How come Kerry was deceived, and I wasn't?

[JohnnyCougar]

Does that mean I from my apartment, am more astute than John Kerry and all his aides, with the information he has access to in the Senate?

I would like to say that I applaud Kerry for taking a step in the right direction, but I don't think he's there yet. But I KNEW Bush was lying about Iraq. The whole time.

You see, the more the inspections were working (and subsequently finding nothing) the more Bush wanted to go to war. An honest person would have moderated his support for war if evidence was slowly turning up that there were no WMD. Someone who was lying to go to war, on the other hand, would be scared of evidence showing that there were no WMD and started the war before they could finish and prove there were no WMD.

It's rather easy to read people to tell if they are lying or not. If I can do this from my house, why can't Kerry do it from the Senate?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I believe he voted for the war because he was scared of the political ramifications if he voted against it. Everyone was a bit scared of Bush and Rove back then, but that is no excuse. You have to stand up for what you believe in.

[funflower]

1. You weren't running for President.

At least not that I know of!

[IkeWarnedUs]

9. That was JohnnyCougar's point

I talked to my Rep (Danny Davis) summer 2004. I made an appointment and went with copies of PNAC 2000 report, articles, documentaries, etc. By this time it was pretty clear there were no WMD's and I wanted him to take a stand. Be more like Jan Schakowsky and Jesse Jackson Jr. He said people were too scared to listen. I told him he should be ashamed. He is a solid incumbent in a secure district. If he was afraid to speak out, what hope do we have for someone in a tougher race (like president) to have the gonads?

Is it too much to ask for an honest answer rather than the one that is more strategic politically?

[funflower]

18. Even dem with solid seats were afraid to harm the party by opposing a war.

[regnaD kciN]

37. And the irony was...

...that Kerry's vote to give Bush a blank check, born from "pragmatism" and a desire to not sink his chances for the 2004 election, is precisely what did sink his chances for the 2004 election. It was feared, at the time, that any Democrat who opposed Bush on the IWR would look foolish and unpatriotic in the light of our sure-to-come military victory. Instead, when 2004 came around, the war was beginning to sour -- and Republicans were able to use Kerry's IWR vote as proof-positive that he was an untrustworthy "flip-flopper" who lacked a moral center. Who knows how many votes that cost him in swing states?

:-(

[Old and In the Way]

39. So....people voted for Bush because he was less pro-war than Kerry?

Or are you saying that the IWR kept progressives home last November? If so, I'd love to see the data that supports that. Kerry got more votes than any Democrat, ever.

Since Bush aledgedly won, you could make a better case that Kerry should have been more pro-war and he'd have gotten those barely Bush voters..

But the best case, I think, is Bush didn't win. The election was stolen. Therefore, it really didn't matter what his IWR vote was.

[LittleClarkie]

47. Aye, there is that

If fraud is proven, why Kerry "lost" the election is kinda moot.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

129. It depends on why you're arguing about it.

Usually the issue is "what, if anything, can we learn about how to do better in future elections from the 2004 campaign".

In that context, the issue isn't whether or not Kerry should have won, it's whether or not given positions or actions gained or lost him votes.

Although, of course, one lesson that could well be learn is "make sure there's a paper trail".

[sendero]

63. That is ..

.... exactly what I think also.

The IWR vote was pure, blatant, political expediency, no more no less.

Had Kerry the BALLS to Just Say No, the major theme of his campaign would not have had to have been muddied with all of the half-assed, nuanced position rhetoric that played right into the RW "flip-flop" meme.

Between that and his refusal to do anything about the obvious election fraud in Ohio, I hope to hell he stays out of 2008.

[ginnyinWI]

99. He voted to protect America--

He didn't want to just vote "no" and do nothing in the face of a possible nuclear threat. They were lied to--we were lied to. Very credible people personally looked him in the eye, face to face, and lied about WMDs. Kerry, faced with a decision, voted in favor of national security.
He had to go with what they all believed were the facts. If you want to blame someone, blame the lying bastards that committed the illegal act of lying to the U.S. Congress.

[sendero]

128. You believe what you want..

.... I don't believe anyone with a functioning brain really was sure Saddam had WMDS, and you don't go to war on a "might have".

[Iowa]

154. "If you want to blame someone, blame the lying bastards...?"

No, you should blame the lying bastards AND Kerry. Like the original poster, I wasn't deceived. Not for a moment. I know a liar and a con when I see one.

I believe Kerry did what he did because he wanted to be President. He thought that was the way to get there. But even if you take him at his word - ultimately he decided to follow - instead of lead. And thousands died. His lapse was huge and the consequences were massive. The lack of ability to identify an obvious con and liar is a flaw that disqualifies one from the Presidency, IMO. His recent excuses are far too little and much too late. He is damaged goods. He should go off quietly into the sunset.

[Old and In the Way]

160. Curious...how many people do you represent in Congress?

Iowa is not a big state....but were you 100% sure that Saddam had no weapons? Because if you were only 99% sure, that's a gamble you'd be taking with the lives of your constituents. Maybe Iowa wouldn't care...but since there were intel reports (faked in hindsight) that Saddam had WMD on barges off the eastaern seaboard, I don't know who would risk, say Boston, even if it was a 100:1 odds on the veracity of the rumor. I certainly wouldn't. I'd hope Kerry wouldn't either.

[JohnnyCougar]

169. Way to skew the framing of this debate.

Voting against war does not mean voting against inspections or putting this country at risk.

In fact, IF Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, voting for war would have been REALLY stupid, because he would have used them on our invading soldiers, and we would have 20,000 dead, not 2,000 now.

[Old and In the Way]

174. That was the whole point. There was a imminent threat....

mushroom clouds in 45 minutes. Barges with weapons off the coast. They had the intel.

Hey, I'm paranoid enough to think they (the junta) had something to do with 9/11. LIHOP, maybe MIHOP. Remember, no investigation at that point (still none, IMHO). I think they are guilty of letting 3,000 Americans die....what else are these people capable of doing to avoid justice and accountability for 9/11? So, if that is true, here's the scenario I would have been confronted with as a Democratic US Senator.

(1a) I vote, along with my colleagues, against the resolution. Shortly thereafter another horriffic attack occurs on US soil. What happens then?

a) Republicans and the mainstream media assign the blame to the Iraqi's.
b) Martial law is declared
c) Republicans and their accomplices in the mainstream media paint Democrats as the party of Iraqi collaborators and america haters.
d) We still go to war with Iraq.

(1b) Bush is telling the truth. My Party vote against prevails and we are attacked. Who are the traitors now? Would you be willing to forgive Kerry if that scenario plays out and you lose your family?

(1c) I vote against,no domestic attack, but WMD are found....so Bush saved us from the attack while those Democrats don't care about our security.

(1d) I vote against and my Party vote prevails. Have we won? Or do the Republicans and the MSM use this as validation that Democrats are obstructionists in the WOT with the midterms looming? Since we haven't invaded and the inspectors are not in Iraq, you can't prove they are not there. The 'Democrats don't support America' is a great issue for Republicans to club Democrats with as they sweep up in the mid-terms. Now Bush pretty well gets to do anything he damn well wants in the world.

(1e) I vote to allow the President to execute his oath of office to protect and defend the People and Constitution. I warn him on the limits of his power and expect him to work with the UN to locate the weapons. War is the last option. I give him the power to hang himself. Bush doesn't abide by the spirit of the resolution and gets his chance to be a war pResident. No WMD found, the costs in blood and treasure grow unbearably, and now we start seeing the truth that the evidence was based on lies, manufactured by this administration. Karl knows that this vote will be guaranteed to split the Democrats...


JohnnyCougar is pissed off because he knows the truth, but a clear/strong majority of Americans understand that Saddam was behind 9/11, so they expect their Congress to protect them from immenent attack. We aren't over 9/11 and want retribution and Bush has a 66% approval rating.

It sucks, but that was the reality every Democrat faced in September of 2002.

[Iowa]

180. Yeah, right!

If the criteria for going to war is to be 100% sure that (insert country here) has no weapons, we'd be in a perpetual state of war. That is one of the most ridiculous rationales I have ever heard for going to war, but I'm sure Bush would like the sounds of it. Such logic reminds me of an old Barney Miller episode. Barney was dealing with a "bunker mentality" survivalist type who lived in an underground cave where he hoarded food and supplies. In a moment of frustration, Barney told the guy that he'd rather go up in smoke than to live in a world where the only survivors were the likes of him.

