Kerry fails Iraq test

[DaveSZ]

He took the bait.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1092175810357&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795


Aug. 11, 2004. 01:00 AM

Kerry fails Iraq test


What do Americans need in their president, post-9/11? Strong leadership, of course. Clear vision. Common sense. And in a dangerous, fast-changing world, the capacity to learn from past mistakes would be helpful.

Senator John Kerry, the Democrat who hopes to elbow President George Bush from office on Nov. 2, promises all of the above and more. But there was little of it on display Monday, when Kerry responded to Bush's challenge to spell out where he stands on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Rising to Bush's bait, Kerry said he would have cast the same Yes vote in Congress that he did on Oct. 11, 2002, to authorize the president to launch a pre-emptive war that began March 19, 2003, even if Kerry had known that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda terrorists, no weapons of mass destruction and posed no real threat to the world.

"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry now says. Only he would have used that power more "effectively."

-more

[lebkuchen]

1. Yeah, so

what's the difference between Kerry and Bush again?

[DaveSZ]

2. Domestic issues

not foreign policy I suppose

[lebkuchen]

5. Sure would be nice to have a peace president in the WH

for a change. Probably not gonna happen in my lifetime.

All war, all the time. Glad I live overseas, in a land that is sick of war.

[LondonAmerican]

34. I agree with you

it is very sad that we will not have any real debate on the Iraq war this election. Kerry has effectively conceded the issue to Bush. And of course Bush is ridiculing him for it.

Very, very disappointing. Why oh why did people think Kerry was a contender?

[hansolsen]

44. No one can tell me Rove and crew didn't welcome the Kerry candidacy

Dean was a flawed primary candidate (who would have been a great president), but he was right about the war and Kerry was not. Dems will now pay the price. Shrub will use today's statements to beat Kerry like a rug from now to the election.

It makes me sick.

[coloradodem2005]

6. Oy Vey.

They don't tell you everything that is in his statement. Kerry would be different on foreign policy. I don't agree with his vote, but he obviously felt that he needed to be strong on national security. It is a difficult thing.

[lebkuchen]

10. How was his vote "strong on national security"

when obviously the entire Arab world hates us?

My concern now is with Bush's aggressive overtures toward Iran and Syria. It's pretty clear they are next on the chopping block. Does Kerry feel toward those countries as he does Iraq, that we can invade them for no reason?

[coloradodem2005]

13. Hindsight is 20/20.

For him then, it probably seemed like the right choice from the standpoint of being strong on national security at the time. It is the power of perception. If he said no, then he would have been called a flip-flopper. Then one could have said that he took the bait then.

[lebkuchen]

21. I see your point

w/the flip/flop issue.

The decades-old US foreign policy of going to war to "solve" problems is very 1940's. We need a president who can modernize the country's attitudes toward conflict resolution, not feed into its current frenzy of casting about wildly looking for somebody to retaliate against.

[coloradodem2005]

23. I agree.

But Kerry's response was a little more nuanced than what they are saying. Furthermore, we need someone who will modernize the attitude, but he may not be able to come off as someone who has a different attitude when he is running. People may not elect him.

[demoman123]

17. Kerry said in July that "a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/446531.html

See also:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0702-04.htm

[Larkspur]

48. So Kerry supports nuclear apartheid

It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran?

[lebkuchen]

11. dupe

[DulceDecorum]

7. You mean like domestic soldiers?

National Guardsmen being sent off to the Middle East?

This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.
It's depressing from a candidate who has attacked Bush for "misleading" the nation, who promises a better direction and who claims to want to re-engage with the world.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1092175810357&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

They say that politicians rarely keep the promises they make when trying to get elected. I really hope that proves true in this case.
Or maybe it is a Skull and Bones thing,
in which case,
we would not understand it.

Even during the first world war, royal submarines have flown a Jolly Roger when returning to port after a successful patrol. The flag was modified by various symbols, if the submarine had sunk vessels or landed raiding parties.
http://www.aschulze.net/pirates/flags.htm

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/lookup/2003111814113?opendocument

[Pastiche423]

3. One has a "R" after his name

The other has a "D".

