Does Kerry owe the nation an apology?

[JackRiddler]

After all, he voted for the Iraq war resolution although anyone could have known from published reports at the time and from Scott Ritter (the indisputable authority on Iraqi WMDs, as he personally destroyed them) that the White House, OSP, Chalabi, Powell and Judy Miller were completely fabricating the myth of WMDs and casus belli.

If he had any doubts he could have read a book by one of his most prominent supporters, William Rivers Pitt. He could have stood with the TWENTY-THREE senators who saw right through all the lies about Iraq and voted against the IWR.

Not to mention his earlier enabling of the worst excesses of the Bush admin, with votes for USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security "monstrosity" (in Byrd's words).

Kerry pushed aside antiwar candidates and didn't make an issue of Bush's Iraq lies in the election, let alone PNAC, the neocons, etc. He established the "well golly gee, now we're in there" paradigm.

He also didn't address a variety of other scandals and crimes that can be pinned easily to the Bush admin, although he is actually an expert on several of them, having run or been on committees into Iran/Contra, Contra cocaine, BCCI, the banking plunder of the 1980s, etc. etc.

He didn't make an issue of Diebold, ES & S or the need for voter-verified paper ballots, or other election irregularities, although it was obvious that the Rovesters would do all they could to steal it all again.

Then he didn't contest the questionable election results, and found an excuse to be out of the country on Jan. 6th, when Boxer had the guts to do her small piece.

And what about 9/11? He doesn't have to go MIHOP to detect the awesome smell of bullshit and whitewash coming from Bush employee Zelikow and the 9/11 Commission. Why didn't he attack the Bush stronghold on 9/11 directly by pointing to the open questions?

For all this, I believe Kerry owes the nation an apology.

[NoPasaran]

1. On behalf of John Kerry, I apologise

Now can we move on to something more useful than flamebait?

[JackRiddler]

4. au contraire

This is meant quite seriously, and I think it important to discuss the mistakes that were made, and keep getting made systematically.

Unfortunately, the Democrats never show the balls of the Republicans when in opposition; even though when they have the truth and moral right on their side, as in these cases. They cringe and debate within the bounds set for them by the Republican ideology.

Iraq war is an illegal invasion and a mass crime. Why can't Kerry say so in so many words?

[buzzard]

28. He voted to give the president the authority to go to war which is quite

different than going to war.

[tritsofme]

52. Election year politico speak is no longer necessary.

By mid-2002 it was clear to anyone paying attention that Bush would be going to war with Iraq, it was just a matter of time.

If Kerry truly couldn't see that, then he probably wasn't fit to be President in the first place.

[Protagoras]

66. That is a very good point

nt

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

78. As somebody more well-known than I has said...

"it may be right even if Bush says it" (I am paraphrasing of course).

What if the Dems who voted for the authority genuinely believed:

1. Saddam had to be rattled/removed if necessary?

2. That Bush was just bluffing, creating an aura of inevitability so Saddam would be rattled and do the right thing (accede more effectively to UN mandates)?

3. That Saddam had to removed for the long term goals of Middle-East stability (despite the Rethugs' repeated see-sawing support to tyrants around that part of the world)?

FWIW, (I am not ashamed to admit that) I personally am a (militant!) pacifist myself.

I am simply trying to see if there might have been some compelling reasons for otherwise reasonable people to act in this seemingly unconscionable manner, esp people such as Kerry who have seen war, up close and personally, in all its brutality...

It may also be true that they genuinely believed that their best bet to avoid war (given Bushco's increasingly belligerent pronouncements) was to show up at the doors of the UN with a united voice...

[DawnneOBTS]

2. We don't know what is going on...

I personally hope there is a lot going on behind closed doors with the Dems right now. I don't beleive that anyone has let down their guard or given up the 2004 election fraud issue. Everything takes time. Coming out too soon will be playing right into the freepers' hands-just what Rove wants.

