I don't want John Kerry to even be considered as SOS

[diabeticman]

Not to be rude BUT I don't want the Republicans to not only feel like they won--because Susan Rice took her name out of running BUT I want NO CHANCE in HADES for those Tea bag-a$$e$ to think they are going to walk Brown right back into the senate.

[ProSense]

1. Fairly certain

President Obama isn't thinking like you, which is a good thing. Aren't you tired of being afraid of Republicans?

[mike_c]

2. I oppose Kerry for the same reason I opposed Clinton....

He helped enable GWB to invade Iraq, a crime against humanity.

edit: I understand Rice was a vocal supporter of invading Iraq as well. Can't the administration find someone for SoS who didn't want to initiate a war of aggression against a country who was never any threat to the U.S.?

[ProSense]

4. What absolute

"He helped enable GWB to invade Iraq, a crime against humanity."

...nonsense.

Kerry did not support the invasion. In fact his official statement days before the invasion urged Bush not to go to war.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

While Kerry never let up on Bush, there were other Democrats who did initially.

Video: Dean reacts to capture news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/3710796#3710796

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Dean said, "This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people and, frankly, a great day for the administration. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. We have our policy differences, but we won't be discussing those today. I think he deserves a day to celebrate as well."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3710459/

An Open Letter to Howard Dean
by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

Dear Chairman Dean,

<...>

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.

Dennis J. Kucinich

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0504-21.htm

[mike_c]

6. spin spin spin....

Please tell us how Kerry voted on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which gave Bush congressional authority to invade Iraq as he saw fit. Yay or nay? Not how he speechified before or afterward. How did he VOTE? Talk is cheap. Senatorial votes have REAL consequences. Kerry helped enable the murders of nearly a million Iraqi civilians.

[blm]

10. well mike, you are welcome to convince us how IWR took us to war and not Bush's decision to

ignore the findings of weapon inspectors and go to war with or without the input of the weapons inspectors. Kerry sided with the weapon inspectors. Clinton, Biden sided with Bush and most Dems did side with Bush's decision to go to war - Kerry stayed sided with weapon inspectors. A fact you refuse to acknowledge. It would have made a greater difference if more Dems who voted for IWR to get weapon inspectors into Iraq had sided WITH the weapon inspectors and against use of military force like Kerry did - but, they are all the same to you. No discernment, whatsoever.

[mike_c]

12. this is old news on DU....

It was hashed out thoroughly during 2002 and 2003. UNSCOM has made it abundantly clear that Iraq was effectively disarmed by the mid-1990s. The only thing the weapons inspectors had not done by 2002 was to CERTIFY that disarmament. The rest was all saber rattling by American presidents-- Clinton and Bush-- for domestic consumption and to maintain UN support for the brutal bombing and sanctions campaigns. Saddam Hussein had already agreed to allow arms inspectors back into Iraq to finish the certification process before the IWR vote. Indeed, the timing of the IWR vote and subsequent invasion appeared to be intended primarily to prevent UNSCOM action.

The IWR was not only the legislative authority that enabled Bush to invade Iraq, thanks to John Kerry among others-- its (largely dishonest) preamble provided the framework of propaganda to support that invasion. Kerry supported that piece of shit with the only thing that really matters at the end of the day. He voted to give Bush the authority to invade.

[ProSense]

14. More nonsense.

"The IWR was not only the legislative authority that enabled Bush to invade Iraq, thanks to John Kerry among others-- its (largely dishonest) preamble provided the framework of propaganda to support that invasion. Kerry supported that piece of shit with the only thing that really matters at the end of the day. He voted to give Bush the authority to invade."

Bush would have abused any version of the resolution, and every single one of them included a similar preamble.

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

[mike_c]

15. you can make stuff up all day long...

...about what Bush would have done in some alternate universe or about what Kerry really meant as opposed to what he did, but the facts remain that:

1) Bush wanted to invade Iraq without justification and pretty much everyone in the world knew it;

2) Kerry did nothing substantive to prevent it-- instead he used his Senate vote to give Bush authority to invade.

[ProSense]

17. And you can ignore the facts all day long. n/t

[mike_c]

18. what I'm disputing-- not ignoring-- are fantasies about what might have happened...

...if the democratic senate hadn't bent over and grabbed their collective ankles to give Bush his war of aggression in the middle east or what Kerry "really" meant when he voted to invade Iraq. The "facts" are as stated in my post above. If you can demonstrate that Kerry did not vote to authorize war with Iraq, please do so. The Congressional Record is need of correction if that's the case. If you can demonstrate that the IWR was irrelevant to the process then please do so, because the republic will have some loopholes to worry about.

But for the moment, those are just fantasies, because Kerry did vote to authorize a war of aggression against Iraq, with the clear knowledge that Bush would either decline the opportunity-- and if Kerry believed that we can add "incompetent fool" to his list of professional qualifications-- or that he would invade and kill innocent civilians for no good reason at all. I don't believe Kerry is a fool, so that leaves complicity in crimes against humanity. Not what I want in a Secretary of State.

[ProSense]

20. You're ignoring the fact that Bush lied

He lied even after the IWR.

