Oh. Beautiful diary in the Dead Letter Office - dKos. Comment anyway.

[beachmom]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/13/23157/810

I think we were all watching JK on TV and missed it!! (I wasn't online last night)

[blm]

1. It's not coming up for me.

,

[beachmom]

2. I think dailykos is having technical difficulties.

Try a little later.

[blm]

3. NuevoLiberal didn't fully COMPREHEND Gore's speech before the IWR vote.

Gore said pretty much what Kerry and others who were against an invasion, but FOR the IWR as a tool to get inspectors in. Gore never says in his speech that senators should vote no on the IWR, and is just as against an actual war until it is determined force is needed as Kerry made clear in his speech.

Gore said clearly that the changes HE would need to see made in the IWR would be that IF military force is used, the US must pledge a strong commitment to STAYING in Iraq and handle the rebuilding and infrastructure.

So, if a SENATOR Gore was negotiating the IWR in Oct. 2002, and his provision was added to the IWR, then he would have voted for it - that's the way it goes - his entire history backs that view up. And he'd have especially done so with Bill Clinton supporting it as heavily as he did.

[beachmom]

4. I just put your comment in.

Nuevo gets on everybody's nerves because it's always Gore, Gore, Gore. Perhaps he can answer whether Gore is actually going to RUN. I've seen no indication.

[blm]

6. The OP also says something in the thread that is WAY wrong -

He said is he the best person for the job? Probably not. Well, that's crazy - there is NO OTHER person better suited for what will come next because his creds are NOT just on environmental issues, health issues, military issues, and best ACTUAL record against terrorism, but also the best record in modern history of investigating and exposing government corruption.

After BushInc - there is no one better than Kerry - - NO ONE. And not a one that understands the many operating levels of terrorism and has for years - many years before 9-11.

[beachmom]

7. Yeah, I missed that the first time.

I think it has to do with him trying to be "cool" amid the Kos idiots. I hope he looks back at the diary and sees some of the supporters who chimed in, if belatedly.

[ProSense]

11. This kind of stuff is game!

I'll accept them (as support for another candidate?) as the backhanded compliments they are. It's a long and winding post that ends: Is Kerry the right man for the job? Probably not...Who the hell wants that job next? If Kerry wants it, he has my vote.

Whatever!

[blm]

8. Just read his reply - putting up the bill doen't change the fact that

throughout his career, Gore AS A LAWMAKER has always come down in support of military action - if he had been a senator after 911 and not spent his time OUTSIDE Washington he would have still been part of the inner wrangling and once a provision of his was adopted, he would be obliged to vote for the bill - that's how it REALLY works. Plus, if Gore was in the senate then, after his 2000 campaign, he would have been HOUNDED consistently in the media that would be playing his campaign rhetoric over and over again, where he vowed to get tougher with Iraq.

And if Gore was as clear as NL claims - then how is it in his entire speech you cannot find any statement saying he would never vote for the IWR? He doesn't. As it stood, the IWR was a bill he didn't like, but his ONLY suggestions to change it are the provisions about STAYING till Iraq is rebuilt IF military force is determined necessary.

So, if those changes were made to accomodate that provision, Gore would have been obliged to vote for the IWR - that's how the senate works.

[beachmom]

9. I put that reply in. Did you read that awful

lightnessofbeing? She bares all that she had a bad experience with some campaign people and oh, it's ALL John Kerry's fault!! Then she compared him to Nixon. WTF?? I told her if she wants the same experience again, she should join Hillary's cmpaign.

[MBS]

10. GREAT REPLY!!!!!!!! n/t

[karynnj]

12. Did he say specifically that he WOULDN'T vote for it as it was?

Most Democrats were working on changes then - and they got many. They specificly limited it to Iraq and took out language that would have specifically allowed for doing it for regime change and other reasons. (This is like the torture bill - the Republican 3 got things that specifically ok'd some things taken out, but notice they voted down Kennedy's amendment that would have SPECIFICALLY ruled out forms of torture.)

[blm]

13. That's the thing - his entire speechg on it he NEVERS STATES a NO VOTE

should be lodged = he says WHY there should be no pre-emptive strike for many of the same reasons made by Kerry in HIS speech - but no specific, NO on the IWR.

But, it's in Gore's suggestions for the provisions that SHOULD be in the IWR where people totally miss what he's saying - Let's accept that every provison Gore suggests is added to the bill - there isn't ONE provision that Gore would add that would act as an OBSTACL:E to war.

[beachmom]

5. Oh. Another great diary that I missed.

This one is not from a Kerry supporter, but he/she was EXTREMELY impressed with what JK said last night, and talks about the NH '06 elections:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/13/191813/21