[bpilgrim]

8. that was said about the disenfranchisement of blacks and BBV in 2000

throughout * first term and KERRY promised to make sure every vote counted and he abandoned ship the very next day :argh:

BBV is still an issue and if weTHEpeople don't make noise they apparently will never move on this critical issue.

peace

[cajones_II]

46. yeah- wouldn't want to play into the Freepers hands by releasing evidence

Better to wait another four years.

[UdoKier]

3. Hehe.

He also let the opposition define him as a "flip-flopper, and couldn't be bothered to explain that the "Voted for it, voted against it" bill was actually two VERY DIFFERENT PACKAGES, that BUSH HAD THREATENED TO VETO THE FIRST BECAUSE HE DIDN"T WWANT TO LOAN THE IRAQIS, and that the one Kerry voted against would LOAD THE COST (DEBT) ONTO US.

Why was I on all the scummy Yahoo boards trying to tell people that when Goddamn Kerry couldn't be bothered to stand up for himself?

GRRR....

[demnan]

5. What good would that do now?

It sure wouldn't make me feel any better.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Satisfy the Kerry -bashers?

:shrug:

[RandomKoolzip]

6. Wow...this again?

[Snotcicles]

14. After hearing what Kerry had to say on the Senate floor yesterday

I can only say how glad I am I voted for that Man.

[AP]

7. Here's what Boxer said about her vote:

Much of Boxer’s time was spent discussing the recent resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq if the nation refuses to comply with U.N. weapons inspections. Boxer was among the minority voting against the resolution, which passed 77-23.

“To me, it wasn’t a hard call, because I had 25 to 30 completely unanswered questions,” Boxer said. “I believe war is a last resort.”

In defense of colleagues who voted for the resolution, Boxer said that Democrats forced the President to go through several channels before they voted to approve, and that the final resolution was drawn narrowly.

“The Democrats said, ‘Go to the U.N.’ and went to the U.N.” she said. “I also again believe that he wasn’t going to come to the Senate or the House. He was going to bypass us and say, ‘I don’t need to come here — they gave me this power through the resolutions back in ‘91’”

Boxer charged the Bush administration with having nefarious motives for seeking the resolution. “The whole thing was brought up because of politics,” she said. “It was all part of the grand plan by the Bush administration to get the Senate.”

http://www.hlrecord.org/media/paper609/news/2002/10/24/News/Senator.Boxer.Defends.Vote.On.Iraq.Resolution-304772.shtml

I think what Boxer is saying is that the whole thing was politics, putting Dems between a rock and a hard place. Bush was going to invade no matter what, but he wanted to make Democratic senators vote either way so that he could burn them for being weak on defense if they voted no, or burn them with anti-war liberals for supporting a bad war.

I think this a situation where anti-war liberals need to decide whether they want to give Bush an issue with which he can hurt Democrats, or if they want to punish Democrats for trying to remain electable in a nation which happens to like war when they're afraid, even though their Yes-IWR votes had absolutely no influence on what was going to happen in Iraq.

[sandnsea]

20. What about Patriot Act & Homeland Security?

Why doesn't she get bashed for voting for them? Why is Kerry the only one who gets bashed, no matter what he does.

[Dr Ron]

27. If we're bringing up Boxer

I see little point in refuting all the nonsense in this post as it has been done so many times before, but I will mention this as Boxer has been brought up. Boxer had requested that Kerry not be present at the time of her challenge to the election. If Kerry was present it would have distracted from the underlying arguments for election reform.

[cprise]

9. Yes.

I have to agree.

[DURHAM D]

11. Please flip your calendar - move on. Its healthy. eom

[JackRiddler]

12. Forgetting?

That's the mentality that allows the ostensible opposition to keep pursuing the same non-existent strategy of lose, lose, lose.

[JDPriestly]

13. Regardless of who stood where in 2004,

I believe that it will be difficult to elect a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 who has supported the war. I believe that the war is being discredited more and more each day. At this rate, by 2008, it will be viewed as having been a criminal adventure by the Bush administration -- because, based on the evidence that is just now beginning to become public, that is what it is.