Bush is an asshole who was on his way to war regardless. Face it.

It's the big fact in the equation that you chose to ignore.

[mike_c]

21. everyone knows Bush lied....

AT THE TIME we knew he was lying. The preamble to the IWR is laughable. Now you're trying to make the case that Kerry was incompetent. In any event, Bush didn't write the IWR and Kerry was responsible for understanding the circumstances surrounding a vote of that magnitude. I submit that he understood them quite well, and was hoping to find some political advantage. Instead, he helped kill a million innocent Iraqi civilians.

[ProSense]

22. Bush lied after the IWR.

After...get it?

[mike_c]

24. before, during, and after....

Clinton started the lies about Iraq to maintain support for his bombing campaigns and the UN sanctions. But that's beside the point.

Did John Kerry vote to authorize aggressive war against Iraq? Yes he did.

[ProSense]

26. No,

"Did John Kerry vote to authorize aggressive war against Iraq? Yes he did."

...he didn't, and no matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it doesn't change the fact that Bush lied and launched an illegal invasion.

Say it again, and those are still the facts.

[mike_c]

28. are you seriously trying to claim that Kerry voted against the IWR...?

Now we have descended into surrealism.

[allrevvedup]

23. self-delete.

You got this one ProSense.

[mike_c]

25. in 2004?

I voted Green in 2004, 2008, and 2012.

[allrevvedup]

27. Forget it Mike.

.

[ProSense]

29. You voted Green, and think you should dictate who Obama selects?

[mike_c]

32. ah-- it's time for the red herring....

Your fantasies about Kerry not voting for the IWR were getting a bit threadbare. I'll let you know if Obama calls and asks me who should be SoS.

[ProSense]

34. Your Bush fantasies are interesting, too

I mean, you somehow believe Kerry made Bush do it.

You: Bush lied, but he wouldn't have if Kerry hadn't allowed him to.

What silliness. Still, that's the logic of the Bush = Gore Party.

I suppose you have to keep attacking Kerry to justify your vote.

The irony is that you're attacking Kerry using the premise that the President shouldn't nominate a person who is a strong supporter and key ally.

[Fumesucker]

35. Kerry enabled Dubya with his vote for the IWR

If Kerry didn't know Dubya was lying then Kerry is incompetent and if he did know Dubya was lying, well.

I certainly knew at the time that Dubya was lying, but then I'm a taxpayer with a computer and an internet connection, sitting Senators don't have those sorts of resources to call upon.

[ProSense]

36. Please,

"If Kerry didn't know Dubya was lying then Kerry is incompetent and if he did know Dubya was lying, well. "

...cut the bullshit.

Bush would have abused any version of the resolution had they gotten enough votes.

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

[mike_c]

38. yada yada yada....

Bush woulda, Bush woulda. Lets talk about what ACTUALLY HAPPENED and John Kerry's role in it.

[Skittles]

53. GIVE IT UP, MIKE

TABLE LEG!!!

[Fumesucker]

48. Yes, that's exactly my point, everyone knew the Dubya was going to abuse whatever he got

So Kerry gave the swaggering simian just what he needed, a vote.

Arguably the worst foreign policy disaster in American history, Iraq had quagmire scrawled all over it in ten mile tall neon letters from the moment it was hatched as a policy goal from the fervid imagination of the PNACers.

Kerry of all people knew better and voted for it any damn way.

[mike_c]

37. more red herrings....

You simply cannot stay on topic, can you?

Did John Kerry vote "YES" to authorize the invasion of Iraq? Up thread you suggested that he did not.

[ProSense]

40. No

"Did John Kerry vote "YES" to authorize the invasion of Iraq?"

...he did not, but it's clear nothing will penetrate your desire to believe that.

The IWR was not an authorization for the "invasion of Iraq."

Bush's lie after the fact was his justification.

Still, do you think this is going to influence President Obama's decision?

[mike_c]

41. here is the Senate Roll Call on the Iraq War Resolution....

Scroll down to Massachusetts. NOW tell me again that John Kerry did not vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

BTW, you'll note that the other Senator from Massachusetts had the courage to vote against the IWR. What would you say to him about that, if Kerry's vote for it was so defensible?

[ProSense]

47. LOL!

"BTW, you'll note that the other Senator from Massachusetts had the courage to vote against the IWR. What would you say to him about that, if Kerry's vote for it was so defensible?"

Yeah, "the other Senator from Massachusetts" voted for this:

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

Also, so did Feingold. Like I said, Bush would have abused any version of the resolution had any of them gotten enough votes.

Bush lied, get it?

Also, "the other Senator from Massachusetts" voted for Kerry and Obama. You?

[mike_c]

50. if the IWR was so irrelevant and it was all on Bush doing whatever he wanted anyway...

...why couldn't Kerry find his spine? If his vote was so irrelevant, why vote "YES?" UNSCOM was already on it's way back to Baghdad, and Kerry knew their work was all but done anyway. There were no WMDs.

Look, you're still dodging the issue. We're not talking about the Durbin resolution. We're not talking about what Bush "would have done" but didn't have to.