[Zhade]

4. A few domestic policies.

Certainly not foreign policy - certainly not with who he has advising him.

[whirlygigspin]

15. mother f*ck#ing f*ck f*ck F*ck!

ole Georgie thanks Kerry for the indorsement.

"oh, yeah, i'd do the same".--Kerry

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[amber dog democrat]

32. I don't care - Still voting for him.

Even if it comes to ABB. If my cat ran against Bush I would vote for the fluffie cat.

[emulatorloo]

40. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT KERRY SAID

I am not flaming you. but that is not what Kerry said. THere was a HUGE "but"

You are over-reacting to misleading headlines and Bush lying about what Kerry said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html?ex=1093148035&ei=1&en=be262e45751d6d66

Snip>


"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," said Mr. Kerry, who has faced criticism throughout his presidential campaign for that October 2002 vote.

But Mr. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, extended his attack on President Bush's prosecution of the war, saying he had not used the Congressional authority effectively.

"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"

snip

[caraher]

12. Kerry would not have gone into Iraq...

and won't go charging into Iran just because a bunch of neocon yahoos tell him to. I think that's a huge difference even though I agree he should have known better than to vote to give W enough rope to hang us all.

[Zhade]

26. Really? One of Kerry's people disagrees with you.

See my new signature.

The imperialistic DLC has its claws in Kerry. Unless he breaks free of them, you can expect no change in our foreign policy.

[AndyTiedye]

14. Kerry Isn't Doing a Crusade

Kerry doesn't have an exit strategy for Iraq either -- nobody does --
but at least he isn't looking to invade Iran or Syria and who knows
how many other countries.

Then there is the matter of the Fundies like Asscroft who have been
taking over more and more of our government, and especially the
certainty they would take over the Supreme Court in a second Boosh
term.

Is that enough? If not we'll post more....

[lebkuchen]

18. Kerry needs to put a confessional on the campaign train

and keep his pro-war thoughts to himself unless he wants Nader's percentage to take a flying leap UP.

[emulatorloo]

41. His statements were not PRO-WAR or PRO-Imperialist

you have to stretch pretty hard to make them so. . .

you are responding to misleading headlines, reporter spin, and Bush;s lies about what kerry said, IMHO

But Mr. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, extended his attack on President Bush's prosecution of the war, saying he had not used the Congressional authority effectively.

"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"

[regnaD kciN]

50. Oh, really...?

"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

So, it's O.K. to invade any country pre-emptively (since, if JK thinks it's "right" for any president to have that authority in regards to an Iraq without WMD, there's no reason it should be "wrong" for any other country without WMD, either), as long as we have what proves to be a successful plan to "win the peace" (i.e. impose our will there)?

Personally, I don't see this as a sinister move by JK, merely a gaffe in the heat of a campaign appearance. (After all, it's illogical to claim that the only reason one voted for the IWR was because the White House had lied about WMD, when one then says one would have voted for it even if there weren't any WMD.) Probably, he missed the "knowing what we know now" part of the question. But it is a misstep, and Kerry needs to be more careful in answering questions off-the-cuff. As I said in an earlier thread, it looks like the election is Kerry's to lose, but it won't take too many mistakes to lose it. I hope he's more careful in the next twelve weeks...

[Larkspur]

47. Their names?

:evilgrin:

[Democat]

8. This is not news, it is an opinion piece

This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.

It's depressing from a candidate who has attacked Bush for "misleading" the nation, who promises a better direction and who claims to want to re-engage with the world.

That is some writer giving his or her opinion, not latest breaking news.

[nofurylike]

9. actually, it is YOU who took the bait. n/t

[whirlygigspin]

27. Dick Little said it in July, from FRANK mag

"LIEBERMAN TODAY, LIEBERMAN TOMORROW, LIEBERMAN FOREVER!
I just started following the primaries down there, and by God, I'd stick my head in the oven if I could still bend at the knee. They say life's too short to waste on stuff like this, but I say try walking a decade in my shoes.