[gratuitous]

15. Why I'm pissed at Kerry

During the 2004 election in that month between the Democratic and Republican conventions, he didn't answer the spurious allegations of the Swift Boat Liars. I thought at the time that he was carefully managing his resources, because he had one more month to campaign on $75 million than Stupidhead did. I figured the Swifties would be exposed and go away.

Well, they were exposed again and again, but Kerry himself didn't do any speaking up on his own behalf, and the media just ran with lie after lie. I thought that Kerry was being shrewd, not engaging the lies directly which would lend them unnecessary credence, and saving that all-important money for a big campaign push in October when such a thing would really matter.

Then Kerry lost. It was too bad, and I felt awful. I thought, well, he did all he could. Then I found out that his campaign still had $15 million to spend. Which left me wondering: Why in hell didn't he spend some of that money in August, when the Swifties were savaging his reputation? No sense in that whatsoever. I don't pretend to be some kind of campaign genius strategist, but I have to say that that blunder was flat out unforgivable.

I've never seen him address this point (or if I have, I've forgotten it, probably because I wasn't impressed with his explanation). That's why I'm pissed at Kerry, and I'd greatly prefer it if he'd put away any ambitions for 2008 and let someone run who intends to win.

[emulatorloo]

16. No he should dress in sackcloth and ashes and self-flaggellate on CSPAN

after which time he should crawl into a cave and gain seventy pounds.

OTOH I prefer him doing what he is doing. . .running ads in USA Today opposing Bush/Frist/Delay; being tough on Bolton in foreign relations committee, and making a KICK ASS statement on repug 'nuclear option" as he did the other day, text here:

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=920

video here, may have to page in a few:

www.dembloggers.com

[Vektor]

42. Should he fall on his sword, too?

Cause, I'd be happy to do that instead. Ya know, fall on his sword. :evilgrin:

He'll need all the help he can get, what with that weighty sackcloth, and MASSIVE CROSS strapped to his back.

[paulk]

17. does JackRiddler owe DU an apology?

for posting this flamebait?

[Just Me]

68. Good question. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. If he really cared he'd have stormed the WHITE HOUSE on 1/20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch this speech. http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/5/19/143623/183

Then STFU with the flamebait. Really, it gets so old. :eyes:

[Vektor]

45. IT'S A SKULL AND BONEZ PLOT!!!!1111

DAMN HIM SITTING AROUND WITH GWB IN THEIR DRUID HOODS DRINKING GOAT'S BLOOD FROM A PEWTER CHALICE BY THE LIGHT OF THE FULL MOON IN A GRAVEYARD WHILE INJECTING THEMSELVES WITH BOTOX AND SMEARING FAKE TANNER ALL OVER THEMSELVES!!!!!!!11

Are we tried of playing this game yet? Doesn't pin the cross on the Kerry EVER get old? :eyes:

[bigwillq]

19. If Kerry owes us an apology then so do

other DEM leaders.

No Kerry doesn't owe us apology. I am still proud that I voted for Kerry and I commend Kerry for being a great senator, even after the election loss. I think Kerry is doing a great job in the Senate.

[Raksha]

23. Yes, Kerry was and still is a great senator.

But that doesn't change the fact that he was a lousy presidential candidate. He justdidn't really seem to have the will to win. He should have answered the Swift Boat liars immediately and emphatically, and he did not.

Of course I'm not sorry I voted for him--what alternative was there? But he seemed to be pulling his punches all through the campaign, and to this day I don't know why.

[Dr Ron]

29. A reasonable decision at the time

In retrospect it was a mistake, but it is a lot easier to say so in retrospect.

When the Swift Boat Liars first appeared in the spring, their charges had no effect. Polls showed even Republicans thought Kerry had deserved his medals.