Freedom comes with risks. There are no 100% guarantees, and any politician who is willing to send thousands to their deaths in pursuit of 100% security isn't qualified to lead.

[Jed Dilligan]

177. LOL I read "soiled seats"

And yes, in those days, it seems like a lot of Democrats soiled their seats at the sound of Bush's voice.

[mom cat]

184. I am getting tired of the fear of bullies. We pay these guys and gals

big bucks to stand up to the bullies. If they can't do the job, they need to be replaced!

[mainer]

96. I wasn't deceived either. I was just paying attention.

When I saw Colin Powell try desperately to make the case for those "unmanned Iraqi drones" that were really just balsa wood model airplanes, I knew those guys had nothing concrete.

[sandnsea]

2. There were no inspections before the vote

Kerry has criticized Bush's "rush to war" since January 2003. What do inspections have to do with the vote that took place in 2002? :shrug:

[JohnnyCougar]

29. Republicans were already making the case...

that inspections would doubtfully work. It was obvious the IWR was a loaded gun being handed to some cowboy with an itchy trigger finger.

I know Kerry expressed caution before his vote, but you have to be able to call these things out when they happen. Bush wanted war no matter what.

[sandnsea]

35. You didn't even know when the vote happened

You at least have to "know" when there were inspections and when there weren't. If you don't even "know" that, you can't possibly "know" anything about calling "these things out when they happen".

[JohnnyCougar]

40. There was debate before and after the IWR vote

And at both times, the Bush camp was marginalizing the effectiveness of the inspections. It doesn't matter when the vote was, because they were marginalizing inspections from the get go. The way they reacted to the inspections was just further confirmation that they were lying.

[sandnsea]

41. So did Russ Feingold

He said inspections couldn't be conducted the way they had been previously either. Did that tell you he was a liar?

[JohnnyCougar]

46. I don't know what Feingold was thinking.

But in the end he voted "nay," so I am unconcerned with the rhetoric he put forth.

The "nay" vote is really all that counts here.

He could have been saying that he wanted inspections to be conducted differently simply for the sake of finding out the truth, whether he was right or wrong.

The difference is that going to war is irreversable, but wanting inspections is something that has very few irreversable consequences, whatever you conclude.

I don't give Feingold's comments carte blanche, but in the end, he voted "nay" like he was supposed to.

[Karmadillo]

71. Some politicians are less easily duped than others or

are less calculating. To be honest, I don't think Kerry was duped as much as he thought it was politically wise to vote for the IWR.

Feingold, on the other hand, showed good judgment on both the war and the Patriot Act. If it comes down to Kerry and Feingold in 2008, it seems to me to be an easy choice.

[mpendragon]

119. sounds like a good answer from Feingold

Weapons or not Saddam was having his men jerk inspectors around. I'd have liked to see a policy where a UN inspector asks to see a facility one time and if they are denied full access then we put a cruise missile into the building. It would have sent a strong message to Saddam and should have enabled full access for every UN inspector everywhere in Iraq.

[LSK]

76. did you actually read the IWR???

[JohnnyCougar]

78. Yes, I did.

What part of it don't you understand?

[jayfish]

93. Yup, "It Would Take 300...

years" to inspect all of Iraq for the magic WsMD.

Jay

[LSK]

75. exactly - thank you

[OKthatsIT]

91. R U 4 real????????

you really are lost...well thats what happens when you listen to too much TV news....oh, right, AND THE NY TIMES!

[Nostradammit]

3. AND, if he's so well versed in BCCI nefarity

Why would he trust a Bush? I wouldn't give Bush the keys to my car - I damn sure wouldn't give him the keys to our military.

It's the rich vs the poor in this war.

[Hardrada]

5. Same as it was in Viet Nam

and most other wars.

[Wilms]

4. I share your view.

The whole thing was so transparent.

Poppy did a similar rush to war in '91 while, IIRC, France and Russia were working diplomatically.

[Justice Is Comin]

6. Kerry would be potentially a history making

president with record popularity. He just doesn't know how to be a candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

7. He seemed to think the system around Bush would stop him

as much as anything else. Hell, Bush's own dad should have been able to give Sonnyboy counsel if he'd only asked for it.

He didn't realize the line of decision making went Rummy to Cheney to Bush, with no input from anybody else. Not other generals. Not the CIA. Nobody. He didn't realize the neocons had hyjacked Bush already.

And the IWR did get inspectors in, but their finding mattered little.

It took Kerry all of 9 months to say "what the fuck." Just as he said he would if things turned out not to be as they were told they should be in Iraq. He said he'd be among the first to bitch in the government, and he was. I've got a speech from Dec, 2003 if you want to see it.

[JohnnyCougar]

26. Yet he still would have voted for IWR during the campaign.

A vote against IWR was a tough vote. It was tough for me to oppose it to my friends and family. But I did, knowing I would be right in the end. I would have to endure accusations of being a looney, and my friends telling me to shut up, but in time, they would see that I was right.

I'm sure it would be much worse if I were an elected official. It was a ballsy vote against the resolution, but there was some opposition to it at the time. Feingold voted against it, for one. Kennedy voted against it. Heck, even Republican Lincoln Chaffee voted against it. All in all 23 Senators voted against it, so there was some opposition to it. Kerry could have too. I thought he made a good speech before he voted for it (expressing some cautiousness and doubt) but war is not something you support if there is consciousness or doubt.

I think he was just being chicken and playing both sides.

[jmowreader]

52. IWR wasn't a blank check for war

At least, it wasn't intended to be.

It was intended to give Bush the authority to stand before Saddam and tell him, if you don't get rid of your program we can do bad things to you.

Saddam, as I recall, was basically screaming "we don't have shit. Okay? We don't have a fucking thing. Your side destroyed 95 percent of everything we had, we destroyed the rest of it. We don't have a chemical plant in this whole Allah-forsaken country, thanks to you, and you can't make a tactically-significant quantity of chemical weapons without one. We don't have enough delivery systems to mount a chemical attack; you took care of that too. Our "program," such as it is, is a few people who used to make the stuff and a book of formulas."

Carrot-and-stick is the approach we were taking toward Iraq--lifting of sanctions was the carrot, war was the stick. Bush took the stick and used it, when the carrot was probably more appropriate.

[Hissyspit]

171. I remember at the time thinking "Please, leaders of the U.S., DON'T

vote for this!"

It was CLEAR that Bush was rushing to war. I was begging my democratic leaders to stand up for sanity. Yes, it was a scam, but you are rationalizing.

[sendero]

178. But again..

... anyone with two functioning brain cells could SEE that this vote was the last puzzle piece Bush** was assembling before he attacked.

Look, the administration's rhetoric and actions leading up to the "war" were as blatant, telling and ominous as they could possibly be.

There was no ambiguity, there was only a stream of forced talking points, most half truths at best, and a literal military buildup on the ground.

I'm simply not going to accept that LAME ASSED EXCUSE that the IWR was not an "authorization" to go to war, it fucking most certainly was, BY DEFINITION. Because Bush** used it as one, and EVERYONE WITH TWO BRAIN CELLS KNEW HE WOULD, HE WASN'T EXACTLY HIDING IT.

[saracat]

8. You didn't have to prove it.

Kerry needed concrete evidence. He couldn't act on supposition. Remember , none of us actually had to vote or take responsibility for national security. It cost both the nation and us nothing to shoot off our mouths. I too, saw this as a bad thing, but I didn't have to produce evidence.

[Justice Is Comin]

13. He lost the election

when he was on that mountain and was asked, if you knew then what you know now, would you have voted the same way. He said yes. Ka-boom!!

[Old and In the Way]

20. That's how the mainstream media and the RNC framed it, anyway.

Or, as he explains it, he didn't hear the question properly and answered what he thought he heard. But, you'll have to decide who you believe.

If you really want to know, in detail, what Kerry's position was on the IWR...I suggest you read his speech on the Senate floor. Posted it here tonight on another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5177000&mesg_id=5186253

[mistertrickster]

165. Right, Old in the Way, that was exactly Kerry's problem. You had to

go to a website to figure out what his positions were.

Funny, nobody has any confusion about where George Galloway stands, and the guy lives in England . . .

"Everything you (Norm Colman) said about the war turned out to be wrong, and everything I and the anti-war movement said turned out to be right. 2000 soldiers died for a pack of lies. 1 billion dollars a week for a pack of lies. 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, dead for a pack of lies."

That's the way A MAN speaks when he sees rank injustice.

