If Sen. Kerry had won in 2004, would we still be in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Ter]

Serious question, do you think we would be had he been elected (he may have won in Ohio, we'll never know for sure)?

[Ken Burch]

1. It's as ambiguous a question as "would JFK pulled out of Vietnam in a second term"

Kerry had gone out of his way to AVOID running as a "peace candidate"(he even barred antiwar signs from being displayed at the convention, which was farther than the LBJ groupies running the '68 convention did on that particular score).

I don't see him having the guts to stand up to the neocons on those issues.

I'd prefer to be proved wrong on that, but I just don't see it.

Kerry made it as hard as possible for anti-Bush voters to back him.

[blm]

2. Your perception of 2004 is dead wrong. Plus, you can't name ONE lawmaker who has investigated and

exposed more government corruption than Kerry has...certainly not one in the last 50 years. And that came at GREAT risk to his political career and his own life, and is most certainly the reason why so many powerful figures in BOTH parties pulled out all the stops to keep him from gaining the WH and its access to documents that had been kept from him during his BCCI investigations.

Plenty of TALES from the right and left aimed at undermining Kerry.



Guts? Name ONE lawmaker in DC today who has actually DONE more than Kerry to expose real government corruption...and that means has DONE the actual hard work, not just TALKED about it to make bloggers squeal.

[Ken Burch]

3. I wasn't talking about corruption. On that, he was good.

I was talking about Kerry's position on the wars in the 2004 campaign...a position which was, of all things "we can do it better"-in other words, a total endorsement of the wars and a promise to keep them going-and a position that didn't gain him a single vote, since no one who still backed the Iraq or Afghan wars at that point was GOING to vote against Bush.

Keeping us IN the wars would have made it impossible for Kerry to do anything progressive as president on any other issue. Wartime administrations are always essentially conservative(as was Lyndon Johnson's AFTER he escalated the war. Johnson started cutting the Great Society programs to free up funds for the killing in Vietnam in early 1966-thus dooming the programs to failure, since most of them had just barely started.)

[blm]

5. The corporate media sure had an audience with you, eh?

Apparently you watched only heavily edited versions of Kerry's speeches.

He specifically said he was AGAINST Bush's decision to invade, and he said so in the months BEFORE, during, and AFTER the invasion. He sided publically with the weapon inspectors and endorsed their position that military force was NOT NEEDED. No other yes vote on IWR would back him on that and even argued FOR Bush's invasion on the network programs, including Biden and HRC, and especially BILL Clinton who used his summer2004 book tour to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND Bush's decision to invade at the very time Kerry was the known nominee and had positioned himself against that decision. Kerry's position was clear to anyone who BOTHERED to actually listen to KERRY and not the bullshit 'deliberate confusion' of the talking heads who pretended they didn't get it.

He voted yes on IWR and promised that if Bush invaded without cause that he would speak out....he DID...media ignored it.

He sided WITH weapon inspectors over WH...PUBLICALLY....media ignored it.

Since we were IN the war, he said he'd use the military to SECURE Iraq long enough to turn the mission over to UN to oversee their 2005 elections, which was the best window of opportunity we would have had to end military mission and replace it with a humanitarian mission while a reduced force was there to bolster the UN team.

I suppose SOME folks here at DU willfully ignored these simple truths because they invested themselves in an alternate reality.....kinda like FOX.

[Ken Burch]

7. "Using the military to Secure Iraq" just meant keeping the damn war going.

Kerry went out of his way to avoid being seen as a peace candidate...and there was NO good reason for him to do so.

And, news flash "I voted against it BEFORE I voted for it" NEVER worked with anyone as a defense of Kerry's IWR vote.

I was there in 2004. I remember ALL the weasel words. I remember the contempt with which Kerry's people treated the antiwar movement. I remember the stories at the convention of Kerry supporters(including Carole King, for some twisted reason)begging people NOT to force Kerry to make firm commitments about anything...as if vagueness could possibly be a winning program.

He should have run in the fall on Kucinich's Iraq position. It would have elected him. "We can do it better" never could have elected him. There WAS and IS no middle ground on war. You either stay in it or you get straight out.

[blm]

10. Baloney. You can repeat your claim till the cows come home, it still isn't true.

All you have is a bunch of TALES...colored for various purposes to undermine Kerry's campaign.

BTW...You really think Kucinich would have abandoned Iraq completely BEFORE elections were held? You don't KNOW Kucinich, then. He would have SECURED Iraq long enough to turn it over to UN. To do anything else would have been unconscionable and only a reactionary fool would endorse that policy. Kucinich is NOT a fool. I know him far better than most folks here at DU.

[Ken Burch]

12. Those elections were and are meaningless.

It doesn't matter who wins if the only choice is the Shiite party or the Sunni party. No actual issues were debated in those elections...they were just about which GROUP held power. They freed no one, and no progressive policies have ever been passed by the Iraqi parliament.