Some are going on about how John Kerry is the most electable, but they must be Republicans egging on those dumb-as-apeshit Democrats.

He has presidential hair, but he's voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, so all Bush has to say is "thanks for your support, loser. By the way, nice hair."

http://frankmagazine.ca/passim/view.php?id=384

[deacon]

16. lol, no, no, no--bush,cheney,rummy,rice and powell failed the iraq test

Now thats the truth.

Election 2004
War Hero v. Deserter
Take your pick.

[nofurylike]

20. yes. "Now thats the truth." n/t

[lebkuchen]

24. That the GOP would ever run a dufus like Bush shows

the level of cynicism the neocons have of the intellectual capacity of the American people.

To me, this election is the last line of defense against a one-party system. We're nearly there now, as witnessed through Kerry's Bush-alike comments.

[burrowowl]

22. He fails a lot of tests

Israel, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, etc.
Unfortunately, he is the only GD (as in GODDAMN) choice we have for now. I'm working to get him elected. His election will only be a delaying tactic to full FASCISM/CORPORATISM. True DEMOCRATS (in the sense of the voice of the PEOPLE) will have to push and try for a more JUST AND TRUELY COMPASSIONATE WORLD!

[lebkuchen]

25. Bravo!

I feel exactly the same way. You just say it better.

[Zhade]

28. Yes - the equivalent of grabbing a tree branch on the way over the cliff.

How strong will that branch be, I wonder?

[DaveSZ]

29. Well

Work to change the Congress then.

That would change the agenda away from Fundie-corporatism.

[Moderator]

30. Moving

This is an editorial.

[Gore1FL]

31. I see Rove's talking ponts are hitting the op eds

This is just red meat for rwn's who are too lazy to do their homework.

He didn't and doesn't endorse Bush's Iraq policy, only that the vote was a necessary tool to do it the right way -- which Bush did not.

I don;t agree with Kerry on his vote. I didn't when he cast it. His reasonaing, however, is clear, and is not represented in this op-ed piece, nor in anything Bush had to say about it.

[IndianaGreen]

36. In the 1950s this was called "red baiting"

Nowadays we see Rove's hands behind everything that criticizes the Democratic nominee no matter how wrong he may be on an issue. Get real!

[Gore1FL]

37. The Bush line is this:

John Kerry agrees with me.

Well He donesn't. Kerry hasd been very clear on his position and has not waivered from it.

He did NOT vote for war. He did NOT vote for unilateral war.

It was his opinion that the authorization to use force would be the trump card that was necessary to push the UN resolution.

Bush abused the authority (which I suspected he woas going to do all along, and why I opposed Kerry and others when the vote came up)

This particular article goes back to "Kerry voted for the wa" and he never did.

That isn't red baiting. It is Rove spin on an issue and even infomraed democrats buying into it, as you displayed with your "get real" statement.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Rove tells the Canadians what to write?

Is this the bogeyman that is going to be used every time there is a disagreement about policy? Is the Kerry White House going to accuse us of being Rove puppets when we march against the war in Iraq on March 20, 2005?

Bush and Cheney are war criminals! The fact that we have no real Left alternative to the two prowar parties is illustrated by the fact that no one has filed Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney for the war. Congress should have kicked Bush out of the White House the moment it became apparent to the most dense that there were never any WMDs in Iraq.

The war is wrong and evil, as much as the war in Vietnam was. No one is fighting for my freedoms in Iraq, and it is a delusion to believe such nonsense!

The war is wrong, and America is slaughtering people in Iraq while most Americans are in a self-induced trance.

[Gore1FL]

51. They are reporting what the Bush line is

Like it or not, the Bush line came from Rove.

I am not happy with Kerry's vote. I disagreed with it when he first cast it.

I am unaphappy with it on its merits, not the Bush spin.

The vote was not to go to war, it was to authorize use of force as a final option.