[zalinda]

23. Yes, and when he was on that mountain

he didn't hear the question correctly. He has a hearing problem, and thought that the reporter was asking a different question. The hearing problem is Vietnam related. If he had tried to explain the answer, he would have been put back into the voted for it before I voted against it whirlwind.

Damn, since he wasn't YOUR candidate, you feel you have the right..... no, the duty to debase him as much as possible. It's black or white with you people, never any shades of gray. You wonder why we don't have qualified people running for office? Take a look at yourselves!!! If you don't like what someone says or does, or he/she isn't your guy, you strip him/her of any respect that we should have for these people. After all, the vast majority of us, will NOT be running for any office. Well, you know, it's much easier to sit and bitch in front of a computer than to actually step up to the plate.

zalinda

[Justice Is Comin]

30. If you're talking to me

you might want to check to see who I supported. I registered for the first time in my life to vote for him. That's over 50 years. So don't put your eggs in my basket. He was fighting a sewer slug and he took the diplomatic route. He could have sent Bush back to Texas in disgrace but he played patty-cake nicey nice instead. And we got the sewer slug. When Jesse Jackson finished a rally speech, you were wringing wet.

[Old and In the Way]

36. Tell me....how many more votes could Kerry have gotten?

Everyone I know who was against this war voted for Kerry. Alledgedly, there were more people who voted for Bush. People did not vote for Bush because he was more anti-war than Kerry. So....that leaves the apathetic middle who didn't vote (except for the <2% who voted "other"). Or are you telling me that the politically motivated left stayed home and decided to sit this one out?
If that's your contention, I call bullshit. No one who hates this war and/or this administration stayed home last Novemeber.

And if you think so, please back up your contention with a link that has the data that supports it.

[Justice Is Comin]

38. We're on the same race track

but with a totally different opinion of what it takes to get to the finish line first. If we don't get some fire under our ass, we're going to be lamenting the same loss of opportunity to take back the house and senate come 1 year. Bank on it.

[Old and In the Way]

42. Kerry got more votes than any Democrat ever.

How much more fire do you need to light? It ain't us...it's the idiots that voted (or alledgedly voted) for Bush. And if they support Bush, than the only way to gain more votes....is to become more Republican-like. I don't know any Democrats who voted for Bush this last election and I know of none who stayed home.

What I question is where did all the Republicans come from? My own local survey of 12 Republicans had: 7 Bush / 4 Kerry / 1 No Vote.

[Justice Is Comin]

50. Look at the polls now chief.

If the election was held November 2nd, we could be ordering champaign and caviar. The votes are there by the millions. We just didn't inspire them. That same incompetence could have been shown for the last election. We didn't do it. When you're in a street fight, you don't say excuse me, may I throw a puch.

[EFerrari]

51. If we don't take down the electronic voting machines

which cannot be recounted, it will just be more of the same.

[Old and In the Way]

57. Exactly.

Everything else is BS. I've been voting for 34 years and Kerry was our strongest candidate against a guy who lost by a 500,000 votes in 2000. This guy wipes out 800BB on our books, starts an illegal war, had 9/11 happen on his watch....and I'm to believe he beat Kerry?

Sorry, I'm in the reality based community. Wondering what we did wrong or what Kerry did wrong is total BS. It's what the criminals did wrong...they stole the election from the American people.

[EFerrari]

60. Kerry won. I have NEVER seen such a mobilization

and I'm nearly 50.

They stole it. Andy showed us how they did it.

We have to stop chasing shadows and look at our compromised elections.

Be well. B.

[robbedvoter]

83. If he misheard, didn't he have any chance afterwards to correct it?

He had the public attention every day at that time - and the undeserved support of the anti-bush activists. Of all the stupid excuses...How very reaganesque of ya!

[saracat]

73. Because what he knew and could prove at the time the question was asked is

was NOT what can be substantiated today! And lost in whose opinion? He isn't occupying the WH but he didn't "lose the election".Why doesn't Ohio release the voting machine data then? They need a federal order that will never come.But why are the results concealed unless there is something to hide? And why does Kerry still have two cases pending? , even though it won't get him into the WH because of the time elapsed? Kaboom .

[Raksha]

53. Kerry did NOT need concrete evidence!

In order to justify an invasion, *Bush* needed concrete evidence to back up his assertion that Saddam Hussein was an immanent threat to the U.S. The burden of proof was on him and the rest of the War Party. The inspections, as far as they were allowed to proceed, did not support that assertion.

[saracat]

77. So Kerry should make his decisions as Bush does? By what he

chooses to believe? I think not.

[JohnnyCougar]

55. He had all the evidence he needed that the IWR gave too much power to Bush

It's not like supporting a different bill that gave less discretion to Bush would have put our country in danger.

Voting against IWR was not a vote that put our country at risk.

[Skittles]

10. DING DING DING DING

how come 90% of Americans were fooled post-9/11 but we never were????

[maxsolomon]

85. inaccurate

if you are referring to the 90% of america that supported intervention in Afganistan.

the percentage who supported invading iraq was always much lower.

[Eric J in MN]

103. I think she means that 90% of Americans approved of Bush

after 9/11/2001, but DUers didn't approve of Bush.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. Then you were right but 70%+ of the country was wrong

While I thought from the outset the case for war was exagerrated, the truth is it was widely believed that Saddam DID have WMD - even the French said it was the case, they just didn't think they had exhausted non-military solutions. Now, some prescient voices, like Will Pitt, had written about how the WMD claims were exagerrated, but there were conflicting reports and reasonable people could have believed there were WMDs.

Now, once inspectors got into the country it became quite clear that there were no weapons. But remember that inspections were not in place before the IWR. And remember that Saddam HAD kicked the weapons inspectors out in '99.

If you never bought that there were WMDs then you were right. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who disagreed with you was stupid or just going along with the crowd.

[JohnnyCougar]

21. Hey...I didn't say anyone was stupid.

I do realize that IWR was done before the inspections, but the Republicans were already marginalizing the possible effectiveness of the inspections at that time. It looked like a setup from the get-go.

I understand that people were afraid at that time, and when they to that, they tend to be more trusting of authority figures. I guess I just never trusted Bush. I'm not mad at any person in particular except for those who did the decieving. But I did get a ton of shit from quite a few liberal friends for saying the whole thing was a setup. I even got into a loud argument with my Dad at a restaurant about it.

Maybe I am just astute about calling people's bullshit. Maybe Kerry really did think that war was a legitimate possibility. Right now, though, I have trouble believing that. Of course, no one KNOWS what Kerry was thinking but Kerry, but I still fail to believe that he actually was deceived. The remark in the 2004 campaign about not changing his vote sealed the deal for me. Of course he regretted it. He was obviously politically posturing then, just like I believe he was before the war. I voted for him, but I will not do so again unless his stance improves.

[seaglass]

65. No it doesn't have anything to do with you being astute. It's

a mindset that is based on your enemies being unworthy of trust and automatically wrong. Simple reasoning actually (and I admit I'm guilty of it too).

In addition there were no consequences if you were wrong.

[grace0418]

183. Don't worry, I had the same exact opinion as you on another thread

and was accused of the same thing. My point was that it was okay for regular joes to be swayed because they weren't voting on it. But Kerry should've made it his responsibility to dig deeper because his vote helped pave the way for the loss of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

I completely and utterly agree with your OP.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. Saddam Didn't Kick Out The Inspectors

Richard Butler ordered the inspectors out so that Clinton could bomb the shit out of Iraq

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

But given the reporting of that false narrative, I guess you could say the Saddam kicking out inspectors is fact-esque.

And the IAEA said as far back as 1999 that there is no indication that Iraq has reconstituted weapons program, and the subsequent inspections proved that fact.

[Old and In the Way]

27. Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

I was also pretty damn sure that it was bullshit....but what was the price for my opinion, right or wrong? If I was wrong, I'm accountable to myself....no harm done. If Kerry's wrong, millions of constituents could be affected. Big difference.

The IWR vote, for people like Kerry, was a tool to get Saddam to expose his WMD's. It was to leverage getting the inspectors back in and getting the job done.

Anyways, a President of the United States wouldn't start an elective war, particularly not a President whose own father understood the reasons not to topple Saddam...right? I mean, Bush didn't have a track record on elective wars at that point.

People want a mea culpa from Kerry, but he did the correct non-partisan thing in supporting the Presidency. What if he were in a situation where he needed bi-partison support on a gathering threat on our national security...would we want Republicans assuming Kerry had ulterior, nefarious motives that'd create a paralysis of action? I don't think so.