[blm]

18. So your position is that a President Kucinich or Kerry working WITH the UN to oversee elections

and to assist in its writing of a new constitution would NOT have made a difference?

Those elections under Bush and HIS PUPPETS in Iraq resulted in 'no progressive policies' for Iraq and ongoing war. I highly doubt the UN would have sustained a full on war position for long, and the Iraqi people would not see themselves as occupied with the UN overseeing their fate.

[karynnj]

78. The fact is that there were very few people who would have voted

for someone talking immediate withdrawal - which only Mr about 2% of the Democratic vote Kucinich was.

As to the voted against/voted for statement it was about two versions of a funding bill. Kerry was against not funding the troops - as was Kennedy. Kerry voted for a version that rolled back the tax cuts on the wealthiest to pay for and against a version that added it to the debt. He explained the secon as a protest vote.

You may have been there, but your information sources were obviously poor. Kerry di NOT treat the anti-wat movement with contempt - I saw many times where Kerry spoke to antiwar people - and he was always polite and his own history as an antiwar leader made him very able to understand them. The fact is that Kerry got the highest percent of people who said they were against the war in Iowa - a state where he spoke to many face to face. That is just not possible if he would have treated them with contempt.

As to accepting Kucinich's position - he would have lost by a huge landslide. The fact was that a very large majority did not think leaving immediately a good position. If it was a great position, Kucinich would have at least been the nominee - he didn't come close.

[blm]

8. You also don't GET that the corruption Kerry worked years to uncover was also the BASIS for our Iraq

policy.

Kerry as President would be gaining access to documents that would have PROVEN his investigations into IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning were far more serious than the American people knew. I don't think it was just coincidence that Gary Webb gave up his fight shortly after it was certain Bush would stay in office....he knew a President Kerry would have opened the books that would have vindicated his work and that previous presidents kept closed.

Guts. Kerry risked his career, his life and the lives of his family going after the BFEE on BCCI. You still couldn't name ONE other lawmaker who actually DID the heavy lifting on those issues. Kerry became a target of the powerful in every way they could manage to target him...especially with their control of the media.

[Ken Burch]

9. Kerry lost because he made his whole fall campaign a blur

And because he refused to defend his core values when they were attacked. He re-ran the Dukakis campaign, and there was no excuse for that.

If Kerry had spent the fall saying "hell yes, I'm a liberal", and then made a passionate defense of 60's liberalisms core values, he'd have beaten Bush going away. Instead, he acted like the whole antiwar movement he'd come out of was an embarrassment.

You CAN'T run a vague campaign and then do anything progressive after it.

If Kerry HAD somehow won, we can assume his administration would have been sharply to the right of Obama's and that he'd have caved to the GOP in Congress on everything. There's no reason to see Kerry as some kind of great missed opportunity. When he ran in 2004, he'd abandoned everything he believed when he was actually part of the peace movement. He was tied into the whole notion of trying to prove that war COULD be liberal, after all.

[blm]

14. That's YOUR version because you hang your hat on the BS served you by corporate media.

You're wrong. Period.

You know NOTHING about guts and you know NOTHING of the establishment powers and their investment in undermining Kerry from any direction they could....including the space you occupy. Guess you also were unaware that they infiltrated VVAW back in the day specifically to try and set Kerry up....you think those folks all just went away and called it a day back in 73? Sheesh. You think Bush and Clinton didn't CARE if Kerry was in the WH with access to the documents they needed kept secure? You don't answer one specific thing I bring up. All you do is regurgitate all the same tired attacks made up from wholecloth.

[Ken Burch]

16. I didn't get my news from the Corporate Media

I got it from The Nation, The Progressive, Amy Goodman, and people like that.

Kerry was not fighting the anti-estabishment candidate in 2004. He was the candidate the PARTY establishment wanted. That should tell you all you need to know.

If you want to back the guy, fine. But he wouldn't have released those papers, either. Kerry would never have walked the walk on BCCI in office after having been elected on a "we can do it better" plank on the war. You can't be a hawk AND on the side of the people at the same time.

And no, I didn't think the anti-Kerry types "called it a day in '73". But Kerry gave up believing in the things he believed in in VVAW years before he ran for president. I still remember his being interviewed by Mark Shields, who showed him footage of his eloquent antiwar congressional testimony, followed by Shields insistence that Kerry repudiate that testimony as the silliness of youth(to which, at that very moment, on live tv, Kerry unhesitatingly agreed). You can't DO that and still be on the side of peace and the people.

There's no way to be a liberal hawk. There never really was. Hawkishness always forces you to give up most of the liberalism.

[blm]

20. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Kerry was UNDERMINED in so many ways by establishment figures in both parties. You

really haven't a clue about REAL history, do you?