John Kerry used to be one of my sort-of-heros. The John Kerry I remembered from the Vietnam War, who rose to the Senate. As I said, the other Senator from Massachusetts stood up and did the right thing that day. Where was John Kerry? Why doesn't he share responsibility for Iraq? What about Ted Kennedy's "NO" vote? Isn't THAT the standard for refusing to be complicit?

[ProSense]

51. Who the hell said it was "irrelevant"?

Here's what I said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1974704

Look, you're still dodging the issue. We're not talking about the Durbin resolution. We're not talking about what Bush "would have done" but didn't have to.

Actually, I am talking about what Bush would have done and did.

He would have lied, and he did.

"John Kerry used to be one of my sort-of-heros."

Well do him the courtesy of getting the facts straight, and stop excusing Bush.

[politicasista]

54. Ouch! n/t

[blm]

57. Simple question, mike - Did Kerry side with weapon inspectors against use of military force in Iraq?

IWR did not take this nation to war and you know it. It gave Bush no more authority to go to war than the UN resolution that was already in place did.

[politicasista]

7. Thank you for sticking up for the Senator

in this thread.

[midnight]

11. I wish they would consider Russ Feingold...

[mike_c]

13. agreed....

eom

[blm]

55. Feingold spent the last 3 years ironing out differences with Pakistan? Oh no...that would be Kerry,

the same Kerry that, apparently, some of you know VERY LITTLE ABOUT, and especially how he's been handling most of the diplomatic duties already FOR the WH and the Sec of State the last few years.

[midnight]

58. Feingold warned against going into Afghanistan because it would drive the

extremist into Pakistan..

"Democratic Senator Russ Feingold told me the President’s Afghanistan surge will make matters worse in Pakistan. When I asked Feingold if the Taliban in Pakistan would be strengthened if they are not defeated in Afghanistan, here’s what he said:

FEINGOLD: Well, it’s just the opposite. You know, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and Mr. Holbrooke, our envoy over there, a while ago, you know, is there a risk that if we build up troops in Afghanistan, that will push more extremists into Pakistan? They couldn’t deny it, and this week, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan specifically said that his concern about the buildup is that it will drive more extremists into Pakistan, so I think it’s just the opposite, that this boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest."

Watch the complete exchange here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/12/feingold-afghanistan-surge-more-extremists-to-pakistan/

[blm]

59. Great - so did others, but, Feingold is not KNOWN for the diligent work of diplomacy is he?

Apparently some people are unaware that certain attributes are necessary for certain jobs.

[midnight]

60. I don't know of others who came out on this topic other than Feingold....

[blm]

61. You also don't know that Feingold's reputation does not include diligence or diplomacy.

.

[Arkana]

56. A vote for which he has given a mea culpa many, MANY times.

One mistake does not invalidate a lifetime of service and patriotism.

[warrprayer]

3. but... but..

We HAVE to give the republicans a senate seat back!

[Gothmog]

5. Giving the GOP a chance to win Sen. Kerry's Senate seat is rewarding bad behavior

I agree with the OP. Giving the GOP a chance to win Senator Kerry's senate seat will be rewarding bad behavior. McCain and his fellow idiots should not be rewarded for being jerks

[NewEngland4Obama]

8. I'm not trying to be rude but Gov. Deval Patrick would easily defeat Scott Brown

[Little Star]

39. I agree but I don't think he would give up a secure governorship to run...

And I wouldn't blame him. A bird in the hand....

[JoePhilly]

9. Obama should nomiante McCain.

And then the Dem Senators should crucify that idiot for his WMD Iraq war cheer-leading.

When McCain withdraws, Obama should nominate that idiot Lindsey Graham. And then the Dems in congress should kick his ass for his complicity in the Iraq War WMD nonsense.

After that, Obama should put forward anyone he wants.

[former9thward]

44. I doubt the Democratic Senators would do that.

Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
October 2, 2002

[JI7]

16. too late for that, he has been in consideration since 2008

[upi402]

19. Repubs get what they want

Or- to be exact- what their employers want... a Repuke in Kerry's old seat.

[Little Star]

30. That is my biggest fear regarding this whole thing....

I live in MA and we elected Brown once, people still like Brown (they just liked EW better) and he could easily be elected again.

If push comes to shove I'd rather see Chuck Hagel get SOS than for them to take Kerry out of MA. That's my opinion and I have a right to it.

[upi402]

33. OR! give it to a Repuke whose vacated seat we could win!

Two can play that game.
But we wont.
We bring library books to knife fights.

[GeorgeGist]

46. Yeah ...

right.

Who's on your short list of Repukes for SOS?

[upi402]

49. no

body

just tired of seeing us get played and losing a seat again

[Little Star]

31. I agree!

[MotherPetrie]

42. K&R

[mt_big_blue_sky]

43. Dennis Kucinich

Would be fantastic

[GeorgeGist]

45. I'm thinking ...

the Republicans thank you for allowing them to frame the debate.

[kiranon]

52. Bill Clinton for SOS - but not Kerry unless

it is part of the fiscal cliff deal and the deal includes no problems with raising the debt ceiling also and no raising of age for SS or Medicare.