Kerry cannot have it both ways.

[wurzel]

He cannot say that he would have gone into Iraq knowing what he knows today, and continue to claim Bush "misled" us. As he did in his speech last night. This is a loser. His concentration should be ENTIRELY on the competence of pursuing this war. Which is what I thought the point of his agreeing with Bush was.

[ET Awful]

1. Well, if he'd actually said he would have gone into Iraq, you might

have a point. Except he didn't say that. He said he would have voted the same way on the IWR, being that he was led to believe that an invasion would only occur as part of a large multinational force under the approval of the UN.

His words were to the effect of he would have voted to give the president the ability to use force because that's an ability that the president should have if needed.

[wurzel]

5. Well, that was what most people believe he said. Including me.

It is this total confusion of message that is costing us so very dearly.

[JI7]

7. the only "confused" ones are the ones who claim to care about the issue

so much, yet they misrepresent what he has actually said on the issue. i would think if they cared so much they wouldn't accuse him of saying things he didn't.

[greenohio]

159. Would you have voted to authorize $hrub

to engage in this illegal war, knowing what you know now? I wouldn't.

[bowens43]

10. What's confusing about it?

There was no vote to go to war. Kerry didn't vote to go to war. No one did. That was bushes decision and his alone.

[gottaB]

17. Then you're starting to see the problem

Kerry's message is clear enough when he says it. What can he do about how others distort it? If he attacks the media, the risk is twofold. One, media will retaliate. Two, people who don't know the truth may percieve him as whining and negative.

He can more effectively counter distortions of his message that come directly from the mouths of the Cheney Bush* gang. He just needs to keep reiterating his position over and over again, which is exactly what he's doing.

He also needs to raise funds, since it is clear that in this election, as in past elections, Democrats will need to pay to air the truth. His fundraising is pretty darned good.

Chin up.

[HFishbine]

20. I agree

Like it or not, the nuances in Kerry's position are too fine to be workable in a modern campaign. His message is confusing on this subject.

[CWebster]

44. He is not nuancing

He is dissembling.

We all knew the score on DU, Kerry was hedging his bets. Now he is boxed in on the most pressing concern demanding our attention. How long can he tread water, shifting positions, without taking a confrontational stand and dealing with the reality?

People criticize Kerry because they can see his liabilities--it serves none of us to be blind to them or make excuses for them. Or, not mention the subject.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. You can run up the cost wurzel, or you can post positively to solve it.

What is your positive suggestion, wurzel, to stop running up the cost?
What is your positive suggestion to turn this around, wurzel?

[Leilani]

8. I believe Jamie Rubin

speaking on behalf of the Kerry campaign, said Kerry would have gone into Iraq.

Then, the campaign retracted his statement.

[bowens43]

2. Kerry didn't say he would have gone into Iraq.

[JI7]

3. he didn't say he would have gone in as Bush did,

he said he would have gone in and allowed inspectors to do their work. and made decisions based on what their advice and through working with the international community.

[DemNoir]

4. Your misinformed

Read the Iraq war resolution. Learn what it actually is.

[wurzel]

6. If I am "misinformed" what the hell do you think everyone else is?

When Bush challenged Kerry to say, knowing what he knows today, would he be in Iraq. Yes or No? Kerry said Yes! If I am "misinformed" so is Mark Shields.

[JI7]

9. he didn't ask "would he be in iraq" he asked would he vote for IWR

and demanded a simple yes or no answer. that was why Kerry's answer was a simple "yes". yet the far leftists and the right wingers took kerry's answer and applied a different question than the one bush asked to it.

[bowens43]

13. No he didn't.

Kerry said he would have voted the same way. The vote was not a vote to go to war.

[wurzel]

18. I think the total confusion on this point makes my point.

Even those of us that support him have no clear message.

[JI7]

19. i'm not confused at all

it's mostly those who repeat right wing talking points that seem confused to me. they claim kerry said things he didn't actually say.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. If you have a shred of positivity, you will clear up the confusion.

Post a positive suggestion on how Kerry can kill the problem and get beyond it, wurzel.

[wurzel]

36. PLEASE READ MY POST #31

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. Finally.

[wurzel]

62. Bush and Cheney did Kerry a HUGE favor this week!

They took Kerry off the hook. First they reiterated the case for the war. Since Kerry agreed with them (like it or not, and I don't) he has taken that off the table. The only argument can now be about competence in pursuing the war. And Bush has made a dog's breakfast of it. Second they both attacked Kerry personally. This gives Kerry the excuse he needed to personally go after them. Even our lousy media can't complain after that convention. And they both have a lot more to run and hide from than Kerry. That is why Kerry cannot keep talking about being "misled".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Misinformed people have no positive suggestions. Where's yours wurzel?

Misinformed people have no positive suggestions. Where are your positive suggestions, wurzel (or any other poster who makes the same statements)?

[wurzel]

84. "Misinformed People" will decide this election my friend.

Republicans are experts at it.

[truthspeaker]

118. So why are you complaining about Kerry?

Republicans lie about what Kerry says, so you blame Kerry for it?

[wurzel]

132. Why is this being called "A Republican Lie'? Would he lose your vote?

He won't mine. Just look up on Google "Common Dreams Mewscenter Friday Sept 3 2004. Kerry Fails Iraq Test". Not a Republican news paper. I am stunned at how few of our DUs know this.

[MercutioATC]

11. What Kerry DID say was that he'd still vote for the resolution, even

knowing what he does now.

I agree, it's a loser. If he knew everything he knew now, he'd know that the "evidence" was not there and that Bush would use the authorization to go to war.

HOW can he say this???????

