Trying to keep an open mind................................

[Mioshi]

I'm trying hard to reconcile John Kerry's numerous positions on Iraq and I ask the Board in all sincerity to help me understand his position on Iraq. I honestly don't know what it is. Senator Kerry said this:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I beleve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real grave threat to our security." Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to diasrm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Jan 23, 2003

Didn't we do this? Why is this now the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time?" Thanks for your advice. -Mioshi-

[trumad]

1. John Kerry's numerous positions

(((((sniff)))))))

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

2. No contradiction there

His folly was in trusting Shrub not to use the authority to make war unduly. He needed a Congressional go-ahead to use war as a threat in negotiating with Saddam Hussein. Kerry understands foreign policy--the only problem with his position is that the American people, by and large, don't.

We at DU, hating Bush from the get-go for the most part, did not buy what Kerry bought at the time he bought it. I think Kerry really believed that Bush would do the right thing, keep the actual war on terror (Afgh, Pak., OBL) a priority and deal with Saddam using his much lauded tough-talk, sanctions, maybe airstrikes. He got had--or he swallowed his misgivings and voted with his party, as many Republicans apparently did.

And the money-for-the-war thing he voted against would have left the troops worse off than the one he voted for.

So, do you consider yourself to know anything at all about bills and voting in congress?

[ThomWV]

20. I Agree - And I Hate To Say This

But at the time of the vote Bush actually still had a little creditability left. The Senate had good (but erroneous) reason to believe that the man was truthful to them, it was simply that as far as they knew he was a man of honor. It is events since mostly that have caused Bush's credibility to diminish to zero. Were Bush to ask for the same authority today it would surely be denied him by both sides of the isle. The man simply can not be trusted with power, and John Kerry, along with what was generally the rest of the Senate, did not know that at the time.

Thom

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

28. Funny--I was the biggest Bush hater in 2000

Even warned people on the net about terrorism, Iraq etc. if he got in. Was roundly ridiculed left and right.

YET, I have been consistently appalled by Bush doing exactly what I expected him to do. Even his dad occasionally did something sorta kinda nice!

[Justice]

3. I am trying to reconcile how a president could take this country to war

based on lies, and then completely mishandle the war every single step of the way, causing countless deaths and untold destruction. Then when asked if he has made any mistakes, the arrogant sob was stumped.

[lpbk2713]

19. The idea of winning the war was secondary

to making a lot of money for Halliburton and all of the other RW cronies. The messier it gets the better for them. The more prolonged, the more monetary gain. I hate to think how entangled we will be after the measures the BFEE takes when they lose the election.

[Deja Q]

4. Agreed, though his comment is still true.

I've probably been missing the right commercials, but Kerry has yet to say that he was led by * and betrayed because no WMDs were found. He's said everything else, which is accurate.

So if he believed WMDs were real, has he said anything to follow up, rather than to avoid, what he'd said in the past? This is why he gets accused of flip-flopping. While casual Americans don't remember the past, politicians do.

It is true, though, that it is the wrong war. Wrong place. Wrong time. * still failed with a plan to effectively remove * from power while keep the country stable, never mind the other truth that this war was built up by lies and deceit and was not necessary by any measure (though Kerry can only seem to say that "Bush CHOSE to go to war"...).

[SeekingTruth]

5. Joint Resolution to Authorize Force....

I would try reading this. It can be found here...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Below are some exerpts of it. I think in these one can see Kerry's points about Bush's rush to war and how it did not meet the spirit of the resolution in his eyes.


Hope it helps....



SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[K-W]

17. It didnt just not meet the spirit, it didnt meet the text either

Bush violated the IWR resolution. He made a completely illegal war on Iraq.

[Mioshi]

29. Thanks for your reply

I will read the link you posted. I look for reasoned debate, not name calling. I find too many people here willing to denegrate and name call rather than address the issues. I very much value your reply and I will take the time to read and follow your post.

Thanks - Mioshi

[liberalmuse]

6. Actually...

I'm still trying to figure out Bush's numerous justifications for this war, none of which fits, if you know what I mean.

Kerry's biggest mistake was believing for one second that Bush was anything other than a lying piece of shit.