Of course, in hindsight, it was so obvious that Bush had war as the 1st choice...not the last choice. And we, as a country, are paying a huge price for his decision which, in hindsight, was not about our national security, but about Bush's political/financial agenda. For that, I hope he is impeached, tried, and hanged. Just as a warning to future Presidents who decide that they'd rather be war mongering dictators and thumb their nose at commonwealth of the American people.

[KnowerOfLogic]

135. No hind-sight needed; it was as clear as day that * WANTED WAR;

and when somebody clearly wants a war, any rational intelligent person should immediately become skeptical and subject every offered rationale for the war to hightened scrutiny. In contrast however, the dem leadership seemed to go the other way and give an obvious mad-man a blank check for war.

[Old and In the Way]

166. Yes, in hindsight it was totally clear.

we've learned a lot about the Bush-PNAC plan to invade Iraq....but that wasn't common knowledge, outside of DU. What we suspected did come to pass...but it was hardly confirmed before the vote was taken. It was pure speculation.

This was Bush's War...trying to offload the blame on Kerry or any Democrat is disingenuous. No Democrat had a hand in the invasion. This was Bush's deal, start to finish.

[LynnTheDem]

28. Nah...just ignorant

By the way, in fact Hussein did not kick the UN weapons inspectors out.

The experts had been speaking out since the start, to those who were paying attention;

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

[mpendragon]

122. the Democrats had an image problem with national security

They got Cleland with it and he was a decorated Vietnam vet and multiple amputee. They smeared McCain on it in 2000 before 9/11.

I don't mean to sound vulgar but the problem was that any major elected official not just shy of foaming at the mouth over war in Afghanistan and a coming war in Iraq was being cast as a pussy.

How many times did we hear about how John Kerry wanted to put terrorists in therapy and ask them about their feelings from the GOP?

[cosmicdot]

163. Max Cleland got Diebolded ... which created the 'got Cleland'

perception at best ... the startling result of that 2002 election should've been a major clue of what was going on, up and down ... our elected officials have had plenty of information and insight to help them make decisions in dealing with Bu$hCo. ...

... one would think the 2000 stolen election would have been clue enough ...

but, again, we at our computers could see it and knew it ... we knew about Bu$h's skeletons and self-proclaimed media creation 'being'

... and, we armchair citizens saw everything else that went on post-both 2000 and 2002 elections ... the everything in-between 2001 onward ...

... and, we shared these with our elected officials on a scale likely not witnessed before (thanks to the 'internets') to what seemed deaf ears ...

Books were written. Vincent Bugliosi posed: 'None Dare Call it Treason'; David Brock broke from the right-wing to do a tell-all book ... are we to believe that our brightest never heard of Greg Palast??

did our elected officials need to ask the audience or call a friend?

... certainly some of the emails were read; phone messages recorded; and, petitions noticed ... the anti-Bu$h sites mushroomed with our voices ... clues everywhere ...

and, our leaders were somehow not clued in to the shenanigans of this cabal, or their MO?

Bush as Governor-Rove-Rumsfeld-Cheney-and the Iran-Contra crowd-Ashcroft, et al, didn't have clues written all over?

Heaven knows what Washington party-circuit whispered about all of this ...

The Democratic Party's history has no national security problem that can't be proved, demonstrated, and sold. The problem is likely not having the right people as leaders to fight the fight, i.e., Lieberman, et al. One TV ad with the military records of this cabal and its players would speak volumes.


Sorry to rant, but I don't buy this Democrats had a national security image problem ... GOP BS echoed by their corporate media puppets ... propaganda. Easily countered. Plus, any attempts to taint Democrats' 'image' didn't pan out because both Gore and Kerry won.




~snip~
USA Today reported on Nov. 3, 2002, "In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss." Cox News Service, based in Atlanta, reported just after the election (Nov. 7) that, "Pollsters may have goofed" because "Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. The Hotline, a political news service, recalled a series of polls Wednesday showing that Chambliss had been ahead in none of them."

Just as amazing was the 2002 Georgia governor's race. "Similarly," the Zogby polling organization reported on Nov. 7, "no polls predicted the upset victory in Georgia of Republican Sonny Perdue over incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes. Perdue won by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. The most recent Mason Dixon Poll had shown Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent last month with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points."

Almost all of the votes in Georgia were recorded on the new touch-screen computerized voting machines, which produced no paper trail whatsoever. Similarly, as the San Jose Mercury News reported in a Jan. 23, 2003 editorial titled "Gee Whiz, Voter Fraud?" "In one Florida precinct last November, votes that were intended for the Democratic candidate for governor ended up for Gov. Jeb Bush, because of a misaligned touchscreen. How many votes were miscast before the mistake was found will never be known, because there was no paper audit." ("Misaligned" touchscreens also caused 18 known machines in Dallas to register Republican votes when Democratic screen-buttons were pushed in 2002: it's unknown how many others weren't noticed.)

Maybe it's true that the citizens of Georgia simply decided that incumbent Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a wildly popular war veteran, was, as Republican TV ads suggested, too unpatriotic to remain in the Senate, even though his Republican challenger, Saxby Chambliss, had sat out the Vietnam war with a medical deferment.

Maybe, in the final two days of the race, those voters who'd pledged themselves to Georgia's popular incumbent Governor Roy Barnes suddenly and inexplicably decided to switch to Republican challenger Sonny Perdue.
~snip~

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-32.htm

[KnowerOfLogic]

134. Even *if* Sadaam had WMD, he was no threat to America. That was nothing

but manufactured hysteria. Yes, BushCo got the ball rolling on it, but many dems contributed and gave the WMD scare nationwide legitimacy by backing bush on it, instead of calling him on his lies and distortions.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

148. Kinda like last year

when, "Oh My God, we are all going to die from the flu". The population is so predictable when you throw a little hysteria inducing fear out there for them to sink their terrified teeth into. And it works, every time. This year, we are all going to die from the bird flu.

[radwriter0555]

12. Why is that? He is some super hero who is expected to know all things

at all times?

We're SUPPOSED to be able to trust our leaders.

Some of us are just more skeptical than others... Who wants to believe all republicans are patent liars?

[EFerrari]

14. And JohnnyCougar controls the board.

I don't buy it either.

"You have to stand up for what you believe in."

[punpirate]

15. Many of us...

... put some trust in what the IAEA and inspectors such as Scott Ritter said about events in Iraq up until the inspectors left in 1998, and could make some assessments of what Iraq was likely capable of doing in the midst of some quite severe sanctions in the time between 1998 and when the Bushies started their mushroom cloud campaign to sway the populace.

Kerry said, at the time of the IWR vote, that what convinced him was the supposedly secret information provided in camera that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger--precisely the lie now exposed. That evidence was supplied through the intelligence system and the White House.

That said, Kerry's insistence on defending his vote after it became public knowledge that he'd been lied to doesn't speak well of his determination not to challenge the Bushies on the issue during the election or to challenge the raison d'etre for war. Advising continuation of the war as the best course during and after the election simply further alienated his rapidly diminishing base.

What disappoints me about this is that Kerry choked down the native skepticism about government actions he showed almost twenty years ago in his attempted investigations to show the relationship the CIA had with drug-running and the so-called Contras. He got slapped down hard for making that assertion and I think that experience was reflected in his IWR vote. I understand why he voted as he did, but that doesn't mean I approve of that vote, or of his excuses.

Kerry, of all people, should have known better. My great fear is that he did know better and chose to inhibit his skepticism and to back Bush, anyway.

[Old and In the Way]

16. If you were a Senator doing the calculus......

Bush is either-

(1) Telling the truth and maybe there is a barge sitting off the Eastern seaboard which could hit/incinerate Boston in 45 minutes. If I vote "No" and that happens, will my constituents be pissed? If there is another 9/11 type 'event' and the Iraqi's are fingered, Bush gets the Republican majority to pass a law outlawing Democrats...he'd probably find a few crossover votes on this bill, too.

(2) He's lying...but he's not stupid enough to start a war that even his old man realized would not be in our best interests. If I vote "Yes", I'll piss off the people at DU, but I'm not declaring war, the moderate middle sees I'm not playing politics on issues of national security. It's an authorization, not an obligation to invade Iraq. And this will force Saddam to show his hand if he does have WMD. I'm not holding a gun to George's head demanding that he invade, but if he wants this IWR, I'll give him the noose that he can hang himself with.