You really don't GET that we're IN Iraq and Afghanistan BECAUSE of what went down in BCCI. You still can't name ONE other person, including everyone at the The Nation, The Progressive, or even Amy Goodman who has actually EFFECTED this nation's historic record as much as John Kerry has when he spent years investigating and uncovering IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning. Even the S&L scandal matters came out of BCCI investigations. You don't KNOW much about Kerry. You know what others TELL you. Precious little of it is accurate, and little of it is addressed in FULL context with his history. All those idiots would say is that he was NOT the Kerry who protested the Vietnam war. Duh....if they had HaLF the intellect they claim, they would UNDERSTAND that what Kerry did as Senator during those investigations was FAR more compelling and dangerous than anything he did during Vietnam.

Face it...few ever BOTHERED to pay attention to the whole picture....certainly YOU did not.

And your claim that establishment wanted Kerry....ABSURD. The one figure they would NEVER want to have WH privileges would be Kerry. The entire establishment was always AGAINST Kerry...and they often USED the media to attack him from every direction...and, I repeat...even YOUR position on the left. You just don't KNOW real history, KB. You ARE the product of media more than you think. Establishment can also manipulate what matters RECEIVE attention from the left...and they COUNT on it.

Nice of you to oblige the establishment, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

25. I didn't oblige them. I supported Kerry in the fall.

And it's utter bullshit to equate left critiques of Kerry with the Republican opposition to him. The two had nothing in common.

People to Kerry's left, almost as a bloc, backed him that fall. The Left bears no responsibility for his electoral failure at all.

BCCI doesn't outweigh the IWR vote.

[blm]

28. Get real. IWR didn't even MATTER. Bush was going in anyway. Kerry was the one IWR vote who refused

to support Bush's decision to invade, and stood with the weapon inspectors in opposing invasion. You didn't hear much about that and probably didn't even know he did that, because media sure ignored that truth.

Yep...you ARE a product of media whether you realize it or not.

Anyone who thinks IWR vote matters more to history than BCCI doesn't know much about history. We wouldn't BE in Iraq and a 9-11 event wouldn't have even occurred if Kerry's work on BCCI was furthered in a public way (after the release of the Dec 1992 BCCI report) and further scrutiny he requested was allowed and AIDED throughout the 90s, instead of being blocked by the forces in BOTH parties - Bushes AND Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

30. Kerry's BCCI work wasn't stifled by liberals.

And it's bogus for you to act as if I'm aiding and abetting the right by what I'm saying now.

Kerry, as president, would have been sharply to the right of Obama. You might as well admit it and let this go...especially since Kerry's never going to run again anyway(and would do worse a second time if he did run again and was nominated, as all Democratic nominees who are nominated again after losing the first time are doomed to do).

[ProSense]

31. "Kerry, as president, would have been sharply to the right of Obama. "

WTF?

So Kerry, who is arguably one of the more liberal Senators, would be sharply to the right of Obama, who some people are claiming is to the right of Reagan?

So does that make Kerry to the right of teabaggers?

The debate is becoming stupid.

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

35. They were both liberal Senators

But Kerry spent the whole fall campaign acting as if liberalism was the ideological equivalent of dogshit...to be scraped away wherever possible.

He NEVER made a speech passionately defending the Sixties liberal tradition, the tradition that made us, finally, a civilized place to live. Kerry left all the right-wing attacks on that tradition unchallenged and spent the lead up to his campaign saying that the party should move away from liberalism(including a famous, pointless attack he made on affirmative action).

You can't campaign as if liberalism is something to be ashamed of and then carry out liberal policies after that.

[ProSense]

38. Revisionist nonsense. n/t

[politicasista]

40. What did Kerry do to Obama, what did Kerry do to the poster?

:shrug:

[karynnj]

83. Kerry was asked if he was a liberal and gave a very thoughtful answer

His answer was that labels were not meaningful and that he was liberal on some issues, but he also was fiscally responsible. Maybe you should have looked at the policies he was advocating - the policies that ALL three main candidates in 2004 created versions of that were not that far from his.

The fact is a speech saying that would have made you extremely happy, but it would have lost him moderate votes that he needed.

[blm]

34. That's ABSURD. You're just spouting to hear yourself spout at this point. Real history must scare

you.

[Ken Burch]

37. I followed real history and still do.

Kerry's BCCI work doesn't outweigh all his vagueness in the 2004 campaign. You can't run a vague, positionless campaign and then do anything worthwhile after getting elected on such a campaign.

The only chance he had in 2004 was to fight back against all the smears FROM THE beginning. His failure to do so was not the fault of the progressive wing of the party.

[blm]

42. Your argument keeps changing. The chance he had in 2004 was undermined ALOT by Clintons and DNC

chair Terry McAuliffe. Had we a DNC chair who actually built the party infrastructure from 200-2004 instead of overseeing its collapse in so many states, Kerry would have won a few more states than he did, and the presidency. It was long collapsed party infrastructure that set up the losses in Ohio, NM, and NC.

