LISTENING Is Important.

[IdaBriggs]

There was a thread that appears to have gotten deleted earlier today because it immediately generated some harsh controversy regarding not voting or voting for third party candidates. The original writer was upset about Kerry saying he would vote the same way (add edit -- authorizing the use of force against Iraq) still. I'm going to paraphrase my response, because I really thought it was IMPORTANT.

1) Kerry voted for the threat of force. He was right to do so. Hussein allowed the weapons inspectors to go anywhere they wanted after that was done.

2) BUSH (like Hussein in 1998) ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and started a war.

3) Kerry has said in what I perceive to be an honorable and trustworthy fashion that he would still have voted to keep the options open. He has NOT said he would have started a war.

4) If Bush had displayed either good judgment or patience, we would NOT have gone to war, the "invisible" weapons of mass destruction would have been discredited very early, and a whole lot of people would still be alive.

5) Kerry was right. Twelve years of games with Hussein (a master political strategist) meant it was time to put all of our cards on the table -- but that didn't mean we had to start bombing. We had already won the hand and inspections were working. Bush is a murdering moron.

I also said in my deleted post that I admired the courage of people who were willing to voice difficult and painful views. I believe this is an honorable thing to do, and should not be viewed as betrayal. I think we need to LISTEN to people so we can explain why we do the things we do. If they don't talk, we can't help. No one may agree with everything we say (thank heavens!) but I personally welcome the chance to learn about the issues other people have so we can work together to solve them.

I know people are scared that things are going to get worse before they get better. This is a legitimate problem, and I personally foresee nothing but more disastrous bad decisions if the current people stay in power. But attacking people when they are upset and discouraged over a waste of lives isn't how we need to behave. We need to listen, and we need to validate, and then we need to fix it.

Regards,
Ida M. Briggs
Opinionated Independent

[MercutioATC]

1. I disagree, but to each their own...

I've said it before, Kerry's vote on the IWR shows me he's one of two things:

1) a political opportunist who votes the way he has to to get re-elected, or

2) a complete moron who trusts an opposition President surrounded by hawks to "do the right thing".

I hope it's #1, but you'll forgive me for not being thrilled with that explanation.

[IdaBriggs]

4. Kerry trusted Bush. Bush lied.

Bush promised force would only be used as a last resort. That obviously didn't happen. Who honestly would have thought Bush was this STUPID (okay, me, but...) when anyone with more than half a brain could have told you what a disasterous decision it was going to be -- and supposedly, the President would be aware of that.

[MercutioATC]

7. It was abysmally stupid for Kerry to have trusted Bush.

(if that's what really happened)

It's even worse that he still believes he made the right choice.

Kerry put the gun in Bush's hands and now wants a pass because he says he "trusted" Bush to do the right thing? What idiot would trust Bush to do the right thing?

[amber dog democrat]

2. Thank you for this post

I thought this thread got pulled prematurely as well. It raises some very important points regarding tolerance and respect for the opinions of others. While the remaks in the post that was the catalyst - were more strongly worded regarding discounting the viewpoints of those who do have an Anybody But Bush tack, I thoght the friction generated might have yielded some beneficial insights.

It does not need to be personal when a disagreement is stated.

[Radio-Active]

3. I don't really understand the question...

"Knowing what we know now, would you have still voted for IWR?"

Since we now know there are no WMD's, the question is moot, since the whole IWR was concerned with Saddam's WMD's.

What does the question really even mean? "Knowing what you know now" - is pointless since there are no WMD's... It wouldn't have even been up for a vote, knowing what we know now!

Kerry should avoid answering such hypothetical ridiculous questions!

He should have said, "Knowing what we know now, the IWR wouldn't even be up for a vote!".

He probably wants to play it safe though since some WMD's may still magically appear.

[IdaBriggs]

6. Its designed to make Kerry look stupid....

...along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?" I like your response. :) Ida

[buycitgo]

5. Hussein DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT order inspectors out

Clinton did, before he bombed the shit out of Baghdad in 98