[Lexingtonian]

17. He didn't claim to have been deceived

"Knowing what I know now" is the wording.

Bush had 4 selling points for the Iraq war.
-Saddam is inherently Evil/hurts our egos
-WMDs blah blah dangerous madman
-Saddam and Al Qaeda ~ pretty much the same thing
-'freedom and democracy' in Saddam's place

Even if you doubted the WMD stuff, or even knew that it really didn't base in facts, and all the rest was crap too, Hussein really did go too far in stomping on the egos of the American Right and average Americans during his 12 year reprieve. He made himself a constant pain in the ass. Even if Bush bungled everything else, Saddam would be gone and there was a chance of putting a kind of ramshackle democracy in his place.

I think you had to know rather more about Iraq to recognize that the Sunni/Shiite problem was one that couldn't be solved without massive violence, that some minimal democratic government wasn't actually feasible.

My guess is that Kerry is talking about all these factors in varying degrees far more than the WMD allegations. There wasn't a way of knowing how rapidly or not Americans, Iraqis, and the Bush people would bungle and give up on the thing. Those are the political factors of importance to the likes of Kerry.

Btw, the Kerry timing is also coincident with moderate Republicans pretty much having given up on the Iraq thang. It's not an accident that he and Hillary are timing their actions to that bloc of people rather than people like us. Wedging them from Bush and hardline Republicans is the key to Democrats regaining a national majority and winning national elections. This Constitution thing is the last straw for moderate Republicans on Iraq- if it fails they give up on the whole thing.

[Hekate]

19. Select Congressional committees were snowed under with classified info...

It's the only reason I have to give some of them a teensy bit of wiggle-room.

Committees dealing with intelligence and defense already receive classified reports and hush-hush briefings. Members of those committees were given such a hard-sell their heads must have been spinning -- when they spoke in public they frequently looked aghast at what they had been told, what they were not allowed to speak of in public.

Personally, I believed all along the Bush administration was lying through its teeth, but then I was getting my news through DU, and DU is its own filter.

But that is a far, far cry from sitting in the same room with very powerful men and women who are presenting a mountain of "evidence" supposedly backed by the CIA, stuff so toxic that it can't be made public. So you go out and tell the citizenry that yes, you have been convinced, and that they, the people, can trust you on this one.

It would take an exceptional person to withstand that kind of pressure.

So I give some of the Dems that teensy bit of wiggle-room, but not forever. They -- like Kerry -- must start redeeming themselves by admitting they were taken in by lies, but now they know the truth and are going to act accordingly.

Then they have to act on it.

Hekate

[sandnsea]

22. Feingold was duped too

But nobody cares about that, or wants to deal the truth about what was thought in 2002. Better to bask in the intellectual glory of "knowing" something when what they "knew" isn't even based on reality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5187561

[JohnnyCougar]

32. Not duped enough to vote "yes."

And that's where I draw the line.

[roguevalley]

24. we don't pay them to be afraid. we pay them to serve. they didn't.

they need to apologize or go. period.

[LynnTheDem]

31. YES!

:thumbsup: :applause:

[leftchick]

54. yes!

they were afraid for their political careers! I don't know how Hillary, Kerry and the rest of them sleep at night.

[fleabert]

33. ditto. nt

[LittleClarkie]

34. Your draftee Russ was deceived as well

"I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change."

"We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy."

His problem was giving Bush power, not that there were no WMD's.

Not to mention that by your reckoning, the Democratic side of the Senate is being lead by a man who must not be all that damn bright either.

[JohnnyCougar]

43. But, see, there is my point.

His problem was giving Bush power. That was my problem as well. I swore up and down that we would not find weapons in Iraq, but I still supported inspections. It doesn't hurt to make sure if you are just doing inspections. It does hurt if you authorize the president to go to war. This being an administration that had already proven to be a friend of violence, I would have NEVER voted for IWR.

[EFerrari]

44. John Kerry is a good man. And he knew exactly what he was doing.

He was buckling to a political climate.

And his decision to do that has brought us here.

It's no good avoiding this fact. Let's be honest about what happened and let's move on from here.

Tell Cindy he had his reasons. What would she say?

If I knew in my livingroom that Powell was full of sh%t, Kerry knew. He made a wrong decision. Undeniably wrong.

Let's own mistakes. Let's make history. :)

[aquart]

45. How come Clinton and Schumer were deceived, and I wasn't?

[JohnnyCougar]

48. Both of their seats were safe, too.

They had no reason.

Russ had reelection in a purple state two years later, and he still voted no.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

59. Same here aquart! I wrote ad nauseum to both of them not to vote for

the resolution, and they both still support their decision. We might as well be a red state......

[robbedvoter]

80. They were a*holes too. No excuse for Kerry though.

[Raksha]

49. I was never deceived either.

In fact I posted a reply very similar to your OP on another thread earlier tonight. I think many of us are reacting in pretty much same way to his speech. It was a great speech, but if ONLY he'd given it a year ago!

[Nothing Without Hope]

56. I agree. It's a subject of intense feelings on both sides here at DU

There are people who love Kerry and want him to run for President again.

Not me. In my view, that would be a disaster. We must find a forward-looking candidate with passion and well-throught-out plans for how to repair the damage to this country and move ahead. Kerry can't do that, IMO. Neither can Hillary Clinton, who is still carefully calculating her answers about the Iraq War:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x168273

[KG]

58. because you aren't a craven, calculating, poll driven politician?

[loyalsister]

61. I'm not so sure he was

He's a little bit of a true believer. He very well might have fallen for the moralo argument of getting rid of Sadam.
I was just listening to his speech. I don't like his ideas. He is very much a spread democracy guy. I am sick to death of us being so aggressive about this. Noone here respects their culture.

[seabeyond]

62. over 80% supported bush. that is a lot of people. every person

on this board KNEW there were no wmd's or anything else. statistically that is amazing. my perspective of that time after powell went to u.n. and then listening to bush speech is there is something there we dont know. we gotta trust them. andif bush lied, he is in huge trouble. bush lied

i didnt believe him, but i didnt not believe him either. i didnt know.

about all i heard was people everywhere figured we would find something. of course we did give saddam wmd's. that even finding wmd's didnt qualify in going to war. they knew just wmd's wouldnt do it. they punched it up to tubes and mushroom clouds.

i dont know if EVERYONE on this board KNEW bush was lying and would find NO wmd's, or that is just what they are saying now. like i say, over 80% supported war. there had to be some dems the didnt KNOW

[KnowerOfLogic]

141. Thanks to sell-out, war-whore dems. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. The polls say it's safe for pols to be unDuped after thousands of dead.

He, and the other accomplices, weren't duped. They were, and still are, perfectly willing to sacrifice peoples' lives to advance their careers.

[KnowerOfLogic]

142. Yep, and a tearful apology will get them back in america's good graces.

[newportdadde]

66. Because your looking at it as a 3rd party.

Your not involved in the game in DC. Hey I hear what your saying, for instance our company was involved in launching a new website for a product. My buddies and I discussing it over pizza one day at lunch basically figured out it would never work for XYZ reasons. Three lowbies doing analysis over one hour of pizza, sure enough it was a failure and a costly one.

The thing about the three of us and you too is that we were outsiders. We didn't have egos involved. Kerry was in the middle of the game, even if he thought he was being lied too he had plans for running for President so he stayed neutral and went along to get along. To have come out and stood against it at the time would have been bold but also political suicide as he was labelled unpatriotic etc.. you remember those times, the Dixie Chicks etc it was crazy.

I wish Kerry wouldn't have done that but its in the past, its probably one of the reasons the guys been so successful in politics, he plays the game well. Unfortunately it hurt his presidential bid.

[seabeyond]

67. political suicide as he was labelled unpatriotic etc.. you remember those

we conveniently forget those times. was even on news this is what repugs were doing and what and why they were doing vote prior to election. media was saying what a brilliant campaign move. on tv. no one bothered. doesnt that alone bother you

bush gets this all on his shoulders. did it. created it. implemented it. it is bush baby

[Jacobin]

68. He wasn't 'deceived'. He made a calculated decision

to enable the neo-cons, hoping the invasion would go well, so it wouldn't muck up his presidential run.

If he thought it would go well, then he is as naive as Smirk is and has no business in the WH.

[kstewart33]

69. Excellent question!

Probably because you didn't look at the issue through the lens of someone whose primary objective is to stay in office.

[Hubert Flottz]

70. "You have to stand up for what you believe in."

I thought that was extinct since 9/11.