[Ken Burch]

46. I agree with you about McAuliffe's destructive role

But McAuliffe let all that happen because he was incompetent-NOT out of a deliberate desire to sandbag Kerry. He'd have just as badly if HRC had made it clear that she'd run in '04. That decay in the party structure was because McAuliffe was a screw-up, not because he was a saboteur.

[blm]

52. Baloney...McAuliffe intended to pass on 2004 BECAUSE he was already looking to 2008.

You think Bill's carefully planned out timeline for his summer2004 booktour was just a coincidence, too? As was his vigorous defense of Bush's decision to invade? You think Carville phoning Matalin at WH on election night to tell her Kerry was going to go after provisional ballots to make up the numbers was just coincidence, too? There were 250,000 provisional ballots that Ohio Dem party was told were yet to be counted at the time of that call, and after the call Blackwell reported that were only 150, 000., as he 'corrected' the earlier figure.

[Ken Burch]

75. McAuliffe had also done a terrible job of running the DNC when Bill Clinton was STILL president

It's not like he suddenly got WORSE after 2000.

The guy was incompetent-and that's why he was kicked out of the job after 2004.

[blm]

98. Baloney - he wasn't head of DNC then, Bill made him head before he left in Jan2001.

He left on his own after the 2004 election. You clearly have trouble gathering facts, understanding basic political timelines, and the use of context.

[karynnj]

88. I guess Ken thinks that it was helpful for the most discussed answer to a question

in July 2004 was "because I could" as every person who interviewed Clinton researched the 900+ page book by looking up "L" in the index.

[karynnj]

86. Did you actually read his proposals or listen to his speeches on CSPAN

or were you content to look at second hand commentary.

As to fighting back against the smears, apparently you don't get that our mass media condoned a character assassination.
The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that they had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different. When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_...

As to conceding - the same legal team taht encouraged Gore to take back his concession, told Kerry there was no case. There still is not the kind of proof needed to change the Ohio result. There certainly wasn't by January 6, 2005. What Kerry did do then was to keep fighting rather than to give up. He worked incredibly hard to help the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

36. I think you are mistaking Sen Kerry for John Edwards.

It was John Edwards at the time that was uber-right. He wrote an Op-Ed arguing a case for war so convincingly, BushCo featured it on the White House website.

It is patently absurd to suggest Sen Kerry is/was/would be sharply to the right of Pres Obama. His record proves that simply not true.

[karynnj]

82. Explain why Kerry has never voted to Obama's right and often to his left

Not to mention - look at the fp since Obama became President and Kerry's public positions.

1. Honduras - Kerry and Howard Berman are the only two who had oped and statemsnt calling a coup a coup. Obama agreed to the more hawkish HRC position.

2, Afghanistan - Kerry, Reed and Biden argued against the McChrystal surge - and Kerry had 4 hearings, several OP-EDs and a CFR speech giving his far less hawkish position - and Obama sided with Gates, HRC and McChrystal.

3. Egypt - Kerry praised the protesters the day after everything happened in his statement, speaking of non-violence, MLK, and Ghandi - a week ago Tuesday, he wrote an op-ed that Mubarak had to go and was very clear on Sunday. Obama eventually moved to that position while at first he sided with Gates and Clinton - that a slower process and stability were better - accepting Suliman.

You might remember that Obama did not vote for Kerry/Feingold when in the Senate and his overall record was to the right of Kerry's. Obama voted for Dr Rice's confirmation - Kerry voted against. Kerry and Kennedy fought to filibuster Alito and though Obama ended up voting for the filibuster, he spoke negatively about it on the talk shows ahead of time.

Why should BLM admit something that is provably untrue?

[karynnj]

81. You just disproved your whole argument

"People to Kerry's left, almost as a bloc, backed him that fall" If that is true, then Kerry needed more people to his RIGHT to win. That wasn't going to happen if he morphed into Kucinich.

[karynnj]

80. Nichols of the Nation was AWFUL in 2004

He even made the ludicrous statement that Edwards was likely far better on the environment than Kerry - in spite of Kerry having a 96 lifetime LCV score and Edwards one in the 60s. (Gore spoke of Kerry being the best in the senate.)

Kerry has NEVER repudiated his testimony in 1971. The strongest he has ever criticized it is to say that he would not now have used some of the same language - making it clear that he would have made the same points. He is sensitive to many of the vets who were hurt by the language he had used. He never said it was "silliness" - it wasn't. (PS I believe it was Tim Russert, who did that - Kerry did make a joke but it was a comment about "all that black hair" - he stood behind what he did and said then. )

Kerry was not a liberal hawk - on any war

[karynnj]

79. Kerry would have won if there were enough voting machines in Ohio

This in spite of:

A media that condoned character assassinations not just of JK, but of Teresa. Did you know that Teresa was the person who initiated the effort by Pittsburgh's philanthropists to use their resources to help revitalize Pittsburgh in the 1990s and was responsible for turning it into one of the greenest cities in the country?