[ogradda]

11. exactly

a lot of people had, and some STILL have this problem. i loathe * with an all consuming passion and i still would have voted to give him that authority with the "facts" we had at that point.

[proud patriot]

7. giving the benefit of doubt here Welcome to DU , I hope I can help

bush said at the time that a vote for the Iraq War Resolution
was a vote for peace . He made many promises about building
a coalition , getting the inspectors back in , and getting
the U.N. to vote for the use of force .

The authority given to the president by the vote , was NOT
a vote for WAR . bush has flip flopped by calling it a war
vote , when before he said it was a vote for peace .

bush did not use diplomacy like he promised , he had mislead
the Senate . he Broke every promise he made to the senate
and actually violated The Iraq War Resolution .

Kerry's position HAS NOT CHANGED, bush's has though.

I hope that helps .

[trumad]

9. "numerous positions"

offers a vague two and vanishes for the clean hit and run... no benefit of the doubt here....

[Mr_Spock]

8. Not sure why anyone would want to rehash this but...

There are 100 senators and only one president. He gave him the authority and did not undercut him when it came to taking a strong stance against Saddam. That DOES NOT give the dumb ass in the WH permission to go hog wild and invade the country without any real discussion with the UN or approval of our allies. What a stupid and arrogant person Bush ended up being. I can't believe anyone could not see how obviously screwed up Bush's handling of this whole situation is. What is your confusion/angle on this anyway?

[Bluebear]

10. I'm trying to reconcile lying to the American people about WMD's

and not avenging 9/11, in fact saying bin Laden is "irrelevant" and we shouldn't be concerned about him anymore. Can you help? Thanks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The IWR vote was a major blunder on his part.

He made a bad bet that he would be seen "soft on defense" if he didn't vote for it and support Bush. So, he followed the polls.

Now, of course, the stupid vote is back to haunt him. Along with the idiotic statement that he would still vote for it knowing what he knows now. With the lame addendum that he "would have done it different" if he were president. Ignoring the fact that he wasn't president when he voted for it and now shares the responsibility of unleashing BushWarCorp with the ensuing casualties.

Also, he has yet to offer a realistic plan to get out of a lost "war".

Hopefully, he'll get elected despite his waffling and find his courage.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The cheerleader response.

May I remind you that 23 senators and the majority of the people of the world saw through the B.S. about the "threat" of Saddam? I'm sure Kerry has the brains to have also realized that Bush was going to illegally invade Iraq no matter what the vote.

To think that Kerry voted for the IWR because he believed that Bush was going to back off because of it speaks of, at best, naivete. At worst stupidity.

His further comments about still voting for it only add fuel to the fire.

As to his "plan" to get out of Iraq, would you care to elaborate what it is? All I've heard is a lot of totally unrealistic ideas about getting other nations to jump into the quagmire because they'll like Kerry better than Bush.

Sorry to disturb your blinkered view of our candidate. I'll vote for him but I'll be damned if I'm going pretend that he is without fault when he so obviously is.

[K-W]

30. If you think im a cheerleader, it proves you arent looking at this fairly.

I am not a cheerleader. I am just pointing out that you are being massively unfair to Kerry and spreading right wing talking points in the process.

Even if you disagree with the IWR vote, Kerry hasnt added fuel to the fire. His comments about still voting for it matched his comments at the time and his other comments exactly. He has had one clear message on Iraq, it is a Bush lie that he hasnt.

I never said he was without fault, you are creating a straw man of me, just like you create a straw man of Kerry. I dont agree with Kerry on the IWR vote. But unlike you I bothered to listen to him explain why he did it. I understand it, and while I disagree, it is clear that Kerry did not support, at any point, the war in Iraq.

The point here is not whether Kerry ranks number one in the world in predicting the future. Clearly he did a pretty bad job of predicting the future. The point is that his message on foriegn policy and the Iraq war is 100% clear. And his position differes greatly from Bush's.

That is what matters in this election. Kerry as president will not act like Bush as president in any way shape or form.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Right wing talking points?

Why do you insist that calling Kerry to task for his blunders are "rightwing" talking points? You said that you disagree with his vote.