[ET Awful]

15. He can say this for two reasons. . .

Because it's an accurate statement, the president should have the ability to use force if necessary.

Second, and most importantly, if he states now that the ability should not be given to a president, and that ability becomes necessary when he is in that office, do you think Republicans would back him?

[CWebster]

49. The hell with checks and balances

and consulting Congress.

Does Kerry advocate an Imperial presidency?

[MercutioATC]

64. I've heard that argument..

..but what Kerry's esentially saying is that he voted to approve the tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions because of a procedural issue.

Do you really think that even 10% of the country understands this nuance? They just hear him say "Bush made a mistake - I voted to authorize him to make that mistake and I'd do it again."

...this is NOT a good thing.

[CWebster]

75. Republicans are always ready to go to war. nt

[JI7]

76. not always, only for purposes of wealth, which is why not Sudan

and Kosovo where it was about humanitarian aid .

[CWebster]

82. They would've figured out away

if it meant more return on arms investments.

[JI7]

88. too bad it doesn't help do something about Sudan genocide

[CWebster]

91. The world's policeman

is stretched a little thin at the moment.

[JI7]

95. the problem is not really the lack of troops in this case

[wurzel]

22. You make my point better than I did. Thanks.

[HFishbine]

24. Indeed

It's contradictory. Kerry says he would have allowed inspectors time to do their work, but if he knew then what he knows now, it would have been what inspections would have eventually verified -- that there were no WMD.

So how can Kerry argue for inspection then turn around and say that if he knew what those inspections would have eventually uncovered, he would have still authorized the war? It makes no sense. I believe some would say his logic eats itself.

[MrBenchley]

12. Why not?

I got no problem whatsoever with it....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. wurzel can't have it both ways.

wurzel is either for Kerry or not.

If wurzel or any other poster is for Kerry, then when wurzel or any other poster attacks Kerry, wurzel or any other poster better have well written positive things for Kerry and the campaign to do.

[Minimus]

16. as bush would say

your either fer us or agin us!

[wurzel]

21. Even Hillary Clinton is confused.

She is under the same impression as I am about what Kerry said. When she was asked Bush's challenge by Russert she said. "Had we known what we known now there would never have even been a vote". Russert asked. "Why didn't Kerry say that?" Hillary didn't know. This can't be swept under the rug!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. What is your positive suggestion for how to handle it, wurzel?

What is your positive suggestion for how to handle it, wurzel?

[wurzel]

31. For Kerry to accept what he said, and USE IT!!!,

I thought Kerry's agreeing with Bush on the war in Iraq was mistake. But at least it had the merit of taking the reasons for the war off the table. So now Kerry could concentrate on the competence of Bush in pursuing it. And let's face it Bush has made a complete mess of it. Get off saying Bush "misled" us into the war. Kerry can't say that anymore!! Get onto how Bush has totally mishandled the war. Kerry can say a lot about that. Especially with the total advantage of 20/20 hindsight!

[JI7]

33. the vote was not for war, Bush himself said that

i don't know why some people have a problem holding bush accountable on that. good thing kerry has no problem holding bush accountable.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. Kerry has accepted it. Kerry stay on Bush misleader in chief.

Kerry has accepted what he said. Kerry voted to give Bush authority, but Bush misused the authority.

Kerry needs to stay on how Bush mislead the nation. It makes Bush unfit for command.

Kerry needs to stay on how Bush miscalculated on Iraq and stubbornly pursued bullheaded policies, like the torture memo, not planning for peace, too few troops, backdoor draft, etc.

[wurzel]

42. Would Kerry agree that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do?

That is the question: YES? or NO? Bush's answer is a clear YES. I don't know Kerry's answer. Do you??? This isn't negativity. It is the question all the "undecideds" want answered. I will vote for Kerry no matter what.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. Saddam had to be dealt with but not on Bush's election timetable.

Bush attacked Iraq because he saw the opportunity after 9-11. He told Richard Clarke that day "Get Iraq".

Bush attacked Iraq in March 2003, not March 2004 because of Bush's re-election timetable. He wanted to have it out of the way by now. Bush miscalculated. Bush and his administration are incompetent.

[wurzel]

50. That is the kind of answer that is going to lose this election.

If Kerry says that in the debates. If Bush says YES What does Kerry Say? I can't bear the thought of four more years being ruled by the bunch of crooks in the WH. Kerry has got to be as clear a Howard Dean and Bush on where he stands.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. Lack of positive answers will lose the election. Less negative, more pos.

Please post more positive helpful stuff and less negativity, wurzel.

[wurzel]

56. Head in the sand will not win this election.

Actually I am being positive. I am saying Kerry should stick with a winner. Bush is incompetent. Hammer that night and day. That is a winner. Stop talking about how we got into it. That is a loser.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

60. Finally we can agree

"I am saying Kerry should stick with a winner. Bush is incompetent. Hammer that night and day. That is a winner. Stop talking about how we got into it."

Pound Bush on incompetence, misleading, miscalculation, and broken promises.

[merh]

78. Because Hillary had a chance to see how Kerry's honest

statement has confused the small minded and the uninformed.

She added a statement - yes she would have voted for the resolution (which means my vote was not wrong) BUT there would have never been the need for the vote because this resolution would have never had the chance or been presented to congress.

Geeze guys - Go read the f**kin resolution and his statements. Understand how things work, then maybe you can positively respond to this.

[wurzel]

113. The "small minded and uninformed" will decide this election!

How stupid does anyone have to be to be "undecided" in the first place? It is the "Yes but..." answers that are causing the problems.