A media that willfully distorted his policies and failed to cover directly his major speeches.

A media that for the first time in my memory did not have all three networks do a puff piece biography for him before the convention - they even did them for Bush in 2000 - and McCain and Obama in 2008. None of them did in 2004.

The Catholic church was more active against him than any other previous or later candidate - why - the possible replacement of two pro-life SCJ.

That and a President willing to terrorize the nation by raising false terror alerts whenever Kerry's number rose.

Add to that lack luster support by the former Democratic President, who was likely dreaming of Hillary 2008.

The fact is that Kerry got almost all the anti-war votes there were to get and he got many of people who thought we couldn't leave a messs - even if we should never have attacked.

[karynnj]

77. "Wrong war, wrong time. wrong place" some endorsement there!

The fact is that we were in a war and if you looked at the polling the percent of people who disagreed that we should have gone to war was MUCH bigger than the percent that thought we should quickly withdraw. What Kerry described - in his NYU speech on Iraq and elsewhere was a path that would have us starting to get out as early as 2005. You missed that he attacked Bush - in the debates - about Bush's "permanent bases. He also spoke of getting help from other countries - including the neighbors to quickly train the Iraqis - and it was possible as evidenced by the fact that Jordan, Egypt, France and Germany all offered to train Iraqis in their countries in early 2005 when Kerry visited - Bush and Rice rejected the help as not needed.

[karynnj]

76. You ignore that in 2004 Kerry spoke of some withrawals in 2005

You also ignore that Kerry had a plan in 2004 that imediately spoke against permanent bases an spoke of immediately training Iraqis using with the help of other countries. (Before you say that was impossible - he got commitments in early 2005 an Rice/Bush rejected them - France, Germany, Israel and Jordan volunteered.)

As to LBJ's 1968 convention - rea a history book - there was NO LBJ 1968 convention - he alreay bowe out. There was a convention taht nominate Hubert Humphrey. In addition, there was a HUGE difference between 2004 - a year an a half into the war - and 1968. BOTH parties in 1968 had ending the war as a plank in their program.

You also ignore Kerry's path forward - October 2005, which was a plan that would have had us out in 18 months - pretty much dovetailing with Feingold's plan announced in August 2005.

You forget Kerry's op-ed in April 2006 and his excellent Dissent speech where he spoke of 2 deadlines - where we would be out in 6 months or 12 months max dependent on the actions of the Iraquis.

You forget Kerry/Feingold - for which Kerry was trashed by Republicans and the Democratic establishment alike - that alone is your answer.

By anti-Bush voters, you may mean Dean supporters who bought Trippi's lies that Howard ean was pure in his opposition to the war - scrubbing their lists of Dean comments of anything from fall 2003 and that Kerry was pro-war - when in spite of voting to give Bush leverage (which was wrong) Kerry in early 2003 spoke against rushing to war - an it him, not Dean, that David From attacked in teh National Review as one who woul never agree that it was time to go to war.

[Ken Burch]

84. I didn't say that LBJ was nominated in 1968

I said his loyalists ran that convention, even though they had no legitimate right to, given the overwhelming vote for peace in the primaries. They FORCED Humphrey to present himself as an all-out, even arrogant hawk, ranting stupidly about "Hanoi"(he didn't publicly deviate from that stand until September, due to constant LBJ threats to deny him access to major Democratic donors). And the Democratic "withdrawal" plank was nothing of the sort...it was for peace through victory, even though everyone in the Johnson Administration knew that "victory" was impossible by then. Nixon spoke only of a mysterious "secret plan" to end the war(which, in the end, involved NOT ending it for another four years).

[karynnj]

87. I was old enough to remember the 1968 convention well

Humphrey was NOT forced to present himself as an out and out hawk - and he didn't. You forget that LBJ opted not to run saying that he would concentrate on ending the war - and he had the Paris peace talks. Given that LBJ was working hard to end the war at that point, it is pretty silly to think that his people were pushing HHH to say that he was not for ending the war. Look it up - both parties were calling for an end of the war. The Democratic plan was to get peace through the peace talks - and the terms that LBJ had reached were similar to those that Nixon got 5 years later.

Whether Nixon was sincere (which he wasn't) and what the Democratic position was, the US in 1968 was FAR more in favor of withdrawing than the US in 2004. Not to mention - as I said - Kerry was more explicit in his plan than any other Democrat - and it was a plan that was designed to reduce our footprint and to start withdrawing in 2005.

[WI_DEM]

4. Another silly what if...question

[arcane1]

6. Yes.

As I recall during that campaign, his only complaint about Iraq was that we didn't do enough to get our allies to help us out.