If you were a member of the Counsel on Foreign Relations you may have seen things differently from your apartment. The only thing is your "Apartment" would probably be a penthouse apartment if you were a card carrying member of the CFR/DLC...

[elehhhhna]

72. kick

[BurtWorm]

74. Nominated.

Good question. May it continue to haunt every Democrat who voted for IWR.

[robbedvoter]

81. Second the nomination. Well said. No politics with life and death.

[SoCalDem]

79. It means that you do not have to ask for money from EVERYONE.

and that since you are not beholdin' to anyone, your mind is clear and able to read the bullshit meter correctly..

[mwb970]

82. I think this same thing every day.

*I* knew there were no WMD. *I* knew there was no 9/11 connection. *I* knew we would end up with a civil war in Iraq.

How can it be that I, a random person in Columbus, knew all these things before the war and was right about every one, yet everything - and I mean every single thing - that our president and his henchmen said about Iraq has turned out to be false?

So what do we do? WE RE-ELECT HIM. Unbelievable.

[phusion]

84. Well said

I completely agree...

IIRC, Kucinich was not fooled.

[Zhade]

86. A question I've asked myself many, many times.

Good one, too.

[leftofthedial]

87. he's part of the (wink, wink) opposition

how could he have known?

[SupplyConcerns]

88. And even from a political standpoint, he should have voted "No"

I was a Kerry supporter until he voted for the war. Not only was I dissapointed in the vote from a moral perspective, but from a pragmatic perspective. It was clear the Democratic nominee would have to demonstrate strong leadership to match Bush's ballyhooed post-9/11 leadership aura. It was also clear that there was NO WAY the war could have gone really well. Obviously there would be an insurgency. The only government the Iraqis hated as much as Saddam Hussein's, after a decade of torturous sactions, was the United States'. Let's not forget that things could have gone even worse: Hussein could have decimated his oil fields with dirty bombs, just as the Saudi government is apparently prepared to do in the event of instability.

[Sallow]

89. Kerry authorized the use of force..

As one possible option. Hamstringing a president out of any option is not a good idea politcially. Bush had also said that war was going to be a last restort. In addition to that, they were trotting out all sorts of reports stating that Iraq supported terrorism and practically linked Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.

[Deja Q]

131. Except *'s actions proved that "the last resort" was on top of his list.

He gave none of the options any REAL chances.

And it's proven that there was NO imminent danger.

Maybe Saddam had plans to build up over several years to become a threat, but the war sure as hell wasn't sold on anything even remotely like that. * LIED. And then changed his reasons for going in so often he killed his own credibility. THAT is one reason why the masses no longer stand behind the guy. He's a liar and a fool. More of a fool than I, and that's sayin' something.

Also, * himself said Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Never mind what his own administration had said. (especially that lovely rumsfeld clip that's all over the internet from a year or so ago... quite the fluff of his lines...)

Hussein probably did support terrorists. Hussein hated the US and that's obvious. But it was IRRELEVANT FOR THE REASONS * SOLD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ON. And that's what counts. The truth.

Clinton lied over a blowjob. He's scum for doing so, no argument from me. But lying to get into a war is far, far, FAR worse.

And, yes, I know Kerry voted for it. Again, I believe he's a shill and a sellout. And his performance during the debates would make me consider the epithet "fool" as well. And so much the better he lost, when you start thinking about things long term. Better the repukes than the Dems being hung out to dry right now.

[bridgit]

90. think about it, it wasn't just kerry; the metallic bloom...

was still on that neocon rose, they could point their crooked fingers and shout, "unpatriotic!!!" and dems would scamper off (that's the part i still don't get :shrug:)

your read as to "political ramifications" is closer to the mark, having just witnessed what they had done to clinton for the last 10+ years, and to his associates as well, they knew with a quickness that with cheney in the WH, thee most vindictive man in wash dc, they would stand a snow-balls chance in hell getting past a twisted message pumped through a propaganda machine that had already been churning for some time imo

sad :cry: but there is far too much political expediency involved in the saving of ones political hide back there :thumbsdown: the downside now is the further death of innocents

[Beam Me Up]

92. RIGHT ON, BRO! I'm SICK of Democrats who do not STAND UP and SPEAK

OUT about what THEY SAY they believe in.

Cindy Sheehan said that she believes that if John Kerry had taken a strong, outspoken, direct stand AGAINST the war in Iraq and the policies of *, he would have won in a landslide. I think she is right. We all know he won anyway. I may be wrong but I believe the media want us to 'believe' that the majority of Americans support * and the Republican agenda. They want us to 'believe' it because IT IS NOT TRUE.

What Americans want is someone who SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER. So long as Democrats do not represent the will of the people they can expect to continue to loose elections (due in part to shenanigans and in part to APATHY from the voting public).

By the way, I worked harder to get JK elected than I've worked to get any Democrat elected to any office. Gave them more money, too. I was VERY disapointed in his campaign and the way he just threw in the towel when the election results were broadcast.

Sorry, folks. NEVER AGAIN. I want someone who is going to FIGHT corporate interests.

[hiley]

94. Johnny

you hit the nail on the head.
peace

[second edition]

95. Well aren't you just so wonderful. You had all the answers

and all the evidence to back it up. Hey, how come you didn't storm the Senate and stop them from voting for the IWR?

[MadHound]

97. Because that is what we have Senators for!

The number one job duty for any Senator or Congressman is to represent the collective will of their constituents. During the run up to the IWR vote, messages to the Hill were running 268-1 against the IWR. Millions of people, both here in the US and abroad, were out in the streets making it quite clear that they were against the IWR. Poll after poll after poll all clearly stated that the American people were not wanting to take any action whatsoever until the inspectors had finished their job.

And yet Kerry went directly against all of that public sentiment.

And thus he failed in doing his job. If this was virtually any other job in the US a person would be fired for such gross deriliction of their job duties. And yet somehow we're supposed to give Kerry a pass? Puhleeze friend.

[mondo joe]

104. Why should we do the job of our senators?

They knew it was BS too.

[sweetheart]

98. Because he's on the surface

And we live 1000 feet underwater, where even a ferocious storm seems
no different. But on the surface, winds of political force blow like
gales from the media, the corporate bosses, the hate-right coulter et. al.
He has to negotiate so many factors that we can conveniently leave
unexplained in our hipocritical existance lurking underneath like sharks.

But oh, look, kerry has some exposed skin, maybe a shaving cut on his
nose. And we can all smell the blood down here beneath the surface.
The great white bloggers are gonna attack and eat him, not because he
was a bad man, but because they were hungry.

And so, john kerry needs buy a shark cage, to prepare for the invective
of those cutting teeth, angrily feeling cheated without anyone to blame,
and oh the carnage.

[redsoxliberal]

100. this is why, while I supported and volunteered for Kerry, I sometimes felt

like it was a tough pill to swallow that he had won the nomination.

Nominated.

[EFerrari]

101. short illustration:

I'm a Green but before party come my values so I wanted to help the campaign.

Called the hq here in San Francisco to see if I could get lit or signs to put out at the shows I produce. I know they already had CA in the plus column but it can't hurt to make CA feel attended to, nor will it hurt if Millie in CA calls her red state mom and tells her to vote for JK.

They wanted me to pay for the signs. I said "no, thank you". And they lost my whole network that way. Over $20. Silly.

[redsoxliberal]

108. correct decision. but it's not just that... I just didn't really like him

or his opinions on a lot of stuff... chiefly the war.

[BamaBecky]

102. I think Kerry is finished! I think Hillery is finished! and of course

Bush is finally finished too! Perhaps Gore or perhaps new blood?

Bama

[confludemocrat]

107. Yes, this should be his last ploy, he has no others to attempt n/t

[suziedemocrat]

113. New Blood! a la Dean! eom.

[politicasista]

162. What are the new blood's plans for getting out of Iraq?

What's Gore's plan. I like him, but I wonder where he stands since Kerry and Hillary are finished. Just curious.

[2Design]

105. exactly congress is a bunch of lying wimps who are hurting people

while giving themselves raises, benefits, etc. and all their corporations and their friends corporations benefit - regular people hurt

[confludemocrat]

106. He can't, just cannot admit he has been wrong about Iraq for many years

clamoring for force in 1998, and sticking with that neocon-lite desire to attack Iraq on the basis of phantom WMDs he had no evidence for since then, even when people like Scott Ritter peeled off and changed their minds and admitted they were previously misleading about there being WMDs.