[merh]

123. Yes, but you need to answer them, have you not figured out

that the media wants Kerry to lose, so our options are to adopt the position that we will campaign like hell and get the voters to the polls. As you campaign (if you chose to do that rather than whine about how you don't like the answers) explain it to the folks, go beyond what you see as the "nuanced" answer and explain it.

The truth was, the resolution provided the prez with the authority to use force is not the problem and neither is Kerry's vote or his answer regarding same. That is part of the smoke and mirror, deflect the issues.

The truth is - BUSH LIED AND THOUSANDS HAVE DIED!!!!!!!!!!!

He failed us on 9/11 (he knew it was gonna happen, he had a memo on it - what did Usama have to call him and say watch out?) (he sat in the classroom like a deer in headlights when he was told we were under attack)

He lied - SH had no WMD's
He lied - SH and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

He lied - did not serve in vietnam war - he was awol

he lied - and never kept one campaign promise from 2000

[MrBenchley]

28. I'm tired of this kind of crap....

What I find sort of brilliant is that the dichotomy has insulated Kerry from attack on the issue by the Republicans....they CAN'T say "Look, Kerry voted to have an idiot go to war."

[wurzel]

52. This "crap" will decide this election!

Kerry said he would have given the same vote now as he did then even knowing what he knew today. There is no way around that. I didn't like it. But a case can be made for that position. But only if Kerry TOTALLY concentrates on how Bush handled the war. He cannot keep going back to the "misleading" case he can no longer make.

[MrBenchley]

57. The hell it will.....

[wurzel]

59. What do you think will?

[MrBenchley]

102. Jobs will. Health care will. Leadership will.

I don't have a fucking problem with any "dichotomy." because I don't see a fucking dichotomy.

Kerry is talking about what a president ought to be able to do...and a president should be able to it when necessary. Junior Flyboy abused that trust. That is the issue...not whether two statements in tweo different contexts can be distorted to be internally inconsistent...

And it's especially not an issue because the other side cannot attack on this issue. What are they going to say? "Ha-HA. Kerry voted to let a corrupt drunken idiot go to war...er, wait."

[JI7]

25. had we known what we know now would you vote to end sanctions ?

[seabeyond]

26. yes he can and makes perfect sense to me n/t

[JI7]

27. because Iraqis were dying from the sanctions

an inspection process would have helped show there was nothing so we could end the sanctions killing them for over a decade. kerry knew about the problem with the sanctions years ago and spoke about it.

[Viking12]

34. The IWR was necessary for inspections to work

that's why Kerry said what he did. Without the IWR and the threat of force, the inspections would have been impossible. Kerry made this clear on the Senate floor at the time, in a foreign policy speech in January 2003, and holds that position today. Kerry has been very consistent.

on edit: spelling

[CWebster]

39. The pressing need "inspections" were created out of thin air

to pursue an attack on Iraq that had already been planned.

Don't kid yourself.

[MercutioATC]

66. That's like authorizing somebody to shoot somebody (but just as a threat)

and then bitching when they actually shoot them.

[Viking12]

69. You can't blame shrub's abuse of authority on Kerry n/t

[MercutioATC]

72. Of course I can. Kerry authorized "use of force".

I've posted this before...

How stupid would you have to be to give authorization to start a war to an opposition President who had surrounded himself with the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Ashcroft? Hell, my 13-year-old has more sense than that.

Bush would have done it anyway. Kerry's vote legitimized it.

[JI7]

83. he authorized use of force in Afghanistan also

doesn't mean Bush should not be blamed for the way he handled it.

[MercutioATC]

94. Yes, but Afghanistan was a legitimate target.

Bush has handled both conflicts poorly.

The difference is that Afghanistan DID represent a threat to our security and military intervention WAS justified.

[JI7]

97. not really, military intervention made things worse

and bush went in for reasons of oil anyways. he only used the cover of al qaeda threat for justification. but that wasn't the real reason he went in.

[MercutioATC]

104. By "oil" do you mean the pipeline?

I thought the pipeline plans were killed back in the 90's.

[JI7]

106. Bush is now President

[MercutioATC]

131. Yes, I thought that was understood.

The pipeline idea wis still killed in the 90's, wasn't it?

[JI7]

136. if it was, it was brought back when Bush got into office

[MercutioATC]

148. Have a link for that? I've seen no talk of a pipeline since the 90's.

[JI7]

149. here

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm

[MercutioATC]

151. Thanks! I hadn't seen that.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Octafish]

41. "Kerry is a pathetic loser"? Don't think so.

Gee. Kerry's been fighting the BFEE from Day 1. Here's what he did while a freshman Senator.

Follow the Money

How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank.

By David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin

Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

More than a decade later, Kerry is his party's nominee for president, and terrorist financing is anything but a back-burner issue. The Bush campaign has settled on a new strategy for attacking Kerry: Portray him as a do-nothing senator who's weak on fighting terrorism. "After 19 years in the Senate, he's had thousands of votes, but few signature achievements," President Bush charged recently at a campaign rally in Pittsburgh; spin that's been echoed by Bush's surrogates, conservative pundits, and mainstream reporters alike, and by a steady barrage of campaign ads suggesting that the one thing Kerry did do in Congress was prove he knew nothing about terrorism. Ridiculing the senator for not mentioning al Qaeda in his 1997 book on terrorism, one ad asks: "How can John Kerry win a war if he doesn't know the enemy?"

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0820-04.htm

[CWebster]

45. Really?

then why are so many of those Contra criminals from Elliot Abrams to John Negroponte in the highest offices of power today?

[JI7]

46. because Kerry doesn't have power to do everything

but he still did a lot more than most people.