That is not agreeing with Bush.

Again. I disagree with Kerry's reasoniong on the vote. His reasoning is not what the White house is claiming it is.

What the white House claims it is comes from Rove.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Teddy Kennedy referred to IWR as the "war resolution"

Kerry is the only Senator that believes it was not. Kerry also ignored the millions of people that marched throughout the world against the war.

I think the reason Kerry voted for IWR was because he believes in the DLC's PPI agenda, which is the flip side to the PNAC agenda for global imperialist domination. The only difference between PPI and PNAC is that, in an Orwellian twist, PPI sticks the word "Progressive" in their imperial plans.

If Kerry decides to pursue a PPI foreign policy, I see nothing but trouble and bloodshed for this country and for others that never lifted a finger to harm us. Time will tell!

[radiclib]

55. Get real. By voting for the IWR, Kerry voted for war

Any half-sentient being could see that Bushco was hellbent for invasion in October 2002, and for months before as well. Kerry and every other spineless Dem in Congress was essentially abdicating their constitutional responsibility, in effect saying that the Chimp could have his war, just please don't call me unpatriotic. It was painfully obvious that Kerry was strategizing for a run for President.

[lindashaw]

33. It frustrates me no need for Kerry to play this political game with Bush.

But at this point, it is nothing but a game. Chet Edwards, our new Congressman here in Texas, says that no vote in the Congress matters right now. The die is cast, and nothing will change either way, that everything is a game.

So, Bush/Rove have thrown the trick question out there, and if Kerry bites, he's dead meat. Kerry knows this, and we have to just go with it. Trouble is, some of us still value the truth, and it hurts me. I hate everything about this mess! (Though I am voting for Kerry, of course.)

[IndianaGreen]

35. "America has carte blanche to make war"

This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.

This is an excellent editorial by our Canadian friends that reminds the easily-gullible American readers that there are some underlying principles at stake in here. Imperialism is imperialism, and replacing a mad emperor Caligula with a more efficient emperor bodes ill for the fate of the world. We must guard against imperialism no matter who is in the White House!

[emulatorloo]

42. THAT IS A TOTAL MISCHARACTERIZATION of what Kerry said/has said

Unsupported and unsupportable

Kerry's position has not changed - war as a last resort, un resolutions, allies etc etc etc. you may not like Kerry's position, but that is a different issue

The editorial is total mischaracterization. . .

see this compendium of Kerry statements:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2194599#2194702

[Capn Sunshine]

49. Hell F***ING YEAH

A bomb does not have an (R) or a (D) painted on its side when it lands in Najaaf and kills a bunch of family members.

It's just the USA. All of us. And the orphan who watched his family die screaming in a bloody heap is not going to make the distinction in twenty years either.

[4dsc]

38. Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

AWOLbush lied about the reason for war and should be impeached!! That's what john Kerry should be saying..

[dennis4868]

43. I am upset with Kerry....

for saying that had he known that Saddam had no WMD and had no ties to OBL/911 he still would have given Bush the authority to go to war....WTF? Why would anyone do that when we had OBL cornered in Aghanistan at that time. Perhaps Kerry did not understand the question....who knows.

But the fact of the matter is....this election is NOT ABOUT THE ISSUES...this is the first election in my lifetime that the issues do not mean a damn thing. We have a cancer in the WH and it must be removed. No one is going to try and impeach Bush and the rest of his thugs so our only option getting rid of Bush is voting for Kerry. Bush and his administration has been the most criminal and secretive administration ever! They put Nixon to shame on every level.

[hansolsen]

45. How the hell can Kerry win the debates with this convoluted line of

reasoning? It is all head and no heart; all logic and no passion, and without soul. Bush will wipe the mat with him unless Kerry finds some principle on which to stand in Iraq.

God help us.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. Concurring in part and dissenting in part

I disagree with Senator Kerry's vote for the IWR and his justification for it yesterday. On prior occasions, Senator Kerry has justified his vote by saying that Bush was going to get his war one way or the other and voting against it would have made no difference. In that case, what would have been wrong with just saying No?

