Kerry never said he would have gone into Iraq knowing what he knows today

[Feanorcurufinwe]

and it is a Republican-sponsored lie to say that he did. A deception spread by Republicans to divide us, sap our resolve, and trick the uninformed.


Don't let anyone trick YOU into believing this lie.

Make them provide the quote where he supposedly said this --

lo and behold, they won't be able to, because he never said any such thing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. I won't allow the truth to be obscured by people posting PAs

there is nothing in the rules that prohibits telling the truth.

[sangh0]

2. And if you read the precious thread

You can see posters claiming that Kerry DID say it, but they never post the quote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x737570

[JI7]

3. reminds me of the attacks on Kerry at the RNC

with them claiming Kerry will ask the United Nations whether we can defend ourselves , or that he wants to raise taxes on everyone when it's those at the top he wants to raise taxes on, and other things. but they never provide anything to show he actually said it.

[Cheswick2.0]

35. if the voters think they are right they don't have to "prove" anything

that is the whole point J17. You don't have to prove anything as long as people will buy a lie. Using that as an excuse for the fall in poll numbers is a mistake. Kerry's job is not to convince people his vote was right. His job is to win the election.

[chiburb]

5. Save this for future use:

[Old and In the Way]

8. Damn, I missed posting on that thread.

:-(

Here's my theory....there's a little group of Kerry hater's here who'd prefer to see Kerry lose. That way they can't spend the next 4 years telling us they were right and we were wrong. I'm calling it the Ralph Nader Syndrome.

[Cheswick2.0]

27. here's my theory

I want Kerry to win very much, not because I like him but because I hate bush. I'd like him to stop running a lousy campaign. Instead of wasting time arguing this one particular mistake Kerry made and trying to beat up on people who don't agree, you all should be looking to discuss the things he has done right.

You should search my name along with Nader and see what you come up with.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. because what he said was the exact same thing

This is a pointless argument. Kerry blew it with that answer and whoever came up with it should be fired.

[cspiguy]

4. No, he said he would still vote to authorize the war.

there is a subtle difference. He would have voted but not actually done it since he was expecting the inspectors to get more time.

[Zhade]

7. I wish someone would tell Rubin this.

Still stunned that Kerry never refuted his own advisor's words below...

Another thing I find odd, but not necessarily malignant: why did Kerry say he would have done everything differently IN Iraq? We never should have gone in, and if he had been prez and had allowed the inspections to continue (which I tend to believe he would), there would be no need to do anything in Iraq, and no need to "bring countries to our side".

Odd comments.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. that's not Kerry's position and he's never said it

"To the extent that my own comments have contributed to misunderstanding on this issue. . . . I never should have said the phrase 'in all probability' because that's not Kerry's position and he's never said it," Rubin said in a statement. "That was my mistake."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29593-2004Aug24.html

[Zhade]

10. Yes, that's why I added the part about Rubin's partial retraction.

We're fully in agreement.

I would have liked Kerry to have strongly stated Rubin's comments were not his position, but I imagine he's got a lot on his mind right now.

[sandnsea]

11. What if there were WMD?

Kerry is saying he may have gone to war under that situation, but he STILL would have done it differently. Nothing odd about it at all.

[Zhade]

12. Well, of course if there was a THREAT from WMD, that's different.

Not just the mere presence of some WMD (a really bad phrase in itself, as things like anthrax are very hard-pressed to cause MASS destruction without a hell of a lot of intricate planning and luck).

If there had been an imminent threat, then of course a President Kerry would have taken action. And depending on the nature of the threat, military action could well have been justified.

My issue is with the fact that he's said he'd vote to grant b*sh authority again, knowing what he knows now. Well, what he knows is that there was no threat, and that b*sh abused the (unConstitutional, checks-and-balances-destroying) authority.

Yet he'd vote to give the guy who lied us into war the authority to do it all over again? Doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I know some will wrongly argue that Kerry meant he'd vote to give any other president EXCEPT b*sh authority because a president should have that authority (they shouldn't, that's an imperial presidency, but anyway). However, b*sh was the president, and to say he'd vote to give him authority again, knowing b*sh abused the blank check he was given, is just completely at odds with rational thought. b*sh obviously can't be trusted (which we've all known for years now), so why would Kerry give him authority again?

I think, perhaps, this was a case of Kerry not being very logical and clear-thinking. A mistake. It happens. I'd like to know if he sees his words as a mistake or not - that would say a lot about his views on the limits of presidential power.

YMMV.