[Octafish]

48. Because George Herbert Walker Bush pardoned them.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/021901a.html

[ET Awful]

51. Perhaps because they were pardoned by a particular POTUS

who shall remain nameless?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

96. You need to get a clue

Being in PA, I will probably vote for him, so don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Aside from his longtime band of small devotees, blm, everyone else is holding their nose.

[JI7]

99. not really, his crowds have grown larger with time

and the reviews from his appearances are always positive.
these are people who go out to see him because they want to. they put up with long waits, long lines, crowds, even bad weather. but they say it's all worth it.

it's actually the kerry haters who talk about holding their noses which are the "small band" of people since they seem to be the same few who pop up every now and then.

[CWebster]

100. Yes, that is why this election

which should be a walk in the park, is so close.

[JI7]

105. it's close because there are differences

not sure where you got the idea from that it should be a walk in the park.

there are many people who oppose abortion rights , gay rights, and support other republican positions. there are places like alabama that see war in afghanistan and iraq as a problem, but they still support bush because of religion.

but there some people who may consider voting for Kerry even with these differences since they agree with him on economic issues. edwards helps the most in this area because he comes from a place that many of these people are from.

[wadestock]

103. Kerry is a loser? Watch him WIN pal.....and turn around W screwups

He'll not only win but he'll bring the war to an end.

#1 - He's right on the money in terms of reversing the Bush tax cuts.
If that is pursued and turned around with help from congress....that is 80% of what anyone could hope for right there.

The tax breaks and ANY upper rate below 40% is showing itself to propel too much money to the top....ie....the progressive tax rate is not "in balance" and the middle suffers.

That's the first WRONG of Bush's that has to be RIGHTED.

Since he has consistently got that part right....he is on the money no matter how you look at it. I support him strongly based on that issue alone.

#2 - The WAR effort is a can of worms and that's because W got us there. The Congress was specifically duped....you could research remarks and book by Sen Byrd to see just how bad it was. I'm not saying the Dems in congress shouldn't have been more anti-war, but if you consider the political will to do something coupled with BushCo clever tactic to "authorize the use of force"....well....who the F would have thought that he'd give Saddam 48 hours to "get out of town" and then proceed to annihilate every single piece of military hardware (and anyone standing close to it) the way they did. It was a complete slaughter and no one can be proud of that. The damage around the world and recruitment of anti-American terrorists may never in our lifetimes be reversed.

BUT....You'll see that when Kerry gets in..... he will, with infinitely more intelligence than W, find a way to reduce casualties and get the men out of there.

He's no loser.

[Octafish]

38. That's what George W Bush says.

Why repeat it?

When an issue is complicated, there may be more than one way of looking at it.

Regarding the war on Iraq: Kerry said he voted to protect the country, based on what was known.

Here's the complicated part: At the time there were threats of mushroom clouds over American cities. Then the CIA and State and everybody was saying Iraq was priming the nuclear pump. That meshed with what was known from the late-1990s. A good Senator puts the US first. Bush, we now know, used the Office of Special Plans, Ahmed Chalabi's misinformation and whatever else Wolfowitz and Cheney could come up with to build a case for war. Remember the forged Niger documents?

[hansolsen]

43. Calling Bush on his lie, by far more important.

I'll do the math for you. Here are the comparisons on a 10 point scale.

A. Points earned by staying consistent with every nuance of every statement Kerry has previously made on Iraq. -- None. That is a wash. Some people reward a few points for consistency, but lots of others subtract a few points for just being obtuse.


B. Points earned for challenging Bush directly for lying the nation into war. Ten.

Karl Rove clearly knows this race is all about getting out the base, turnout, and emotion in the electorate. Kerry did the right thing tonight.

[wurzel]

55. Kerry can't say Bush lied but I would have voted the same anyway.

Rove will eat him alive.

[hansolsen]

157. Kerry just did say Bush lied. He said in his midnight speech last night

that Bush "mis-led" the nation into war in Iraq. Let the battle rage. The truth is out.

[blm]

53. He NEVER said what you claim. His VOTE was for a president to use force as

a last resort.

The sooner people get that through their skulls, the better.

[wurzel]

58. He said he would vote the same KNOWING WHAT HE KNOWS TODAY.

That means knowing that Bush would have invaded. There is simply no way around this. Deny? Deny? Deny?. But Kerry can use it. But only if he agrees to what he said. So now it becomes a matter of competence. Who do you think is more competent?

[JI7]

61. Bush did not invade because of IWR

[blm]

65. Wrongly assumed. He said knowing there are no WMD's would you vote for

the IWR. The IWR is a RESOLUTION that authorized force as a last resort, a power every president should have as a means to coerce the other nation into compliance. Kerry was being honest because he cares about the process.

Sorry it doesn't translate into a strong sound bite.

[bigtree]

68. Folks have been bantering with you for days with your opposition to Kerry

What is the purpose of this line? Do you wish to convince folks that Kerry is bad? Do you wish to hang this around his neck as the republicans and the Bush campaign have? Is there a purpose in dogging Kerry on this issue beyond your personal satisfaction of proving yourself correct? Is your premise that Kerry was wrong on this and doesn't deserve to be president? It is very likely that his comments were calculated to maintain some percieved political advantage. Given the reality of the danger in re-electing Bush (that result would be catastrophic in the biblical sense) what purpose would it serve for Kerry to sing your tune, especially now that this is the position he has taken. Are your opposing posts academic exercises or do you have a mission here? How far do you intend to elevate your opposition on the issues you have raised against Kerry? Is this just a discussion or are you on a crusade against our nominee?