The Toronto Star in this editorial makes one excellent point:

"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry now says. Only he would have used that power more "effectively."
This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.

Of course, it isn't all right for the United States to go to war on bogus grounds. That is a power no President should have. Let's make no mistake about it: The reasons given by the Bush administration for invading Iraq were bogus and those administration members who formulated and advanced those reasons knew they were bogus. If members of Congress, including Senator Kerry, had gotten their noses out of Judith Miller's Chalabi-sourced articles in The New York Times, away from the stacked witness list they complied for hearings prior to voting on the IWR and checked the news from the sources we who marched against the war used, they, too, would have known that the Bushies were lying.

Nevertheless, the IWR is a complex document and Senator Kerry could have better justified his vote for it than he did yesterday. He has in the past. The IWR did not give Mr. Bush carte blanche to wage war against Iraq. He first needed to gain international support for the effort. This he failed to do.

Initially, Bush and his people had some success at the UN by getting the Security Council to pass Resolution 1441, calling for Saddam to open his country to inspectors or face "serious consequences." No one expected Saddam to comply, but a desperate man with no other might try anything. So Saddam complied. The subsequent inspections turned up nothing; more doubt was added to veracity of Bushies' case for war. In spite of this, the Bushies kept their bluster at a high volume in an attempt to discredit the inspections process. Britain, one of the few allies the Bushies had in their perfidy, introduced an resolution to the UN Security Council authorizing the use of force. The Bushies sent General Powell to the Security Council to state the case for war. General Powell was impressive in style, but his case was weak and based on evidence that on inspection proved to be flimsy at best. Powell presented his case to the UN on a Wednesday; by the weekend it was wholly discredited. Popular opposition to the war grew and less than ten days after Powell presented his case to the UN, millions took to the streets all over the world to voice their strong condemnation of Mr. Bush's plans in Iraq. The enabling resolution faced certain defeat and was withdrawn.

The Bushies continued their bluster and went to war with only one major international ally, Britain; there was neither provocation from Iraq nor authorization from the United Nations. The war was illegal and the IWR did not make it legal. Had Bush succeeded in gaining UN support for his plans, the war might still have been questionable in that the rationale would still have been false -- nothing can change that now -- but with UN approval it would have been legal.

Bush's own continued case for the war, "I don't need a permission slip from the UN to defend America," is bogus. In the abstract, there is nothing wrong with this statement. After all, the UN charter recognizes that nations have the right to defend themselves from an immanent threat. The problem is that it doesn't apply to Iraq. The fact remains that America was not threatened by Iraq; therefore, a permission slip from the Security Council was needed prior to the invasion if the purpose of the invasion was to enforce UN resolutions. None was given.

Consequently, if Senator Kerry is going to justify his vote for the IWR on the grounds that the Congressional resolution directed Mr. Bush to seek international support for the invasion, then he must call into question Mr. Bush's own compliance with the resolution. Mr. Bush received scant international support for the act and no final authorization for the attack from the UN.

Indeed, Mr. Bush failed to comply with the IWR; this can and should be used as a reason to impeach Mr. Bush.

[Dancing_Dave]

53. KERRY WILL LOSE THE ELECTION UNLESS HE CHANGES HIS IRAQ POSITION FAST!!!

I've said this before and now the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. The ONLY thing we can do to help Kerry get elected is to SHOW UP AT EVERY RALLY HE DOES WITH "PEACE" AND "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" SIGNS AND HOPE HE GETS THE CLUE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND WE'RE STUCK WITH 4 MORE YEARS OF BUSH DYNASTY TERROR.

[sallyseven]

54. Maybe you people should listen

to the answers he gives. He said he would have given the president the authority to go to war and expected that the what bush said would be done would have been done. It was with the proviso that bush would get the UN in involved. He also has said "who knew that he would f it up. You really have to listen to the words not what the media whores say he said and what the biggest liar in the world said he said.