Read his Senate speech on the IWR, he in parts gyrates between dead certainty that there are WMDs and is most unequivocal about biological weapons, while in the next windy paragraph he covers his ass in case the adventure blows up in his face, which it did, leaving him covered in blood along with Lieberman, Biden, Clinton and Bayh, all slavishly hewing to their guru Holbrooke.

He will never get "there" because anything less than confessing to warmonger posturing for years is gonna indict his shifty character in no uncertain terms.

[linazelle]

109. I agree totally. Kerry was only looking out for his own interests. nt

[BL611]

110. How come the NFL Quarterback was fooled by the pass coverage

and I wasn't? You didn't KNOW Saddam had no WMD's, maybe you thought so, but Hans Blix didn't KNOW so I would doubt you did. What was known was that Saddam was not complying with weapons inspectors as per the UN resolution. Kerry is on record on the Senate floor as saying he is not giving the President the authority to go to war, but giving the authority to the President to go to the UN with the support of the US congress, so that actions could be taken if Saddam doesn't comply. After going to the UN Saddam DID comply, let the inspectors back in, and over they're protest went to war anyway. I'm not even saying Kerry made the right decision, but it is quite an oversimplification to play monday morning QB and say I knew, why didn't Kerry...

BTW, I am waiting for an NFL player to tell me to quit using the football metaphors like in the commercial, nothing yet I will keep everyone posted though.....

[JohnnyCougar]

158. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking.

This is Saturday night quarterbacking. I called the right play BEFORE the play occurred.

[suziedemocrat]

111. Democrats were afraid to oppose the war and look "weak on terror"

I think everyone knew that Saddam was a nasty guy with weapons - but not WMDs (or at least not that many) and not a big threat to the U.S.

But, the conventional wisdom at the time was that Democrats would lose all support if they looked "weak." I think this is more of an issue of underestimating your base than anything else.

I was NEVER for the Iraq war. I always knew the evidence was "cooked." I WAS for the war in Afghanistan at the time, but now I'm wondering if I was duped about that. ???

But - giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt - maybe he thought Bush knew something he wasn't telling us -- like that his daddy's friends had given Saddam all kinds of things when they were real cozy with him back in the day.

[welshTerrier2]

112. i called Kerry's office before the IWR vote ...

i told his staff person that there was no question bush would use the IWR to invade Iraq ... i told him that if Saddam were driven from power, a huge power vacuum would destabilize not just Iraq but the entire Middle East ... i told him about PNAC's plan to impose American values on the entire region ... i told him i believed people like Scott Ritter who was extremely skeptical about WMD in Iraq ... i told him i thought bush was lying about the evidence he had ... i told him that even if Saddam had WMD, he had never attacked the US nor threatened an attack on the US ... i told him i didn't believe Saddam had the capacity to attack the US because of the sanctions and the no-fly zone ... and i told him war against Iraq did not meet the "imminent threat" test ...

most of all, i told him that we should not go to war with a madman like bush in the WH ...

i asked him how Kerry planned to vote and he said Kerry hadn't made a decision yet ... i asked him how Kerry's calls were running and he said they were 20 - 1 in opposition to the IWR ... 20 -1 !!

i suppose our representatives sometimes have to make up their own minds ... but something is very wrong when those taking the time to contact their Senator are so clearly opposed to something he ended up voting for ...

this is not a question of what i "knew"; it was a question of judgment ... Kerry made made the wrong call ... man did he make the wrong call ... don't waste our time defending it; his vote along with all the others who gave bush the resolution he wanted was a catastrophic error in judgment ...

[BL611]

114. Really he didn't listen to you?

For shame, I know when I call up Ol' Hillary I just say; Hey Hill Baby ya know that CAFTA thing coming up, I'm not really diggin it, so ya think you could throw a Nea up for BL? and presto, done.

...Sorry, couldn't help myself:dilemma:

[welshTerrier2]

115. interesting take on democracy you have there ...

the point i made stands in spite of your undemocratic perspective ...

Kerry made a catastrophic error in judgment ... maybe if he'd hold regular public forums in Massachusetts, he'd have the benefit of more input from the voters ...

what's the point of your absurd comment anyway? do you think citizens shouldn't be involved in their government? do you believe we should just sit back and let representatives do whatever they think is best? do you think we shouldn't inform ourselves on the issues the best we can and then fight for our beliefs?

no, i don't expect Kerry or any other elected rep do to whatever i say ... is that what you got from my post? what i do expect is for them to be far less elitest and far more responsive to their constituencies ... Kerry should have held public forums on this critical issue ... he should have shared some of the things he was weighing and he should have debated and discussed Iraq, WMD and bush with his constituents ...

it's amazing to me, even in your misguided effort at sarcasm and humor, that you would offer your disdain for those of us who sought to participate in the process and do the best we could for the country ...

the bottom line here, in the context of this thread's OP, was that by 20 - 1 of those who took the time to contact Kerry, we were not deceived by bush's lies and we foresaw, using our best judgment and the information available, that a vote for the IWR would be a vote for war and that a vote for this war would become an international catastrophy ... for whatever reason, Kerry did not come to the same conclusions as those who tried to steer him to a different path ...

[BL611]

116. Uhh, the comment was a joke

Lighten up!

[welshTerrier2]

117. "play monday morning QB" ???

let's get off this monday morning QB kick ...

those who try to defend Kerry's IWR vote love to use the tactic that we couldn't have "known" anything ... yup ... that's true ...

we couldn't know; Kerry couldn't know ...

what was called for in the absence of specific knowledge (WMD, anthrax, ties to Al Qaeda, aluminum tubes, yellow cake, dirty bombs, drones, etc) was judgment ... you read the list of items i spoke to Kerry's office about ... that did NOT happen on Monday morning; it happened BEFORE THE VOTE ... it wasn't knowledge; it was judgment ... could i have been totally wrong?? of course ...

the question was asked in the OP why wasn't i deceived?? the bottom line was that i didn't trust bush ... i thought he lied about the evidence ... i didn't think Iraq could be stabilized if Saddam was removed ... and i didn't think bush would stop after Iraq ... and i believed with an IWR authorization in hand, nothing would stop bush from going to war ...

Kerry thought his vote would get bush to push diplomacy as a first option ... he apparently believed bush would use this option to avoid war ... and he was dead wrong ... that's not quarterbacking at all; that's just the way it was ...

[BL611]

123. Umm, that was different post

But in regards to it, as you say could you have been dead wrong, of course, if that was the case how would Kerry look? As you say it was a judgment, if to sit here over two years later and say how come my judgment was better then Kerry's isn't monday morning quarterbacking, I don't know what is.

[BL611]

124. Self delete

double post

[mwb970]

176. Of course, one person calling cannot change anything.

But MANY calls running 20-1 in one direction should have encouraged Kerry to at least consider taking that position.

[WI_DEM]

118. many people weren't including some people in congress

and elsewhere like Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Gen. Clark, John Conyers, Russ Feingold, ect.

[lateo]

120. There are no excuses for this.

I'm sorry but a 5-year old on LSD would have known these guys were bullshitting.

[ScreamingMeemie]

121. We've gone over and over this a thousand times. The senators who

voted for the war were participating in insider politics. Any other stupid excuse they give is just that....stupid. You'll find 50 *brazillion* archived posts on this....all the same. :hi:

[KoKo]

125. They are SO AFRAID to speak "Truth to Power" that they can't look

beyond the next election...next election...next election...next election.

Kerry turned from his old "Vietnam War Protestor Days" to go into "Environmentalism" (where he gave incredibly wonderful speeches) but he just NEVER THOUGHT he'd be confronted on his Vietnam Service by a "do nothing low life who never served a day that wasn't given him in privilege by his Poppy."

Kerry never saw it coming. I blame Kerry less than John Edwards for this. John Edwards "saw it" and HEARD IT HARD...from those who donated to him for Senator to replace Jesse Helms (Racist/Fundie Jerk) and yet Edwards dissed all those except the "Corporatists" who donated to his election for NC Senator in favor of going after the Repug Donors.

Folks here on DU don't understant why some of us North Carolina Dems are so hard on Edwards...but that's why.

If Gore had picked Edwards instead of Lieberman in 2000...he would have one...but Kerry was a "day late and a dollar short" with Kerry/Edwards where he trashed those of us who saw him as a hero..and put out money where our mouth was and worked for him.