[wurzel]

73. I yield to no one in how much I despise George Bush!

Stop impugning my motives. I will try to make my argument clearer. Kerry really did agree that he would have voted the same way as he did knowing what he knows today. I thought that was a mistake. But it may not have been. By continuing to justify the war Bush and Cheney took Kerry completely off this hook this week. Giving Kerry a golden opportunity to totally concentrate on how well Bush has pursued this war. Which by any standards is lousy. If Kerry keeps going back to being "misled" he will continue to be embroiled in the "flip flop" tag. Which, according to Mark Shields, was the reason for agreeing with Bush on the war and his vote in the first place.

[bigtree]

79. If kerry adopts your position now then he will have reversed himself

At least he is consistent now. He hasn't, as you repeatedly asserted, justified the war. That's misleading rhetoric that is unsupported by anything Kerry has said. Further, the line about 'if you knew now . . . was the question asked. You include it in your litany as if he included it in his answer. He answered that he would vote for the authorization but he is opposed to the way that Bush disregarded the provisions in the IWR that intended restraint. Kerry was led to believe that Bush would have exhausted all peaceful means. Bush did not. Bush lied.

If you are worried about the flip flop label then why not direct the charge back on Bush whose entire term has been flip and a flop? Why bother to push our nominee off of the position he has maintained since before the IWR vote?

[wurzel]

90. I would agree with everything you have said if only it was true!!

Kerry really did say what I say he did. He really, really did. There is no way around this. I am absolutely amazed to find people don't know this. Bush crowed about it for weeks. Dean has gone totally silent. But Bush and Cheney took him off this hook this week. But not if he continues to go around saying he was "misled".

[bigtree]

63. He never said that he would go into Iraq, war on Iraq, occupy Iraq

He said he would vote yes on the IWR. The IWR wasn't a resolution to war, it was a sanctioning of 1441 backing up the U.N. resolution with the force of our military. The inspections were succeeding when Bush balked and invaded. This, despite assurances that he would see the U.N. process through, follow the provision in the resolution that called for an exhaustion of all peaceful means, follow the provision that called for a return to the U.N. Security council before any military action. The president disregarded the will of the U.N., Congress, and the American people when he pushed to invade. He had gone around for days claiming that 1441 gave him the mandate to do anything he wanted. He didn't need the IWR to commit forces. If Congress had looked like it would resist him then he would have sidestepped them as Clinton did with Haiti and invaded without initial authorization. At that point the republican dominated Congress would have been loath to withdraw forces. They would have, by law, crafted a resolution without restrictions (which he ignored in the end anyway) that codified the invasion. John Kerry and others sought to influence the president's behavior through the IWR, It was a long shot, but they tried and failed. I believe it is not so outrageous to suggest that one would vote for a similar resolution that contained some of the restraint implied in the resolution that ultimately passed. It was not a vote for war, rather it was an attempt by some to forestall war.

[wurzel]

67. Wonderful! Has Kerry ever said he would not have gone into Iraq.

Yes? or No? Unless Kerry makes this as clear as Dean did we have a problem.

[bigtree]

70. I just don't see the purpose would be in Kerry prejudging what the outcome

of the inspections would be and what proportional action he might take. It appears mostly to be a startegic posture to preserve his options for when he takes office and is actually charged with the task. It would seem to me, foolish to state now that he would have opposed giving Bush authority to back up the U.N. inspection regime with the threat of American force. That's what Clinton did in Haiti. He took our troops to the edge of Haiti's shores and forced a resolution to the crisis. I just think Kerry would be setting himself up for future opposition by the republicans if he then or now declared that the president shouldn't have the authorization to use force if necessary to enforce a U.N. resolution. He may need their support in some future crisis. I believe he and his foreign policy advisors were thinking of a President Kerry who might need this authority.

[wurzel]

80. Iraq be the very first question of the debate. If there is one.

If he gives an answer like you have given, how many will understand his position?

[bigtree]

93. Most Americans were simalarily conflicted on their support of Bush

in this. Initially most believed Bush and approved of the invasion. Now most disbelieve Bush on this and oppose the occupation. They likely still would accept giving President Kerry the same authorization with the same resolution attempting to place restraint on his actions. That's what the vote was all about. The rest of the fiasco is in Bush's lap. He certainly didn't operate as Kerry counseled in his speech before the vote. He certainly didn't reform his course after he invaded and was rebuked by Kerry and others. In fact, Bush completely ignored Congress altogether, as he could have anyway due to loopholes in the War Powers Act which allows the president to commit forces for up to 90 days without congressional authorization. He would have if Congress had looked like it would have rejeected him. Most folks recognize and remember that Bush had said repeatedly that he didn't need congressional approval to invade. Most folks recognize that it was Bush who pushed past Congress, the American people, and the international community and invaded. Most folks recognize that it is Bush who sent our troops in unprepared. Most Americans recognize that Bush has mismanaged the aftermath and has been flatfooted in the face of almost 1000 of our soldiers killed. Most folks would welcome a change in our approach to Iraq that would seek to take the burden off of our troops and internationalize our effort there as Bush has stubbornly resisted. Most Americans would welcome a reprive from the back-door draft that Bush has employed on order to avoid the concessions of handing over control of Iraq's resources to achieve that lessening of the burden.

Quit impuning the intelligence of the American voter.

[LisaL]

71. Bush had misled the country

regardless of what Kerry did, would do, or wouldn't do.

[merh]

74. He never said he would go to Iraq -- he said he would give

president the authority to use force, that was what the resolution said. HE ALSO SAID and has been saying, that the president dit not follow the resolution, which provided for the use of the diplomacy and UN inspectors...

Quit quoting the talking points & go read the resolution and all of his interviews on this.

I am tired of DUer's misquoting and not understanding the resolution and this issue.