[Vincardog]

19. If he knew that the B#sh crew would F#ck it up?

Let us rephrase the issue. I believe John should answer the question "If I knew they would ignore military advice, ignore out allies, and deceive the American public to support the illegal immoral occupation of Iraq; NO I would not vote to give him the authority to take military action. Knowing that that authorization to use force was granted only on condition that there be as demonstrated credible threat. This war of aggression in Iraq was begone without the requirements of the authorization we did sign and is the sole responsibility of GW CUSTER."

[Zhade]

22. I still argue that giving any prez such authority is unConstitutional.

However, your answer to the question here certainly makes more sense than Kerry's convoluted answer that can be read as "I'd give the same guy who lied to me authority to do it again".

[kiahzero]

31. Let's see your argument, then

How is authorizing troops to remain in Iraq for more than 60 days unconstitutional?

[kiahzero]

21. Not quite

My issue is with the fact that he's said he'd vote to grant b*sh authority again, knowing what he knows now. Well, what he knows is that there was no threat, and that b*sh abused the (unConstitutional, checks-and-balances-destroying) authority.


It wasn't unconstitutional, and it could hardly be called "checks-and-balances-destroying." The IWR did not defer the power to declare war to the President. All the IWR did was, provided a determination from the President that one of two conditions applied, authorize the deployment of troops in action to Iraq for more than 60 days.

[Zhade]

24. Hmmm. No offense, but I'm going to go with Byrd over you on this one.

I'm sure you can understand why.

[kiahzero]

29. Where was I wrong on the facts, then?

If my argument isn't sound, you should be able to point out either the invalid premise or invalid inference. Where is it?

[LiberalFighter]

43. He would had done if differently by...

having real countries allied with us in the war not just with their say so but with military personnel and supplies

having a UN resolution if possible supporting the aggression

The exception to the above is if there really was imminent threat from Iraq or they had directly attacked the U.S.

Personally, even having WMD does not justify anyone from attacking another country. If that were the case then every country in the world would be justified to attack us. Every country has the right to protect their sovereignty. But of course, gw* only thinks sovereignty is for those countries that he approves.


As for terrorists, we won't eliminate that threat. It will always be there. We have to show them that our interests are not to harm their way of life. But that won't happen because of corporate America as well as other world wide corporations that they feel are corrupting their way of life.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Subtleties and nuances may be fine for a Yale debating club

but they are lost to the vast majority of the electorate. Whatever became of Truman's straight talk?

[depakid]

36. It died a cold and lonely death

on the plains of Iowa.

[LiberalFighter]

44. And didn't gw say he was a straight talker or was it straight shooter?

[Iceburg]

6. Kerry gave Busco the option of waging war ...

Kerry's authorization was predicated upon the fulfillment of 3 necessary conditions:
1) complete the weapons inspection
2) build a solid and meaningful international coalition
3) having a plan to win the peace

He did NOT give Bushco a blank check to wage war.

If Kerry had been president and been given the same authority, in all likelhood (since no wmds would have been found) no war would have been waged and a 1000 young US men and women would be with their families today. Another 7,000 would have ALL of their limbs. 15,000 Iraqis would be alive and well.
The US would not have become the most repugnant nation of our time and for generations to come.

Ref.
Would Kerry Vote Today for the Iraq War
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105096

Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

[okieinpain]

13. okay, so what did he say. just consider me one of those dumb

ass fence sitters.

[dennis4868]

15. Kerry said that....

he would have given the president the AUTHORITY to invade Iraq after all inspection were done and Bush got the United Nations on board....

[Cheswick2.0]

20. The Resolution REQUIRED neither

The liberal view point: He trusted the president? That makes him either a liar or stupid. Which is it?

The moderate and right point if view: I am the average voter, you have to convince me in two sentences why I should vote for Kerry ,after that I tune out.

Conclusion:
Kerry blew it on that IWR question and you all need to give it up and move on to something that will register with the average voter.

[dennis4868]

33. the vote....

was not a declaration for war....if it was and Kerry voted for it then i would be mad at him...but the fact is Kerry only voted to give Bush the authorization to go war....the damn resolution conditioned it on 2 things: 1. Imminent threat; 2. connection to 911.....READ THE RESOLUTION AND THE DETERMINATION BUSH WAS SUPPOSE TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS BEFORE OR 48 HOURS AFTER THE WAR!

[Cheswick2.0]

40. again you are arguing a completely useless point

I do not believe Kerry either believed Bush or thought he would go to the UN and ABIDE by their decision. If I did believe it then, "Knowing what he knows now" would also include realizing that bush is a liar who can not be trusted.....but Kerry would vote to give that liar the authorization to go to war AGAIN?