[karynnj]

89. Your memory is not that good

As to whether to go to war:

What of wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

In addition to not building a real coalition, there were a few other items in Kerry's OFTEN repeated list - without researching, they included:
- not exhausting the diplomacy
- not letting the inspectors complete their job
- not planning for the peace
- not insuring that the troops had all they needed

You forget that he often said that "it was not a war of last resort" Do you understand how strong that sentence is. As a very knowledgeable Catholic, he was saying it was not a just war. (In fact, remember JK in the debate speaking of a global test as to whether a war was justified - everything he listed was the std list for a just war - and in teh Pepperdine speech he spoke of St Augustine and said pretty much the same thing) - Kerry was secularizing the idea.

As to how the war was done:
- Kerry called for Rumsfeld to be fired when Iraq fell in to chaos
- Kerry called for Rumsfeld to be fired for condoning torture
- Kerry essentially accused the Bush administration of negligence when he spoke of "our kids" and innocence Iraqis being killed by IEDs made from ammo that came from the KNOWN ammo dump, Al QaaQaa that was not secured for months.
- Kerry quoted Shinshecki that there were not enough troops to secure the peace leading to chaos and more destruction.
- Kerry quoted Lugar and Hagel about how Bush could have made more use of the UN in keeping the peace.
- Kerry brought up the permanent bases that Bush was building and said they were harmful because they signaled a long term occupation.

[BklnDem75]

11. Kerry's position wasn't much different than Obama's

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war.

Kerry and Rubin also are detailing a new Iraq policy to "significantly" reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during the first six months of a Kerry administration. In an NPR interview Friday, Kerry said: "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan." His comments took several aides by surprise. Until the interview, Kerry's stated policy was to significantly reduce troops by the end of his first term.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48708-2004Aug7?language=printer

[ProSense]

17. That's WaPo nonsensical spin

Kerry made it clear that Bush abused his power. He and Kennedy were the most visible and vocal in calling on Bush to not invaded Iraq. He even called for regime change in the U.S. one week after Bush launched the illegal invasion.

[Ken Burch]

19. Yet he WOULDN'T say "if elected, I'm bringing the troops home".

He said "we can do it better"(that may have been the EXACT words in his acceptance speech).

Distancing himself from the antiwar movement in 2004 didn't gain Kerry any votes at all. There were no "prowar liberals" or even prowar centrists by then.

[ProSense]

22. Nonsense. n/t

[Ken Burch]

26. In 2004, everyone who STILL thought the war was a good idea was right-wing

Nobody even in the middle of the road bought into the "we can do it better" meme by then.

[ProSense]

29. Nobody in their right mind

voted for Bush or stayed home because of a imaginary meme.

In fact, more Americans likely saw the debates and not individual articles spinning nonsense.

[blm]

33. You forget BILL CLINTON spent his entire summer2004 booktour DEFENDING Bush's decision to invade

And on ALL the network news shows, every wellknown Dem was siding with Bush on Iraq over Kerry who said he was AGAINST the invasion and would use force only long enough to secure Iraq so it could be turned over to UN to oversee.....which is exactly what UN said it needed before they could take over. Which is exactly the way Kucinich would execute an exit plan if he actually had the task of bringing Iraq war to an end in a responsible way that the UN would endorse.

Man, some of you have completely forgotten about the UN's position back at the time and also the fact that Iraq election still needed a secure environment.

[politicasista]

96. People know the media lies about Obama, but when it comes to Kerry or another Dem

people eat it up like it's a chocolate sundae with a cherry on top.

[blm]

27. You keep forgetting he'd also turn mission over to UN. War wouldn't continue in same way under UN

now would it?

Sorry, but, many of you are just wrong and plain old inattentive when it comes to 2004. You were bombarderd by bullshit from both sides and accepted it without question. News distortions and pisspoor analysis. Just as the establishment needed from their corporate media and the always reliable kneejerk contingent on the left who could so EASILY be manipulated by the emphasis of the mainstream media.

[karynnj]

92. You are looking at it simplistically

Even in 2006, when Kerry had Kerry/Feingold, which set up a process for exiting over a year, it was still a minority opinion. It finally became accepted by more than half the country only in early 2007.

The fact is that even among liberals, there were many that did not think we should leave immediately. This was not Dean's position either. Tell me again the % that Kucinich got in the primaries? This was not even a majority opinion among the Democrats - not even the more liberal group of Democrats likely to vote in the primaries.

[karynnj]

90. That is not true - that was media spin

The fact is that the question asked was not recorded and Kerry's answer was clearly to the standard question on why he voted as he did.

Here is a good summary of how the media distorted things. http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081204.shtml


As to Rubin, a former Clinton administartion person - there were several times where he contradicted the candidate.