[CWebster]

77. Everytime you offer up your tortured defense

You dis all the members of Congress who voted against and took the heat. Kerry needs to take a strong, unnuanced, uncompromising, principled and morally courageous stand--and then, he will win the brass ring. Then he will demonstrate his ability to lead in the present rather than having to strut history to compensate for present failings.

[merh]

86. I am confused, is your post in response to mine?

:shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

89. I realize fully what he meant, and I STILL have a big problem with it

John Kerry's explicit statement has been that the President should be given the authority to go to war, but that he would have carried out the inspections longer in order to bring more allies on board prior to invading Iraq.

I have two major problems with this stance.

First, it is a complete endorsement of the Imperial Presidency, and a complete abandonment of the Constitutional principle that only CONGRESS can have the authority to declare war. Now, I realize that the whole idea of only Congress declaring war has gone out of vogue, and that Kerry himself unfortunately abandoned this principle in voting for the resolution (not that I blame him, it's really just an unfortunate trend of our system over time) -- but the last time I checked, the Constitution hadn't been re-written in this regard. The War Powers Act was NOT an amendment. Therefore, it's a blatant violation of the Constitution to further endorse the expansion of the Imperial Presidency, one of the greatest dangers to the Republic as James Madison warned us.

Second, his statement about bringing more allies on board prior to the invasion by drawing out the inspections has the basic implication that the invasion was the right thing to do, it just was done in a terribly ham-fisted and irresponsible manner. Therefore, the choice ultimately comes down between two people who both were in favor of the Iraq invasion, but the differences are rather in the details.

I support John Kerry wholeheartedly in this election, but I can't force myself to adopt convoluted reasoning to endorse a stance that I see as being fatally flawed on this issue. Somehow I doubt that the John Kerry of 1971 would have been able to adopt that reasoning either, and that is the REAL tragedy in all of this.

[bigtree]

107. But, there was no chance in that series of votes that were allowed by the

republican majority for any amendment or substitute to pass that would have affirmed Congress's authority under the War Powers Act and stripped the president of his power to commit forces for 90 days. Bush could have just sidestepped Congress if the vote was in question. There was no will in the majority to oppose him, there certainly wouldn't have been any more will to withdraw forces after they were committed, much like Clinton/Haiti.

The IWR was seen by some as a vehicle to attempt to place restrictions on the president's behavior, and also to affirm the resolve of the U.N. by providing the threat of the U.S. military if Saddam did not comply. Any resolution that would have been drawn up , by law, after an unauthorized invasion would have likely been even less assertive in the restraint that the IWR that passed contained. Bush had us in the bag on this with control of both houses and the jittery public who were inclined to bomb France if Bush said we had to.

It appears that you are advocating immediate withdrawal. We destabilized a nation of opposing sects that had been kept at bay by a brutal overlord. I am not impressed by the argument that we should leave them to their own fate there. Those who profess concern for Iraq's sovreignty should not be so eager to allow more insidious pretenders to achieve control over the country. I can think of far worse than Bush and our American troops who would take advantage of the hapless authority we have helped facilitate, and the Iraqi people..

[IrateCitizen]

112. Allow me to clarify for you where I stand...

... since you seemed to have inferred a great deal from my statement that I didn't actually say.

If you advocate keeping the troops in place, I challenge you to look in the eyes of a young soldier who has just shot and killed a civilian at a checkpoint because they didn't understand to stop. Hear them tell about how they cannot deal with this when they come home, and how they are not given the help to deal with it.

I challenge you to do this because I met other people, not much different from me, who have personally gone through this tragedy. I heard their voices quiver and saw the tears roll down their cheeks as they recounted these experiences, and reflected on the brothers-in-arms that they lost forever over there. And I know that I'm not at all willing to ask more young men and women to do the same. Are you? All too often we debate these matters exoterically without regard for the very real and tragic human consequences that are involved.

Do I advocate immediate withdrawl? I don't see much of a viable alternative, to be quite honest. Our presence is inflaming the resistance. Our opportunity to win over the Iraqis is gone. Sure, I think we should pay reparations for the rebuilding of the country. But I'm not at all convinced that a continued military presence will cause any good in any way, shape or form. And I'm also not at all prepared to ask others to place themselves in the path of barbarity that I wouldn't engage in myself.

[bigtree]

117. It's that innocent civilian who I think would be put at risk by withdrawal

immediately. The Iraqi's need to hold elections. That won't happen without security which the Iraqi's can't manage today. If we pack up and leave I believe murderous forces would achieve power with as much or more barbarity as our assault and occupation is inflicting. It may well happen that we have to cut and run. Kerry has acknowledged that the situation might change and prevent his plans from working. One thing he has been resolved about is that he does not intend to commit any more U.S. forces to Iraq. He intends to loosen the U.S. grip on Iraq's resources and give the international community and Iraq's neighbors more of a say in the reconstruction. We shouldn't abandon that effort yet, and we won't achieve any help there without our involvement on the ground, albeit, if Kerry's plans bear fruit, we will have many less of our soldiers at risk.

[wurzel]

110. I agree. But Kerry can make a lot of hay from those "details".

I thought Kerry had made a deliberate "political" decision when he basically agreed with Bush on the war. That was to clear him for criticizing how the war is being pursued. The RNC convention has helped him in this. But not if he goes back to the old "I was misled" argument. I really don't understand what everyone is disagreeing about. Or why they think I am being "negative". We cant bury our collective head in the sand.

[merh]

153. You are burying your head in the sand of the campaign

If you believe that the weed that would be king is wrong for our nation and will be the ruin of all we love and cherish about our country and the Kerry is a better man for the job, then you have a responsibility to correct the misinterpretations every where you go.