The point is that you all need to move on from this, you are convincing neither swing voters in the center or swing voters on the left. But most unproductive of all is arguing this with other DUers. We are all either voting for Kerry despite this vote and his idiotic answer to the question about voting for it again; or we are lurking freepers who will never vote for Kerry. Either way you are wasting your time.

[greenohio]

42. Discussing KEY points is not a waste of time...

The election, as everyone knows will be decided by the war. Many of us on these boards voted for John Kerry in the primaries because we believed he would stand up to $hrub on this illegal war. It is our issue. Kerry has now moderated his stance on this issue to a point where people are arguing where he stands.

Everyone has an issue, yours maybe abortion, or taxes on the wealthy, or health insurance. When he steps on your issue you would be upset too.

[dennis4868]

14. Even Bill Maher last night....

said that Kerry said that...A FUCKING LIE!

[bagnana]

16. Kerry needs a simple one line answer:

"I voted in trust that the President would act wisely. He didn't." OR "I voted to force Saddam to make Iraq available for inspections, not for war" (and everyone should say: Bush is a cowardly liar and lacks the character to lead.)

[dennis4868]

18. what is so hard for people to understand?

Kerry voted for authorization to invade Iraq to put pressure on Saddam to allow inspection that were going well until Bush lied and started the illegal war! Fuck this...what is so hard for people to understand this.....holly shit!

[greenohio]

26. I have to admit, I'm confused

So Kerry only voted to authorize the war rather than to actually wage war. Knowing that $hrub would mis-use that authorization, Kerry today, would still give $hrub that authority. Kerry says he only disagrees with the WAY $hrub ran the war.

So what is your prediction. When Kerry answers the question: if he were president, would he have invaded Iraq.

The theory that you should not answer hypothetical is horse hockey, considering every presidential question is a hypothetical. "What would you do if you were elected president?" is a hypothetical. "How would you have handled things differently?" is a hypothetical. These are questions that people need answers in order to make informed decisions.

I have to say, I do not know, honestly, that if Kerry were president whether he would have invaded in Iraq. If you think Kerry has been clear on this issue, what do you think?

[dennis4868]

37. nO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND....

thinks that we would have invaded Iraq if Kerry (or Gore) were the president....Kerry is not a crazy man like Bush....The vote was to give Bush the authority to go to war and it was not a declaration for war....the authority to go to war was conditioned on 2 things that Bush was to show in his Determination either before or within 48 hours after invading Iraq....that was: 1. imminent threat to the USA; and 2. 911 connection....neither was ever shown or proven with any evidence!

[greenohio]

39. I hope you're right.

I was surprised when he said he would still authorize $hrub to invade. I wouldn't have. The question is coming, he can't get through three debates and not tell us in no uncertain terms whether he would started this illegal war. Either he would have invaded, or he would not. It is a yes or no. I hope the answer will be no. But language like:

"I would still vote to authorize.."
"I disagree with the WAY he waged the war..."

leaves people confused...including myself.

[kiahzero]

30. Willful ignorance (n/t)

[madfloridian]

34. One man should not have that much power.

If Kerry would give this man Bush that power again, knowing what he knows now, then that is not right.

That right belongs to Congress.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. hello and thank you very much

Yes that is what Kerry should say.

[depakid]

38. Kerry made a colossal blunder

I knew that as soon as I heard it.

It doesn't matter exactly what he said, what matters is how your opponent's going to characterize it, how it's going to resonate in the echo chamber and how it's going to be understood by the masses (and more specifically, your target audience). Kerry's an experienced politician (and criminal lawyer). He should have known better than to give that sort of answer, and I'm quite sure he regrets it.

That said, he can't unring the bell- so he'll have to find some way the case against Bush on Iraq despite what is widely perceived as his validation of bush's actions.

[IndianaGreen]

17. "Yes, I would have voted for the authority."

Kerry is the only US Senator that does not see the Iraq War Resolution as a "war resolution" as Senator Ted Kennedy described it.

Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq
Aug 9, 5:34 PM (ET)

By Patricia Wilson

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249%7Ctop%7C08-09-2004::17:46%7Creuters.html

[madfloridian]

32. I still think he should not have given Bush the authority.

When did we start wanting one man to have so much power? If he did not know Bush was flawed then, he does know it now.

I know what he said, and we know that he means he thinks the president should have authority.

I don't agree, I think the authority to declare and carry out war should belong to congress.

Giving that power to one man is wrong.

[greenohio]

41. I agree.

Who would give that authority...to $hrub of all people? It was wrong then. It is wrong now.