This led to Kerry's advisors failing to take them more seriously when they reappeared in August. At the time Kerry was on a tour to promote his domestic policies and they didn't want to distract from this. It was also during the time when they were trying to limit money spent due to the Republican's advangtage with the later convention.

Another argument against responding is that typically when a candidate responds to untrue charges, voters are more likely to remember the charges than the rebuttals. Responding often back fires.

In retrospect it appears he should have responded earlier, but there is no way to be certain if that would have back fired against him.

Kerry followed the advice of his advisors on this. He later agreed this was advice wrong. Otherwise I never saw him pull any punches.

[Raksha]

53. That sounds like a piece of conventional wisdom best forgotten.

>>Another argument against responding is that typically when a candidate responds to untrue charges, voters are more likely to remember the charges than the rebuttals.<<

Especially when there IS no rebuttal! You can hardly expect voters to remember a rebuttal that either doesn't exist or happens too late, after the damage has been done. This was an well-organized smear campaign, and the Swift Boat scum had about two weeks to parade their lies in front of the public before there was any response from the Kerry campaign.

>>Responding often back fires.<<

I don't know if that's true. The one example that comes to mind is the Clinton campaign. They made a point of answering EVERY charge, no matter how bogus, and doing it right away. I don't recall any instance where it hurt them, and most people seem to think it was a good tactic.

Maybe I shouldn't have said Kerry was a lousy candidate, but in retrospect I guess he was too aristocratic, too honorable and basically not enough of a street fighter for the kind of thugs he was dealing with. But then you'd think he would have known better than anyone what he was dealing with. <sigh>

Just for the record--I believe John Kerry won the election, so he couldn't have been THAT lousy! When I first started lurking on DU in November, it was because of my belief that the election was stolen. I was looking for people who shared that belief and for any evidence of fraud they might uncover. For the first few months, I almost never looked at any forum except "2004 Election Results & Discussion." I have to admit that my enthusiasm fell off somewhat after the coron--I mean inauguration, and lately I've been spending more time on GD.

I'm still on John Kerry's e-mail list and even made a pledge on his children's health care bill. Would I support him again in 2008? That's still very much up for grabs.

[Dr Ron]

65. Agree the conventional wisdom is no longer applicable

I've had a couple blog posts at LUTD on this, using the Clinton war room as a better model for the future just as you did.

I brought up this conventional wisdom, which was often true in the past, as it does show why his advisors might have made this mistake.

The problem with this is that with blogs and talk radio, an attack gets repeated much more than in the past. A better bit of conventional wisdom which is more applicable today is that a lie left unanswered for 24 hours is considered truth.

It's not that there was NO rebuttal, but that there was too little too late.

[bigwillq]

32. I think Kerry was a solid pres. candidate

however, Kerry couldn't appeal to the voters who actually did Kerry in (Southern, christian fundies).

Kerry was too smart and sophsticated for some people which is why I think that swung the votes to shrub no matter who tells you it was because of moral values.
Most people could relate to shrub because shrub is on their level (2nd grade at best!)

[Mass]

37. So we shoud vote for an idiot?

This would disqualify a lot of people including Dean and Clark.

We would be condemned to the Bush and Allen of the world. Frightening perspective.

No, the main problem is that the media thinks people are stupid and does not explain anything substantive. It is all about very superficial impressions that are easy to turn around.

Many ordinary people who met Kerry connected. Most people who have seen him through the eyes of the pundits did not.

So may be his error was not to pander enough to the great intelligence of the pundits. :sarcasm:

[bigwillq]

44. I'm not saying that--

Hell no.

I think I had a good point based on quite a few people up here in liberal New England even, who said they voted for Shrub b/c they could relate to him more. They liked shrub (scary thought)---Kerry in those people's opinions was too stuffy for them.

I kind of think this thought process was consistent to how some voters felt nationwide, to those voters who didn't care about the issues but voted on who they liked better (yes, some people do vote that way).

[Mass]

54. It happens in every election.

This is NOT a process that is unique to this election. People in 92 did not relate to Clinton, may be not in the South, but in the NE.