Stop blaming the campaign and get out there yourself.

The media is not going to help us, they keep distorting the message.

[truthspeaker]

81. That's why he never said that.

[wurzel]

87. I am sorry to say he did. Why do you think Dean has gone silent?

Kerry seemed to undercut us all when he said it. But he can turn it into a huge advantage.

[JI7]

92. General Clark is out there almost everyday for Kerry and he oppose War

and said he would have voted against IWR . so what you say is not the case.

[chiburb]

111. Dean has gone silent?

From his interview today on Sirius:

GOP is slick and polished (getting support for Iraq), and DNC needs to know how to do the same.

Asked what he would do if he were the nominee. Dean hedged. "We all had different personalities".

Kerry's advantages: Convinced Iowa he was qualified. Had two tough races in his life: Weld in MA, Dean in IA.

Kerry is a tough guy. Vietnam toughened him.

Kerry should have gone after Swiftnuts sooner. Bush is criminally liable for SBVT, since two of his guys participated in it. Illegal according to McCain-Feingold.

Talking up Richard Morrison, who's running against DeLay.

The big debate is "people will vote for Kerry if they feel they'll be safe".

Alex bitches about the media, not connecting the dots with the SBVT thing. Dean says the NYT and WaPo did, but TV dropped the ball. Fox is a propaganda outlet.

Alot of people vote Republican when they really shouldn't.

Dean is confident that Kerry will win. Not discouraged at all. Bush is most incompetent president since Harding, most dangerous in his lifetime.

Dean wants a president who is a grownup.

End of interview.


This was a pretty good interview. It's a left-leaning show, hosted by a guy who's very left leaning, though not a Democrat, so it was much different than you'd hear on a TV interview. Dean was pretty plain spoken.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x735852#735954

[wurzel]

114. Keep harping on the incompetence. Get off the "misled"!

Do people think we are safer because we are in Iraq? I think they do. I don't agree with them. But I think they do. That "I'd rather fight them over there than here" line may be despicable. But it works. That is one of the reasons for Kerry to say he also backs this war. But he can't say at the same time he was "misled"! It is that simple. All he can now say is he would had pursued it more competently. And let us face it. That ain't a tough call.

[wurzel]

130. Just read "Common Dreams Newscenter Friday Sept 3, 2004 on Web

I'm sorry I don't know how to "link". If you can please do, and tell me how you did it.

[Walt Starr]

98. Sure he can, that's how politics works

only naive naysayers spew the kind of crap in your post.

get on board for the big win. Join the team. Be a part of this.

either that, or we know what your real agenda is., divide and conquer.

[wurzel]

108. I am very sorry to hear that from you. I expected better.

The point I am making is a serious legitimate point. If Kerry is for the war, he can concentrate on criticizing how it is being conducted. Which is why I believed he made the political decision to answer Bush in the way he did. If Kerry now returns to the "misled" thing he will be asked a very simple question. How can you support a war you claim you were misled into? It is a no brainer!

[goclark]

101. Yes he can have it both ways!

Why do we Democrats have to always dot the I's and cross the T's?

Rethugs don't give a rip . They just say what ever they want to say.
They change their minds fifty times a day.
Bush calculates and he miscalculates, do they care NO! NO! NO!

If you are to believe the polls that lie, at least 45% of the American people believe ANYTHING that Bush tells them to believe. They do not question him at all.

Well I choose to believe ANYTHING that Kerry tells me to believe.
We are in a Battle to the Ballot Box not the Battle of Comparative Lit.

The brave patriots that protested in New York said it best. They did not wait to digest each and every word that Kerry said after Vietnam. Nor did they digest how he voted for/against the war.

This is what the Kerry Street Soldiers knew to be true in the bottom of their souls...

"Bush Lied,People Died!"

and after last night WE know that the TRUTH is ...

"Bush is Unfit To Command"

That is the bottom line. It is our job, as soldiers in this battle to get that message out to the American public. Bush absolutely is "Unfit To Command" so let's MARCH with those words.

This election will be here in the blink of an eye. Rove is getting ready to throw more stuff at us than we can imagine.

Until the debates, this election is about sound bites, not the Wall Street Journal. Anybody that reads the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal has known how they are voting since day one.

Our words now need to reach out to those voters who will walk or not walk into that voting booth.Those that are too busy working to even watch television. Those 18 year olds that are voting for the first time. That is who we are talking to now.

CHARGE! CHARGE!

[Uzybone]

116. Great post

n/t

[wurzel]

120. What you or I believe is irrelevant. We are committed to Kerry.

What is at issue here are the "undecideds" who may even include some moderate Republicans who have doubts about Bush. But don't think Kerry is "tough" enough. I agree with you "Bush is unfit to command". Stay on that message. Don't get sidetracked into "I was misled" arguments.

[LisaL]

126. Exactly. Bush just

declared we can't win war on terror.
Next day he declared we can win war on terror.
Apparently, Bush can "adjust" his position from one day to the next, and republicans just cheer.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

109. He never said he would have gone into Iraq knowing what he knows today.

That's a Republican lie.

[wurzel]

115. The fact is he did. That is not a "Republican lie"

I don't know why this is even an issue. But he can use what he said now to great effect. But he can't at the same time claim he was "misled". It takes away from his argument. It is that simple!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

119. Let's see the quote. Show the quote. Let's see the quote.

Perhaps you are unaware that you are repeating a Republican lie.


But if you are making an assertion that Kerry said something, the burden is on you to provide a quote supporting your assertion. Let's see it.


The fact is, he did not say what you claim he said.

