of the strongest anti-war people, while still having credendials on terrorism. His 1971 statements that politicians need to admit the truth - fits well and it is what he is doing. In a sense, Kerry 1971 and Kerry 2006 are a really good match. He has a coherent vision of foreign policy and the anti-war part of the population can see from everything he said that he is not likely to go to war needlessly.

[GOTV]

69. Maybe that argument will fly....

... but since the DSM is a British document describing meetings that occured between British officials, I don't know that it has much of a pull on teh attitudes of average Americans.

It's certainly an argument that can be made though.

Has Kerry actually cited the DSM as a reason for his turn-about?

[wisteria]

24. No it doesn't. It adds to his credibility. He was mislead by Powell

whom he trusted and this administration. This appears to me to reinforce his efforts to make it right now.
The vote was years ago- people make choices they sometimes regret. Please get over it.

[TayTay]

55. That's why it was so nice to see 1500 people on their feet

wildly applauding the line in the speech where Kerry said, the war was wrong and I was wrong to bote for it. (Fairly simple sentence if you ask me.)

The following two - three minute standing ovation along with loud and spritied applause, complete with whistles and shouts was so good to hear. 1500 progressives can make a lot of noise. 1500 progressives hearing some really meaty criticism and a really meaty list of what we as a nation need to do next is even sweeter.

What a day! The speech of the conference.

[karynnj]

63. As the progressives are the ones most obsessed with

Kerry's IWR vote - it looks like he has clearly found precisely what to say. The conservatives believed Kerry when he said he wouldn't have gone to war.

[MODemocrat]

71. Kerry was lied to just as we were

It's pretty easy to play a Monday Morning quarter back; John did what he thought was best at the time, based on filty lies. John is honest himself, so he had no reason to doubt those war mongering liars. :loveya: for you Senator Kerry.

[AuntiBush]

82. Well...

Respectfully, most of the nation was for something, anything, after 9/11. Of course, much has changed since we've all learned the whole war was based on lies. At the very least, Kerry is man enough, statesman enough to admit his mistake. Takes a ton of integrity to do as much.

Kudo's to Senator Kerry.

[flpoljunkie]

4. You can catch his speech when it comes up on politicstv at link below.

http://www.politicstv.com/blog/

They have now posted Nancy Pelosi's speech which was a good one--just finished listening to it. She was well received--no boos.

Senator Russ Feingold will be the featured speaker tomorrow morning, Wednesday, at 9:00AM EST.

[ProSense]

7. Excellent! Thanks! n/t

[ProSense]

12. Bush's war

Oil, Politics and Bloodshed Corrupt an Iraqi City

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and QAIS MIZHER
Published: June 13, 2006

Snip...

Police reports from the past five months read like war chronicles: Eight oil company employees murdered. Twenty caches of Russian rockets discovered, including a pile in the back of an ambulance. A tank of stolen oil found in a fake mosque. Shootouts reported between a politician's militia and the police, and between police officers.

Snip...

The story of Basra's descent traces the arc of the war itself. People here, mostly Shiites whom Saddam Hussein oppressed, embraced the invasion. But for the next three years, Baghdad put its resources into fighting insurgents in central and western Iraq, leaving the quiet Shiite south to find its own way.

But the rules have fallen away along with the end of Mr. Hussein's rule, leaving a broken landscape of empty state institutions.

"So much of the state melted after Saddam fell," an American official said. A primordial soup of political parties, their militias and tribes filled the void. They formed morals patrols at the university, commanded entire units of the flimsy police force, and moved into positions of power in the company that controls the vast oil-processing and transportation network.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/world/middleeast/13basra.html?ex=1307851200&en=39925c1ec9ad927a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[saltpoint]

16. Kerry's recent addresses and remarks on several topics have been

lively, engaging, to-the-point, and downright presidential.

Our allies in other nations are likely keeping tabs on things and under the grandstanding of the Bush appearances on the Mexican border and today in Iraq, they can actually listen to a visionary adult. Kerry provides them with a notion of what might have been, and what may yet be.

Go, John Kerry.

[kerrygoddess]

17. Text Kerry's speech at TBA here

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3296

[TayTay]

47. That was the best speech of the TBA conf yet

There was this moment when Sen. Kerry was interrupted by a long standing ovation from the progressives in the room when he stated that the war was wrong and he was wrong in voting for it. That was, as they say, 'a moment.'

[wisteria]

30. This is absolutely wonderful. Keep the focus on the inept and illegal

war. I am so happy Senator Kerry found his voice and is speaking out. Now we need to work on the other Dem's.

[bdamomma]

33. Call your senators and just tell them to support this resolution

or we will be there for a decade.