His "clear message" on Iraq is muddled because of that vote and his later comments justifying it.

Where does his postion "differ greatly" from Bush's? He authorized Bush to go to war. He still defends that authorization. He still has not offered a realistic plan to get out of Iraq and give the country back to the Iraqis.

That Kerry "will not act like Bush as president in any way shape or form" is not a given. As long as he insists on "staying the course" in Iraq, that is acting like Bush.

You are creating a "strawman" by alluding to "right wing talking points". These are also "left wing talking points" that question Kerry's position(s) on Iraq. If, as you say, they are "clear" do you agree with his notion of staying in Iraq? That would seem to be a "right wing" talking point because it agrees with Bush.

[K-W]

13. Try a little harder next time.

There is more than enough information readily available to anyone with a truely open mind to get the truth about Kerry's position on the Iraq war.

By using the description "numerous positions" you show that you have already closed your mind. He doesnt have numerous positions, that is a right wing lie.

John Kerry supported the IWR in order to give the president the threat of force as a tool in diplomacy. The resolution explained, as did Kerry, that Bush was too exhaust every possible diplomatic solution, use the international community and that force could only be used if it was found that Saddam was inddeed a threat to us or if saddam asbsolutely refused to comply with an inspection process to varify or discredit the intelligence that suggested he was armed, arming and associated with terrorists.

The resolution was no followed, war was started without exhausting diplomatic opitons, war was started without proof of a threat and the inspection process was moving along.

Thus Bush violated the IWR and entered a war that Kerry did not support. Kerry thinks this war was wrong. It was the wrong war at the wrong time and it was executed poorly.

Kerry has been absolutely clear on this, it is quite simple, where are you getting confused?

[Mioshi]

23. Try a little harder next time?

Thanks for your compassionate reply.

Mioshi

[K-W]

26. Care to reply to the content of my post?

You came here and posted that you were trying to keep an open mind, but then presented the classic right wing flip-flop argument.

Excuse me if I point out that presenting Bush's position on Kerry's position isnt being very open minded.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[0rganism]

39. Read his post and reply to it, there are substantial points raised therein

You come in here spouting rightwing trash, claim you want reasoned opinions, and then tell another forumer to be less opinionated? Give me a break.

[Demit]

14. there were still many steps that could have been taken before invading

Kerry has NOT had many positions on Iraq. He's had one. He voted to give the president the authority to do something. The intention was that the president would use the authority AS A LAST RESORT.

Kerry doesn't use the exact same words all the time to express his thoughts the way dumbya does. He has a larger vocabulary. This confuses the Republicans, who by now can recite what Dumbya says from memory, in the way that your 2 year old can with television commercials.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

15. How many times does he have to explain it?

Bush has turned it into a clusterfuck. Kerry has explained his plan to turn it around and make it a success over and over again. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?

[BootinUp]

18. Can you put the different positions in your own words?

Give it a try.

[ogradda]

21. are we helping at all?

you're being pretty quiet :)

[Mioshi]

27. I have to read the replys

Questions and answers move incredibly fast on this board. I went to go work on my lawn and already I have 30 posts to my questions. Let me think about the answers first and I'll reply. I appreciate your feed back. Some of the replys I got are pretty unfriendly.

Mioshi

[rock]

22. Incidently, JK has made it clear

that as president, he will expect this kind of support when he takes power. He will expect the Congress to get behind him on critical issues.

[K-W]

24. His position is that with a competent president, the IWR would have

contributed to constructive and appropriate response to the IRaq intelligence.


And it is pretty hard to argue with that. Kerry thinks the president should carry a big stick in diplomacy. Just that you need to elect a president, like him, that can be trusted to carry it.

[bread_and_roses]

46. And what about our Constitution

I am, alas, no scholar, and certainly not a scholar on Constitutional Law, but I thought that war powers were invested in the Congress? I don't want to see an Imperial Presidency, even with John Kerry as President.

I don't for one minute believe that John Kerry is so stupid that he believed the puppet in the White House. I think he took a calculated risk, and it didn't pay off as expected. What bothers me most is that (having a lot of admiration for the young John Kerry and for much of his subsequent Senate record) it sure looks to me like he had to vote in opposition to his intelligence, his experience, and I hope, his principles.