[CrispyQ]

13. We'd still be there.

Why? Because the country isn't run by our government anymore - it's run by the MIC & corporate elite & they have billions & billions of reasons for keeping the wars going.

[Yavin4]

23. Exactly, Systemic Corruption of Our Government Is The Real Enemy

Not the Republicans.

[Dokkie]

15. Answer is yes

He was never for a complete pull out. He believe we should have gone to war but just like many of a democratic leader , he believed it was irresponsible to cut and run after we started. And if i remember correctly Howard Dean also had the same position on he war (and a fantastic healthcare plan)

[ProSense]

21. The U.S. would not be in Iraq eight years later.

Kerry would have started withdrawal within months.

Even his 2006 legislation would have resulted in all troops out by 2007. That's four years ago.

[karynnj]

93. Huh?

Kerry's healthcare plan was very good and was more more highly praised by healthcare experts, who liked his catastropic care provisions. I think you left out a NOT on going to war.

Though Kerry (and Dean) were not for an IMMEDIATE pull out - in 2004,Kerry was speaking of some troops withdrawing in 2005. You also ignore Kerry/Feingold. Kerry's position then - and his position in October 2005, would have already had us out before his first term would have ended.

[AtomicKitten]

24. Sen. Kerry did win in 2004. The election fell off the truck in Ohio. nt

[Chemical Bill]

67. +1

[politicasista]

32. What did Senator Kerry do today?

In fact, what did he do to the PL and Obama today? Did he steal their dogs or cats, or something? :shrug:

[taterguy]

39. We'll be involved in the Middle East as long as we need the oil

So yes.

[craigmatic]

41. Yup. I'm like 75% sure of it. He ran as a hawk but said that the wars weren't going right.

He wouldn't have had the clout to pull out because if he had won in 2004 the repubs would've made him seem weak.

[blm]

43. He did NOT run as a hawk. Pure revisionist bullshit.

.

[craigmatic]

44. He voted for the war and ran on his military record. That's hawkish behavior.

[blm]

47. He ran on his certainty that he could bring the war to an end by turning over the mission to UN

after bringing about the more secure environment on the ground in Iraq that UN said it would need before they could step in. Yep....media decided you didn't need to understand that aspect of Kerry's position, so you were fed heavily edited views of his speeches and his position papers.

[craigmatic]

48. Probably so

[karynnj]

95. He ran on his biography

What he said in every speech was that he served his country in Vietnam as a young man and he returned to fight against a war he had found to be wrong. He spoke of BOTH things every single time.

His military service was mentioned because of what his actions then said of him. He risked his life to save someone else and he used his intelligence and creativity to convince his peers of a way to deal with the ambushes that they could not avoid - when he fell into an ambush, where he or some of his men would have been killed, he and the other two boats followed Kerry's plan and survived. Beyond that, there was the testimony of his men and the intense loyalty they had for him because they knew he cared about them. The fact is that if the media would actually have read the fitness reports, they would have seen that person described there was a genuine leader, who in all his assignments created that loyalty - it would have countered many Republican smears for which there was no proof.

In a time of trouble, that time period showed that even at 25, he was a strong, compassionate leader - and that was an image that worked in a time when the country was traumatized -- and that is why the RW spent billions attacking NAVY reports written in 1966 through 1969. They could not let that image stand.

[karynnj]

94. Kerry did not run as a hawk - and he would have had the power

to unilaterally do everything he said he would have done in 2004 - and in 2005, he did have the commitments of Jordan, Egypt, France and Germany to train troops - just as he had spoken of - but Bush and Rice said it wasn't needed.

[Dr Fate]

45. Kerry is a powerful U.S. Senator in the year 2011. What has he done to end the war(s) since 2004?

???

Whatever it is he is doing, I sure wish it would start working.

[ProSense]

49. He did more than

all the other "powerful" U.S. Senators, many of whom voted against his withdrawal legislation. He did more to drive the debate toward withdrawal than any of them in 2006. Iraq was a deciding factor in that election.

"Whatever it is he is doing, I sure wish it would start working."

You're expecting him to do more than the President?

[politicasista]

50. His PR team is severly lacking

Based on the uninformed response. :(

[Dr Fate]

55. I'll say. They need to get the word out that the wars are now over...

...and that the billions we were spending on wars will now go to more popular domestic programs.

People need to be informed about this.

[politicasista]

59. Ok n/t

[Dr Fate]

54. And how many billions or trillions have we spent since he began these failed efforts?

Expecting him to do more than Obama? No- I just asked what he did do, and then I wondered allowed whether whatever it is was working or not.

LOL! I love how you put "powerful" in quotes- as if a senior US Senator is just a local dog catcher or something.

He drove a debate- awesome. I guess I meant examples of things that actually worked.

[ProSense]

57. Hmmmm?

"I guess I meant examples of things that actually worked."

Some concepts are too hard.