[Vidar]

72. Bravo Senator Kerry!

[welshTerrier2]

73. "we know the truth now"

first, let me just say that MSNBC not only totally sucks, they're also inept ...

just for the record, Kerry did NOT call the war "immoral" ... he said it was immoral to remain silent knowing what we now know ...

Kerry said that the administration misled the country about the war and that "we know the truth now" ... but he has NEVER SAID exactly what that TRUTH is ...

it is not sufficient to say we know that the truth is that bush lied; if Kerry is going to be an advocate for telling the American people "the truth", he needs to tell us the truth of WHY bush INVADED IRAQ!!!!!

that's five big exclamation points folks ... can anyone point out specific statements Kerry has made where he "tells the American people the truth" about the REAL reasons bush invaded Iraq????? that's five question marks folks ...

if Kerry has talked truth about this to the American people, he earns some major good guy points from me ... i am not aware he has ever done so ... please educate me ...

and while we're on this truth-telling campaign, a wonderfully refreshing idea to be sure, let's talk a little truth about the WOT ...

Kerry stated: "And we need to wage a legitimate war on terror by recognizing that there is a struggle going on for the heart and soul of Islam and the United States must lead globally in an effort to try to address that."

well, OK ... Kerry said that "a" war on terror, not bush's war on terror, is legitimate ... he talked about an internal battle for the "soul of Islam" ... has he elaborated on what the US should do?

when it comes to the WOT, has Kerry called for an examination of what exactly is the motivation of the "terrorists"? are these just violent, horrible people who kill for no reason? or do they kill for global conquest?

we are trapped in an endless spiral with the WOT because very few have had the courage to differentiate between the motives of the "terrorists" and their means ... we are so simplistic that we fear an acknowlegement of potentially legitimate motives may be seen as condoning the conduct being used to achieve them ... this failure of understanding and lack of courage is destroying us ...

the US has had an oppressive presence in the Middle East for far too long ... we have propped up tyrants and have toppled democratically elected leaders all for oil and a regional military presence ... perhaps those with a few "gripes" about our conduct just might have a point ... is this a politically viable position? is it OK to criticize the American government's long-term conduct in the Middle East and publically state that at least some of the "terrorists'" complaints about the US are perfectly legitimate?

no, perhaps not ... but if truth-telling is going to be the cornerstone of Kerry's message, it's hard to see how US imperialism in the Middle East can be ignored ...

Kerry has opened a dialog with the left and i commend him for doing so ... if he's looking for meaningful political support, his recent statements on Iraq and the WOT are going to demand considerably more details ... he won't have an easy time of it but we're listening ...

[LittleClarkie]

75. I actually thought you'd be pleased with the words

"quagmire" and "out by the end of the year"

as well as this from the Take America Back Conference

"U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission "a mistake."

"We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote ."

[welshTerrier2]

78. my post was not intended as criticism ...

Kerry said he sees it as critically important to tell the American people the truth ...

i couldn't agree more ...

the truth that is sorely lacking in elite Democratic circles is the truth about why bush went into Iraq and the truth about why many in the Islamic world hate the US ...

it would be refreshing to hear someone of Kerry's stature talk about that ...

[LittleClarkie]

79. It was just an observation. In the last couple of days

as Kerry has talked increasingly like the Kerry of 1971, I've looked for your name in the threads, thinking "She'll be pleased with this". I almost went looking for your last post in order to pm you and point out a thread or two.

But you're not. Silly me.

On a lighter note, a good comment from Kerry today:

"Now, I understand fully that Iraq is not Vietnam. After all, President Bush is even there today."

By the way, have you called your Senator in support of Kerry's resolution? I thought it would be up for a vote today, but it looks like probably not until the end of the week somewhere.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Kerry_to_introduce_Iraq_withdrawal_amendment_0612.html

[welshTerrier2]

80. i'll PM you in a bit ...

can't respond here ...

[montana500]

76. "armchair warriors" not strong enough to get attention

*these* are the words Kerryand Murtha must use in the coming days:

"wimps"

"cowards"

"chickens"

"draft dodgers"

"lazy"

"spineless"



Kerry wont get headlines with the word "armchair warriors". But he will with those other choices.

[otokogi]

77. Give'm Hell Kerry!

it is waaaaay past time for truth to be spoken to these MEGALOMANIACS!

:toast:

[AuntiBush]

81. Kerry's Absolutely Right!

Go Kerry.

[lebkuchen]

83. It's good to see a real war vet speak out against the Iraq war

I hope more vets will do the same, generating negative impressions among America's impressionable high school students who might otherwise buy into the recruiter's line of bull.

Everything Bush does for the next two months will be geared toward the Class of '06. He's not making quota. That, along with the military attrition rate resulting from the current guerilla war that US generals had warned Bush about, is hampering PNAC's grand scheme.