I will do everything within my power to work toward Kerry's election. He was my 2nd choice of the Primary candidates on ideological grounds (DK 1st) and my 1st choice on practical grounds. But I will not pretend that his nomination - and my fervent hope that he will win - makes me think his IRW vote defensible.

And I do believe that he will work harder, smarter, and with less regard for corporate profiteers who so hoped to enriched themselves in Iraq to end this evil occupation and put a stop to the dreadful loss of US and Iraqi lives.

[IdaBriggs]

32. Just did this for someone else. Not a problem.

The quick explanation – “Bush is a lying weasel.”

The longer one starts with a history lesson.

Bush Sr., no matter what else you say about him, was a foreign policy genius. In Gulf War 1, he went to all of our allies and got their support for kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. This meant other countries were supplying troops, but it also meant the countries that weren’t supplying troops (like Japan and Saudi Arabia) agreed to give MONEY to cover the expenses of the war. At the end of the war, the US taxpayers didn’t end up paying anything FINANCIALLY – in fact, by some estimates, we may have MADE some money on the deal.

Fast forward to nowadays. Saddam is playing his typical games; that makes sense, because he needs to do stuff like that as a dictator to stay in power. (Personally, I think he was really a “king” with a different title, but that is a different story.) Anyway, George Jr. comes to Congress and says, “look, we’re playing poker with the inspectors, I need to be able to back my bluff and threaten to go ‘all in.’ Of course I would never actually do that UNLESS IT WAS THE LAST RESORT AND I had the support of our allies.” Congress agrees because it makes sense and they haven’t figured out yet that George Jr. would really behave like a lying weasel over putting the country into a war. George Jr. “bluffs” and wins, Saddam lets the weapons inspectors do whatever they want, thus saving face – and then suddenly GEORGE JR. ORDERS THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS OUT OF THE COUNTRY BEFORE THEY ARE DONE AND INVADES IRAQ!!!

Now our allies think we’re nuts because we don’t need to waste money on bullets (among other problems with “war” in general!) when the weapons inspectors are working, so they refuse to add troops, AND they refuse to give us money. George didn’t expect that because I guess he didn’t realize actual work was involved in getting our allies on board with money and troops, so after a bit he comes back to Congress and asks for US money to keep the invasion running.

One of Congress’s jobs is to watch over the country’s checkbook. I’m not going to argue with anyone about how well they do that, but the bottom line was there were two “final” versions of “how to pay the bills in Iraq” (since no one else was helping out because George’s people, having flunked Diplomacy 101, were busy calling them “cheese eating surrender monkeys” and “old Europe” and renaming “Freedom Fries”): Option One was to give the Pentagon a “blank check” for $87 Billion. Option Two was a “blank check” for $67 Billion, with a “show us the receipts” option on the remaining $20 Billion, which wasn’t needed immediately (and still hasn’t been spent). Kerry and Edwards voted for the $67 Billion & Receipts + $20 Billion. Now Bush is saying “they didn’t support the troops” which is a load of nonsense because the only question was how the bills were going to get paid – cash, check or credit card! And if you don’t think Kerry and Edwards were making the right decision, then you should pay attention to some of the latest Halliburton headlines: back in August they “lost” the receipts for $1.8 BILLION dollars (oops!) and the Pentagon is PAYING THEM ANYWAY!

But it didn’t matter, because Junior’s bill passed and he STILL sent our troops into battle appropriate equipment:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40810FC3D580C778DDDAE0894DB404482

The NYT reports today that soldiers and their families are asking for donations of Camelbak hydration systems from the Camelbak company because they are not issued to all who need them.
<snip>
"Our soldiers are wearing 50 pounds of body armor in the hot desert heat," a platoon leader from Texas wrote to the company in a letter that it made public. "As you may already know, your hydration system is the best tool to keep soldiers hydrated. Unfortunately, we are not issued your product, and as a result soldiers are carrying hot water in bulky canteens."