Same thing happened with Carter.

May be they were too intelligent for them, I dont know. The main difference is that the media were doing their job while they were not in 04.

And who do you think told them Kerry was stuffy, if not these same media and pundits, who showed a guy born and raised largely in NE, and extremely rich, son of a President, as mister regular guy from the South.

[LittleClarkie]

25. Amen

ditto and thanks.

I'm proud of him too, esp after hearing his speech from yesterday. He reminded me of Gore alittle there.

Same goes for Dean. I'm sick of hearing about what he SHOULD be doing. I'm proud of what he is doing, which is exactly what he said he would do: build up the grassroots and not concede the South.

[bigwillq]

33. Agree with ya on the Dean thing.

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

34. Kind of figured you would

:hi:

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

21. Sounds like a good strategy

Kerry apologizes point for point for every single time he cooperated with Bush, outilining the results. It could be a great speech, of the kind he didn't make during the campaign. "Every time I played along with him, he made me sorry and he made all of America sorry. Because he will never say he is sorry, I say that I am sorry America. Let's move on and be a better country again."

[saltpoint]

22. No he does not. People who voted for Bush-Cheney owe --

-- our allies, the dozens of thousands of dead or maimed Iraqis, and blue voters the apology.

[VOX]

36. You said it, OC!

:thumbsup: Thanks.

[Dr Ron]

24. And we wonder why Rove is so successful

It sure must make his job easier when he has both Republicans and some Democrats to spread his talking points against Democratic leaders.

I think you owe it to yourself to look into the facts behind all of these distortions.l

[LittleClarkie]

26. I'm sorry

I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention in the beginning, and believed Bush for a while there too.

I'm sorry I didn't work harder on the campaign. I did more than I ever did before, but still not enough.

[oasis]

30. The fourth estate owes America an apology for not doing its job.

[oasis]

31. Bush was asked not to "rush to war" in Kerry's senate speech. Kerry does

not have to apoligize for a damn thing.

[CTLawGuy]

56. Kerrys actions in voting for the war

belie and discredit that statement...

[oasis]

60. Conditional authorization for war is not "Voting for the war". Remember

a guy named Hans Blix?

Name the guy who wanted him to continue with inspections (1) George Bush (2) John Kerry.

If you chose (2) you got the point.

[CTLawGuy]

61. how was the IWR conditional in any way?

it was so vague as to let Bush go to war for virtually any reason.

It didn't require a UN resolution,
It didn't specify an objective for potential military action,
It was the resolution, out of all of them, that bush preferred.

I'm sorry, but Kerry was too scared of being called a liberal or weak on defense, that's why he voted for it. He voted AGAINST the FIRST Gulf War! How does he square THAT vote with THIS one? Oh yeah, he wasn't running for president in 1990.

[oasis]

63. Answer the Hans Blix quiz post #60. It will begin to become clear to you.

Authorizing "War as a last resort" is not a "vote for war".

[CTLawGuy]

73. the question in post 60 is irrelevant

because what Kerry INTENDED is irrelevant. What Kerry DID is relevant. Let me give you an analogous example: If I am a governor and I sign someones death warrant, yet claim I am signing the warrant in order to give the condemned a medal, I am still responsible for executing him and he still dies, no matter what I intended (or say I intended) to do.


The resolution did not say "war as a last resort" it doesnt have the words "last resort" in the operative clauses. It allows the president to use force to enforce UN resolutions regarding Iraq (which I don't believe the US has the authority to do on its own) and to defend the US against the (alleged) continuing threat from Iraq, as long as the president believes he must use force.

The difference between that and the much-better Biden-Lugar resolution is that in B-L, Bush is limited to using military action for the purpose of destroying WMD. It is very hard to argue that you need to overthrow a country's government to get of WMD, especially when there is no evidence of WMD. Under that resolution, bush cannot suddenly change the reason the US went to war, as he could with the vague IWR.