[wurzel]

121. Perhaps EVERYONE WILL DO ME THE COURTESY of looking up this article.

Thanks for making me do this. I wish I had thought of it. I don't know how to do this "link" stuff. I typed in the words; bush challenge to Kerry on Iraq - in Google. It wasn't hard. Up came this article from "Common Dreams News center". Hardly a right wing rag. Entitled "Kerry Fails Iraq Test" Dated Friday Sept 3, 2004. If you read if I will respond to you. If you don't there is really no point. Just type in "common dreams Kerry fails test in Iraq"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

122. It's a Republican lie. Kerry never said that, that's why you can't quote.

And I simply don't believe this statement: I don't know how to do this "link" stuff

NOT CREDIBLE

[wurzel]

125. Tell me how to do it and I will if I can. In anycase it seems you could

What are you afraid of?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

128. It's a lie, and you can't provide a quote ibecause there is none.

I'm not going to play some bullshit game with you where you pretend you don't know how to type or cut and paste.

[LisaL]

124. Kerry said the country was misled.

[wurzel]

127. If the "country was misled", Kerry was misled. Wasn't he?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

129. The LIE: 'he would have gone into Iraq knowing what he knows today'

Now you are trying to muddy the issue, but your main point is based on a lie.

[wurzel]

133. You are afraid to look up the reference I gave you. Don't waste my time.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

135. What reference? Just type out the quote if it exists - IT DOESN"T

When and where are you claiming he said this? What were his words?

IT IS A LIE

[wurzel]

140. Big print is a Republican trick.

I have typed it on your own post. It is too long to repeat here.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

150. Truth is a Democratic weapon.

[irancontra]

137. Don't waste YOUR time?

you are completely misinformed & are trying to provoke... go to freepersfordouchebagtalkingpoints.com message boards & stop WASTING OUR TIME.

[wurzel]

144. Read my Post #31 and you will see where I stand.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

134. He needs to stop supporting the war and speak out against it.

He needs to offer a realistic plan to get the hell out of Iraq, instead of putting up the "not as bad" BS.

[irancontra]

139. if you had any real interest in knowing his plan

you would read it & not trash Kerry's plan to deal with IRAQ.

It's very simple... Iraq ain't workin because it is getting robbed & used by Bechtel, Kaki, Carlyle, Halliburton, etc... They have taken all the jobs/contracts away from anyone/any country that would help us... Kerry has spoken about not being selfish with the business coming out of there..

Not to mention, just electing Kerry will also show that we don't support *'s extremist and radical pre-emptive "doctrine".. regardless what you think of Kerry, he wouldn't have screwed up this bad..

do some research. Stop bitching & go sign-up voters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

145. Unfortunately, I did read it.

Iraq "ain't workin" because we occupy it. He offers no workable plan to end the occupation. i.e., "I will pull the troops out of Iraq".

Kerry has also said that he would still vote for the IWR so that a president would have the power to use pre-emptive force.

Do some research.

[wurzel]

141. It is too late for that. Kerry must concentrate on competance.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

147. As you said, "he can't have it both ways."

Which is what he is trying to do. He voted for the war and still supports the occupation. He is now trying to tell us that he would run an illegal and immoral occupation better. He has to attack Bush on his most vulnerable point. The invasion of Iraq was wrong. So far, all he is doing is playing a CYA game of being for the war and the occupation while tweaking Goober about the way it's going.

Pretty thin gruel.

[hansolsen]

158. Your arguement is a Carl Rove wet dream. The people always cut the man

in the arena a mile of slack. Monday morning quarterbacking is seen as weak, cheap, and banal. That is a losing arguement.

Meanwhile Bush did lie to the American people about WMD, and did mislead the nation into war, and he needs to be held accountable for it. If Kerry can't put forward that case, then we have no leader.

You arguement amounts to cutting the balls off our candidate. Why do you want to do that?

[AuntPatsy]

138. Here is an interview with Time concering Kerry's war stance

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_2004_03_03_Interview.htm


JOHN KERRY

Interview - Time Magazine

March 3, 2004


TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?
KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to—because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament.
TIME: But it turns out there was nothing to disarm.
KERRY: Well, if we had kept on inspecting properly and gone through the process appropriately, we might have avoided almost a $200 billion expenditure, the loss of lives and the scorn of the world and the breaking of so many relationships.
TIME: Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank?
KERRY: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively.
TIME: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war?
KERRY: I didn't say that.

[wurzel]

142. I rest my case!

[AuntPatsy]

146. Rest your case? On that article..I don't think so, try again..

[LSK]

143. "He cannot say that he would have gone into Iraq knowing what he knows"

Can someone provide video footage of this speech? I would really like to see it. The speech he gave last night is VERY CONSISTANT with what he has been saying even going back to the primaries.

[sangh0]

152. No. No one can document a lie

There is no video, no tape, no quote, and no links to any such statement by Kerry because it's nothing more than a REPUKE LIE that some "progressives" like to repeat.

[NoBorders]

154. There is confusion about this and he needs to forcefully clear it up

Those who support Kerry and pay close attention know the difference between what he actually said and how it is being portrayed. Many people do not, however.

The campaign should make a point of clearing this up beyond a shadow of a doubt. Woodruff asked McAuliff about this last night after the bush* speech, and he said they planned to do so.

It IS being used against him, and Kerry needs to take this talking point off the table.

[Zhade]

155. Agreed. It does not compute.

Otherwise, Kerry is saying he'd have voted to be "misled" again. And Kerry's no dummy.

[Selwynn]

156. I agree the contradiction is annoying.

I wish he would just stop saying he would go into iraq knowing what he knows today, and keep the rest of it, but I suppose that's too much to hope for. :(