Democrats won in 2006 and 2008.....in 2010 and to date, more than 100,000 troops were withdrawn from Iraq.

Summary: 47,000 is less than 150,000.

[Dr Fate]

58. I asked you how many billions we have spent since Kerry began "driving the debate."

I got no answer. I guess some concepts are too hard.

Not everyone gauges our involvement in these wars by your milestones.

I note how you ignored that little place called Afghanistan in your response as well.

Summary: 47,000 sounds like there is still a war we cannot afford going on to me. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan which is the issue presented in the OP.

[ProSense]

61. I know what you asked

"Not everyone gauges our involvement in these wars by your milestones."

Not everyone guages our involvement in billions.



Clear?

source

[Dr Fate]

62. As if there is no cost to lives & standard of living on US soil due to the billions in war spending.

Not everything is about the troops- there are other living people who are Americans as well. They count too.

I note that you still cant answer the question- all you can do is incorrectly imply that I am not considering human life and health in this issue. I certainly am. We are talking BILLIONS we could have spent on improving life and saving lives here in the USA- for vets and active military as well as civillians.

Clear?

I note that you continue to ignore Afghaistan in your arguments as well. Did you not read the OP? The OP mentioned both wars, not just the one that you think helps your position the most.

So- for the 3rd time- how many BILLIONS have we spent in Iraq and AFGHANISTAN (that country you have been ignoring on purpose) since Kerry began "driving the debate"?

[ProSense]

63. "Not everything is about the troops"

Wow!

Tell that to families who lost their loved ones in Iraq.

[Dr Fate]

64. It's true. You may have heard that the USA has millions of citizens who are not troops.

Look it up in an atlas or something if you dont believe me.

Your argument works best when you ignore those people and the billions wasted that could have helped them- or even saved their lives.

So- for the 4th time- how many billions have we spent on BOTH wars since Kerry began kicking ass and taking names for us?

So spending billions in Iraq AND AFGHANISTAN is more important than spending money to save lives and improve lives here at home?

Wow!

Tell that to any family in the USA. I dare ya.

[ProSense]

65. Yes, but that doesn't mean the troops killed in Iraq are irrelevant.

Ten of thousands of uninsured Americans die every year, and the President is doing something about that.

[Dr Fate]

68. Agreed. And yet you still refuse to answer my question, or address the Afghanistan part of the OP.

Part of the reason we did not get a PO (which would be much better than than the Nixon/Romney inspired version) is b/c "centrists" kept saying we could not afford it.

Like you, they refused to even discuss the billions we were/are spending on these wars. There was no real discussion amongst centrists that the wars are one of the real reasons why we could not afford it.

For the 5th time- please- tell us how many BILLIONS of dollars we have spent, and for the 5th time- could you please include Afghanistan in your discussion, per the OP?

[ProSense]

70. We spent hundreds of billions and

we can't get it back. If you want to know the exact amount, may I suggest google?

Primarily, I'm more interested in ending the loss of life.

[tallahasseedem]

51. Are you seriously asking this?

The election was almost SEVEN years ago! Why are we asking hypotheticals about this? Sheesh.

[politicasista]

53. It's a driveby to provoke peeps n/t

[tallahasseedem]

56. LOL!

It can get truly batshit crazy around here sometimes!

[politicasista]

60. Bingo!

:thumbsup:

[PoliticAverse]

66. If Obama had won in 2008 would we have health care reform without a "public option"? n/t

[Dr Fate]

69. No. Remember- the "centrists" assured us that "we could not afford it."

Yet they spent billions if not trillions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seems like they found lots of money to turn over to the Koch Brothers and their ilk via tax cut extensions as well. Go figure.

[YvonneCa]

71. Hey, another Ohio...

...person! :7 I'm with you on that part, BTW. ;)

[MasonJar]

72. If only Al Gore had won in 2000 and Kerry in 2008, the world would be much better off.

And a lot of Iraqis would still be alive.

[Ter]

73. To many years of one-party rule would never happen

That would be three 8 year Democratic terms in a row, or 24 years of Democratic rule.

[politicasista]

74. delete n/t

[bigwillq]

85. None of us really know either way (nt)

[politicasista]

91. Kick for facts in this thread

:kick:

[alp227]

97. Maybe Kerry would've slipped from solid Dem to sellout a la Clinton, Obama

I'm skeptical that Kerry would've really as President been as ambitious as he'd talked about during his campaign. I mean Obama escalated troop presence in Afghanistan!

And Kerry winning Ohio wouldn't have been enough for him to win the popular vote even though Ohio would've given him the electoral college vote. For those who complained about the 2000 election not being on the popular vote yet complaining about Ohio that'd be just hypocrisy even though I agree that there were procedural snafus in Ohio in 2004 based on what I've read (in 2004 I was in middle school and didn't know better than the mainstream media "nothing really happened move along" message).