[Dr Ron]

67. First versus Second Gulf War

Kerry was quite consistent. There were major differences between the two resolutions.

The resolution before the first Gulf War was a clear resolution to go to war. Kerry has stated he voted not because other options weren't exhausted yet, and the country was not yet ready to go to war.

He voted yes on the second because it ws not a resolution to go to war at the time, but authorization to use force only under specified circumstances. Bush himself was saying that the resolution was not a vote which meant war was imminent, just that the nation stood together.

It was basically a Rove trap. If they ran against someone who voted yes, they would claim it meant the voter supported the war so they could use the flip flop charge if the war was criticized. If they ran against someone who vote no, the argument would be that the candidate was so far left they would not support military force under any circumstance, even if we were proven to be threatened by WMD.

[CTLawGuy]

74. I don't care if it is a Rove trap

Plain and simple, if you do not want someone to use a power, do not give him that power!

if you do not want him to use that power now, do not give it to him now.

[CTLawGuy]

75. The 1991 Gulf war resolution and the IWR are nearly identical

1991 Persian Gulf War Resolution

http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/gulfwar.htm

Operative clauses

" Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677. "

the president is given power to use the military to enforce UN security council resolutions

"b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY. Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that---

(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and

(2) that those efforts have not been successful in obtaining such compliance. "

president is asked to go through all diplomatic channels before going to war and then make a determination that those efforts have failed.


(The rest of the resolution deals with the War powers statutory authority, and requires him to report to congress)

---------------------------------
Now the IWR
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

"SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions. "

this is where congress again encourages bush to use diplomatic channels

"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 thereafter 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.

"

this gives bush the way-too-broad power to "defend" against iraq and enforce UN resolutions. Just like the 1991 resolution, bush only needs to decide that diplomatic channels aren't working before he goes to war.


(the rest of this resolution as well deals with War powers act matters and reports to congress)
---------------------------

the 1991 and 2004 resolutions are very similar in substance in that they both encourage diplomatic action, but give military power anyway. there is nothing in the 1991 resolution that suggests war is more imminent or definite than the language in the 2002 resolution.

Both resolutions imply that diplomatic options may still be possible.

The only thing different between the two resolutions from JK's point of view is that he wasn't running for president in 1991.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Man, I had NO idea Kerry was so awful

You mean ...... he cast votes as a Senator? Damn ... I didn't know that. You mean he had some nuanced opinions? Shit .... I thought he was a black and white simpleton. You mean ...... he didn't raise a conspiracy theory lacking prima facia evidence and run on it? How awful.

If I EVER heard a candidate, particularly one who appears to again want to be a candidate, for president apologize for anything, he's NEVER get my vote.

Admit some mistakes? Okay. I can handle that. But apologize? Please .......

Kerry will not be the first one I support in the next go-round ... maybe not even the second or third ...... but he owes **me** no apology. My only real bitch at the guy was how fast he caved after the election. the rest of it .... the slow response to the swiftshitters, for example .... bad strategy. But nothing to apologize for. I'll use all of that and more to judge whether he deserves my support again.

But no apologies.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. I believe the person who owes the nation an apology

is GWB. Get it right, dude.

[undeterred]

39. Hell no. n/t

[rndmprsn]

40. no

[Vektor]

41. FUCK NO.

If anything, HE deserves an apology for the number of times he has been used as a scapegoat by those who perpetually MUST BLAME SOMEONE for all the world's ills.

[jzodda]

43. Hell no

Apologize for what? Taking the wrong stand on some issues? Well then all the politicians back to George Washington better get up and apologize now.

Your going to blame Kerry for the patriot act? And make him apologize b/c he doesnt agree with Robert Byrd? lol

You want him to apologize for not addressing scandals from previous admin going back 20 years? Are you serious?