In another letter released by the company, the wife of a platoon leader from Louisiana asked for donations because "it is hot and miserable over there." She said her husband "has about 30 soldiers there right now and he says the No. 1 thing they have asked for is CamelBaks."
<snip>
Well, at least we know they're paid well. Oh, whoops. That was cut out of the budget. Yeah, but if they die their families will be fine. Oh, golly, the administration kept that payment to $6,000 and didn't increase it to the $12,000 figure that was in the initial budget. Yeah, but they're not going to be there for so long that they need things like water on, say, a daily basis. Darn, I forgot that they are going to be there indefinitely bringing peace and democracy.

It's one thing for communities to get together and send "care" packages to the troops. It's quite another for military families to have to hold bake sales to buy life-saving equipment.

Or you can read this, and check the individual links on a line by line basis:

Bush Was Slow To Address Troops’ Need For Body Armor. Though Bush signed the Emergency Supplemental funding bill in November 2003 promising to use the money to “acquire new equipment, such as armored humvees and communications gear,” he has been slow to deliver on that pledge. The Bush Administration first promised all the troops they would have body armor at the end of November. They extended and missed deadlines for December, January, and February, until the Army Secretary told Congress in March 2004 that there were finally sufficient stocks of body armor to equip all soldiers by the end of the month.

(And just so you have some of the backup for my translations):

Here is the White House transcripts from October 7, 2002 -- President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

PRESIDENT BUSH: Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Damn. Kerry must have been an idiot for believing that (quote) "does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable" (unquote) crap put out by that Bush guy. Obviously, what it really meant was: "Kerry says go kick Saddam's butt." The stuff about "other nations" is higher up.

Then again on October 11th, from the White House Transcripts: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021011.html

PRESIDENT BUSH: I commend members of the Senate for the strong bipartisan vote authorizing the use of force, if necessary. The Senate, like the House, conducted this important debate and vote in the finest traditions of our democracy.

> then suddenly GEORGE JR. ORDERS THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS OUT OF THE COUNTRY BEFORE THEY ARE DONE AND INVADES IRAQ!!!

Let's pull it from the March 3, 2003 transcripts exactly: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

PRESIDENT BUSH: For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Good thing no one told us that Iraq WAS complying with the resolutions, etc. Kind of hard to prove a negative, though. Here's what we got told:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-02-04-saddam-interview_x.htm

SADDAM DENIES AL-QUAEDA LINK:

LONDON — In a rare interview broadcast on British television, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein denied that he's hiding weapons of mass destruction and accused the United States of coveting Iraq's oil.
"There is only one truth, and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before, that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction," Saddam said in a rare, 40-minute interview with Tony Benn, a retired British politician and peace activist, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four TV.

Secretary of State Colin Powell had a two-word response to Saddam's assertion: "Prove it." The White House dismissed the Iraqi leader's words as more of the same. <snip>

You can do your own search on the world's reaction to that bit, as well as the UN inspectors BEGGING for "two more weeks and we'll be done."

Does that help? :)

[Mioshi]

33. Thanks for your time

I will read your post. I appreciate the time you took answering my question.

Mioshi

[never cry wolf]

34. Here's a great LTTE from this mornings Tribune

Skokie -- President Bush is getting confused. He doesn't understand John Kerry's position on Iraq. As a plain talker, he seems to like simple phrases, so I'll give this a shot: Kerry voted to give you the car keys. Then you crashed the car. Pretty simple, huh?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-0409250201sep25,1,3633250.story?coll=chi-newsopinionvoice-hed

[gollygee]

36. That's a fabulous way to phrase the issue! n/t

[never cry wolf]

50. Isn't it though?

I was thinking about starting a thread on it, great little catch phrase for the simple of mind used to 30 seconds osund bites.

[IdaBriggs]

Love that! You should DEFINITELY start a thread! nt

[mitchum]

35. 5,4,3,2,1...I'm not very "compassionate" (what an "odd" word to use)

[Mioshi]

38. Odd?

What could be "odd" about the word compassion? It means "concern for your fellow man." What's odd about that?

[mitchum]

42. It's a word that RW shills use in order to bait the opposition...

see also:
Where's all of your liberal open-mindedness/tolerance?

But you may already know all of this

[Mioshi]

52. RW shill

I'm afraid I don't know what an RW shill is. Please forgive me.