I think you should apologize for making this post! :)

[Vektor]

47. Lover's haiku....

don't blame the kerry!
he's such a hot piece of ass
scapegoat no more please

[saltpoint]

49. Ding ding.

:toast:

[recovering democrat]

48. NO. Never.

Same type of reasoning that blames Newsweek and not Bush. Looking for a scapegoat? Recommend somebody with the last name of Bush.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

50. blah, blah, blah...not this again...

How many times do we have to hear the Faux news rerun of how Kerry was a wimp loser? He ran a clean campaign and told the truth. He has more integrity in his little finger than the whole bush family has in countless generations of thieves and users. Despite their nasty tricks, he never stooped to their level. If you think they beat him in the end, then you aren't paying attention to the polls and the outcries of the American people. And we haven't stopped yelling. Stay tuned...

[LuPeRcALiO]

51. he did apologize about the election

"I'm sorry that we got here a little bit late and a little bit short."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-03-kerry-concession-speech_x.htm

okay it wasn't a five-act comic opera but at least he said it.

[Redneck Socialist]

55. And this is productive how? n/t

[politicasista]

57. self-delete

[politicasista]

58. Do Dean, Clark, Edwards, and other Dems owe the nation an apology?

Thanks for the Rovian talking points. C.P.A.A.J.K.D.N.I.U.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

59. He owes us an apology for turning out to be a ringer.

He never intended to win the election. It's the only explanation for his pussying out without so much as a whimper.

He was a deliberate, calculated distraction, pure and simple.

He'll never get my vote again.

[B Calm]

62. I'm still waiting for Beck to apologize to Michael Moore....

[PresidentObama]

64. HE NEVER INTENDED TO WIN?

ARE YOU NUTS!?!?!?

WOW, Out of ALL the excuses and lame attacks I've heard from Kerry bashers that was the most pathetic.

Add that to the list boys, LOL.

John Kerry doesn't owe anyone a apology. He ran a good, solid campaign. Some would argue in 2000 when Gore lost he ran a horrible campaign. Should he of apologized? NO! And he didn't. Because even though his campaign was horrible, he was a solid candidate. Kerry on the other hand had a good campaign. Probably not the best, or how we Kerrycrats (Kerry supporters) would have liked it, but it was a good campaign none the less. Kerry came close. He lost by ONE state. He almost beat a incumbent during war time, and during a war on terror following a released tape of Osama Bin Laden three days before the election.

Face the facts: he raised more money then any candidate in our partys history, got more votes then Clinton did in 1992 and 1996 and Al Gore in 2000, energized our party, and changed the Democratic parties direction. For the first time after the 2004 we've found a direction, and have seen a surplus in our party. FINALLY. Stop using Kerry as a scape goat. He got a lot of votes, Bush only got more. We need to stop blaming our failed Presidential candidates for our woes, and face our woes head on. If you don't wish to support John Kerry in 2008, please have a reasonable reason.

If anyone Bush should apologize to Kerry for using fear and smear to win, and the nation should apologize for buying it.

[formernaderite]

69. The election is over...

so who did you vote for in the general? I voted for Kerry.

[Itsthetruth]

70. An Apology By Kerry Would Be Insincere And Inadequate

eom

[Demit]

71. Nah. He actually did something good in my book.

He showed me how far "nuance" takes you. I supported his "nuance" in 2004. I won't be voting for nuance next time. I'll be voting for the clearest possible opposition candidate to this maladministration.

[WI_DEM]

72. No he doesn't owe anybody any apologies

Move on and stop attacking fellow democrats. Many Dems believed in the Bush lies in the congress and in the country. Was he duped, yes. Did he do it with malice, no. I know Will Pitt was a supporter, but I'm doubtful he is one of Kerry's "most prominent." Maybe on DU.

[NVMojo]

76. Do you owe Kerry an apology?

[earth mom]

77. Absolutely NOT! Put the blame on * & the rethugs where it belongs

NOT on Kerry! :grr:

FYI-Kerry's biggest mistake was not fighting for the election he so obviously won. Other than that don't try and foist blame for *s evil deeds upon him-he's not the one who's in charge right now though we all know he should be!