[never cry wolf]

57. Please forgive the suspicious on this board

We get alot of trolls that start a thread asking about some RW talking point, such as Kerry's numerous positions on Iraq when in reality he has been VERY consistant in his stance.

Your question combined with a low post count automatically will trigger some of the responses you have already seen. For many here this is the only place they can go and not be bombarded with RW talking points and they want to keep it that way.

If you truly are a swing voted looking for information I salute you because that is more intellectual curiosity than most have. Please don't be put off by some of the more abrasive posts, most of us lefties have taken a beating the last 3 years out in the real world. I hope you stick around a long time and learn alot. We do have a bias but we also believe in being factual, if you make a statement, you had better be able to back it up.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[AngryAmish]

40. Kerry has said he has one position

SO, therefore, he has only one position. You just need to follow whatever he says.

[Vickers]

41. Lotsa misspellings in your post.

I'm just saying.

[Mioshi]

43. Lotsa isn't a word.................

Just Pointing out you misspelled "lots of."

[Vickers]

56. Yer prolly right...

Geddit?

[Bluebear]

44. P.S. are you an "undecided"?

How did you happen upon DU for guidance? Thanks.

[Mioshi]

45. My cousin who is a teacher told me about this site............

I value her advice and I came here to get reasoned opinions. I voted for Bill Clinton in the first election but not the second one. I guess you would call me a swing voter. I'm just looking to make an informed judgement on the next presidential election.

[Bluebear]

47. So Iraq is your issue I take it?

Understand, I can't fathom how one can be undecided at this point, are there any other issues important to you?

[Mioshi]

49. I would guess there are a lot of undecided voters left...............

I realize that regular readers of this Board made up their minds months ago about who they would vote for. This isn't, after all, an unbiased place to go for information. I know that and I can account for that but it doesn't mean people here don't have a point to make. I have served in the military in Iraq but that isn't my only interest. I am interested in national security and our domestic economy.

[trumad]

53. So you voting for Kerry?

[Mioshi]

58. I don't know yet

I'm here to read and to listen to what the Democratic Underground has to say. I will tell you that a lot of people who wrote to me are simply bomb throwing idiots who will drive people away from this site. It's very hard to come here for a simple discussion of the facts without being made to feel very unwelcome if you are not already a Kerry supporter. Just read some of the replies to me if you doubt it.

[trumad]

60. ROTF

You don't fucking know! Where the fuck have you been for 3 years... Are you that politically ignorant? You don't fucking know.... So you might vote for Bush? Better yet, are you considering voting for Bush over Kerry?

[Vickers]

59. "I have served in the military in Iraq"

And you are considering voting for BUSH? Bwahahahahaha!

Hey, which unit, what times, what is your MOS or AFSC? Lotsa (oops!) I mean, lots of military and ex-military here.

[trumad]

51. Swing Voter

A fucking Swing Voter! What the fuck is a Swing Voter? One who's undecided? One who might vote for the other guy? You're still undecided at this late of date?

So whay you're telling us here at DU is that you might swing for Bush?

[Mioshi]

54. Yes, that is right.

I'm here to gather information. You are certainly not making any case for voting Democratic with your mindless invective hate speech. I'm only interested in hearing from people here who can add to the debate. Please don't reply to this because you have nothing to add.

[ogradda]

55. you can use the ignore button

i like what he says

[trumad]

64. Well good.... I'm glad you love what a tombstoned idiot has to say!

[ogradda]

66. i was referring to YOU!!!!!

lmaolmao.... it's ok....it crawled back under it's rock..hehehe

[trumad]

62. Don't fucking tell me what to do on Democratic Underground!

Now let me ask you point blank.... Are you considering voting for Bush?

[never cry wolf]

48. Also, please read Kerry's floor speech during the IWR debate

I don't have a link and couldn't find one but below is an excerpt:


Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. . .

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

[ogradda]

61. tombstoned

big shock there <sarcasm>

[trumad]

63. Fuck..... LOL

I had him.....

[ogradda]

65. then you better go disinfect your hands

:)

[Moderator]

67. I'm locking this thread

The original poster has been banned