Unfortunately Edwards saw his "small donors" as not as significant as Erskine Bowles donars who were the drug and banking fortune companys in NC....so it all ended up with many of us finding Edwards disgusting for his Iraq Invasion Position...but FORCED TO SUPPORT the Kerry/Edwards team (which we worked our butts off for) in 2004.

It's sad to have to post this...but so many MISTAKES WERE MADE IN 2004 it bears repeating.

[Martin Eden]

126. Kerry failed when his leadership was needed the most

We needed John Kerry to stand up for the Constitution and for the American People by demanding that the decision to go to war be kept in the hands of Congress.

We needed a leader who understood the agenda of Bush and the neocons, that they could not be trusted, and that giving them the power to invade Iraq at their discretion was going to result in disaster.

If John Kerry actually put his trust in this administration, he is a fool.

Suspecting that Saddam had likely resumed his WMD programs after the inspectors left in 1998 is reasonable, but waging an illegal preventive war without solid evidence is not. Furthermore, anyone who understood Saddam knew he wouldn't commit suicide by attacking the US and that Islamic terrorists were his enemies not his allies.

John Kerry is a very intelligent and informed man, and I doubt he trusted Bush or believed Saddam posed a "grave and gathering" threat. He is an ambitious politician who had to consider the political consequences of his stand on these issues.

In my opinion, if he had led the fight against the IWR resolution on the basis of the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress in matters of war, on the prudence of not jumping into the quagmire of the "bitterly hostile land" that gave Bush 41 pause, and if he pushed for a compromise resolution that would have put the inspectors back in Iraq without giving Bush carte blanche -- John Kerry would have won the 2004 election and would be president right now (even if he failed to pass a compromise IWR).

So as a politician, John Kerry miscalculated big time.

But even worse, he failed to do the right thing as a public servant.

Nevertheless, I worked for his campaign in 2004 because getting Bush out of the White House was absolutely imperative and Kerry was the only viable alternative.

Indications are that John Kerry will run for president again in 2008. I'd probably take him over Hillary, but what a sad testament to the lack of leadership in the Democratic Party that would be.

[KoKo]

136. True..were all you Kerry/Edwards activists treated to Kerry Video Training

Sessions.

As a Dem Activist I was assembled to watch the "Kerry Invite Video" to introduce us to our "Training Sessions" as "On the Street Campaign Activists."

We watched the Kerry Video and then broke up into Groups where we were trained as to how to "Only approach Democratic Donars or Registered Dems" when we did our "Campaign Walks."

When "knocking on doors to always ask for the Registered Democrat in the Home...and NOT to talk to Repugs." When some of us asked WHY we shouldn't talk to Repugs...we were told that that Dems Needed to FOCUS Door to Door Resources Only on Dems and we as a Party didn't want to get into arguments with Republican Spouces.

Okay...That's the Honest to God Truth of how our Dem Party TRAINED US!

Is there a problem with this? I honestly don't know. I assume the Democratic Focus Groups did survey's where they DECIDED that THIS is HOW Kerry would win? :shrug:

Anyone else have to go through this training?

[Martin Eden]

146. Actually, I was with MoveOn

For the two days before the election and on election day, I was involved with the "get out the vote" effort. I'm from Illinois, but went to Ohio because it was the key state. I worked off a list that included likely Kerry voters and those who had already indicated they'd vote for Kerry. More or less, I nagged people to get out and vote until I had proof they did -- they either checked in with us at the polling station or we checked the rolls of those who voted and continued contacting those who had not yet voted.

My efforts may have garnered a few votes that otherwise would not have been cast, but my instructions were not to try to persuade anyone -- just identify Kerry voters and make sure they voted.

I'm an amateur at electioneering so I didn't really question my instructions, but I felt it had minimal impact at best. We needed to do a better job of persuading people in the weeks and months before the election.

I do remember one brief conversation with a man who was inclined towards the Democratic postion on most issues -- but he said flat out he was a one issue voter and wouldn't consider voting for anyone who supported abortion.

[LittleClarkie]

127. JC, where do you get your information mostly

Just curious. I'm kind of wondering if JK and his band of merry staffers are all that internet savy. They also seem to discount what they might consider tinhattery.

[JohnnyCougar]

157. At the time of the leadup to war, it was mostly Yahoo news.

Now I get my news from Kos, here, and Google.

There were multiple news reports questionning the validity of the "WMD" and "nuke" rumors coming out of the White House even on Yahoo back then.

That and the fact that Bush and within three months of taking office adopted a "fuck you, we're doing it my way" approach to foreign policy.

[Deja Q]

130. Because one of you is a shill, if not a total sellout.

And it ain't you.

The guy could have wiped the proverbial floor with * during the debates. Instead he used totally harmless and utterly prepared answers... and could have retorted EVERY of *'s "flip flop" accusations identically.

Kerry's own tv political ads were less than astute. Even I could have done better! And I usually deplore such dog-eat-dog tactics, but I'm waking up to how your our world works.

Was Kerry simply playing clean? And surely by 2004 we all know enough that politics is a CLEAN game and there is NO way to make it clean. If Kerry was sincere here, he only ended up looking bad to a populace that's raised on a dog-eat-dog paradigm - which goes back to why clean politics NEVER works! DUH!!!!! :dunce:

And no politician in their right mind would so brazenly tell anybody that she wouldn't ever become a millionaire. (I think it was debate 3, if not debate 2, Kerry makes one of the dumbest comments ever. I don't know if he was being sincere yet incapable of coherent speaking or if he was trying to deliberately tarnish the "D" party. Either way, he tarnished it enough to let * win.)

On the plus side, let's be grateful he lost. Had he won, the entire Dem party would be in a far worse situation than ever before. The neocons and their enablers fucked up royally this time. And I'm grateful for it. There IS no solution to peak oil, Clinton signed NAFTA and enabled corporate jerkwads to do what they are doing, and I could go on forever.

But the past is the past. The question is, what is OUR party doing these days? Getting rid of Miers is one thing... but Gretta Van Hitler is another.

[sandnsea]

137. Why aren't you President?

Or in the Senate? Or the House? I love all these people who could have ran such a better campaign than Kerry, especially the ones who couldn't even get elected to Congress or the school board.

[mountebank]

132. Feinstein even sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and based her YES

vote on "secret evidence" presented there, according to her explanation to constituents. I, from my apartment, *knew* the evidence was bullshit, including the secret evidence that she saw and I didn't. Still she voted yes and I (and many others like me) turned out to be right. She and her secret evidence ended up in the toilet. Like JohnnyCougar, I ask, Why is that?

[KnowerOfLogic]

133. He wasn't deceived and he's lying if he says he was. A Vietnam vet who

voted for Vietnam II in an attempt to score a political victory - kind of disappointing. Thing is, everybody knew he really didn't support the war, and his voting for it and claiming to support it only made him appear weak because he wouldn't stand up for what he really believed in. So ironically, his attempts to appear strong actually made him appear weak. Oh, and it also contributed in some part to the fiasco of Iraqnam.

[FreedomAngel82]

138. C&L has something about that

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1027nj1.htm

<"Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources... Here's a crucial piece of info: " Had the withheld information been turned over, according to administration and congressional sources, it likely would have shifted a portion of the blame away from the intelligence agencies to the Bush administration as to who was responsible for the erroneous information being presented to the American public, Congress, and the international community."

Here's a new key player: "Administration sources also said that Cheney's general counsel, David Addington, played a central role in the White House decision not to turn over the documents."

There is a lot to discuss here, but: "I doubt if the votes would have been there," Roberts said. Rockefeller asserted, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war, in 75 votes, if we knew what we know now." >

[Mr_Spock]

139. I SCREAMED at my family "CAN'T YOU SEE THEY ARE LYING!!!"

Even my liberal family wanted to believe the stories they were being told. It was a very low point in my life. I know lying when I see it - and I'm not supposed to be good at reading people (Aspergers) - how on EARTH couldn't the majority of Americans see what was so patently obvious? Because they did see it, they just chose to ignore it. It sucks how intellectually lazy we have become as a nation. :(

[Martin Eden]

149. The bigger the lie, the harder it is to believe it's a lie.

Post 9/11, it was just too much for most people to swallow that the president who stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and "united" the country would commit such a heinous betrayal of the trust placed in him.

Of course, it didn't help that so many Democrats went along with it. Had there been significant and sensible opposition, things might be quite different now.

We needed Kerry then, and he wasn't there for us. NOW he tries to provide leadership and needs US.

[JohnnyCougar]

156. Me too! It sucked.

My friends and family hated when I brought it up that this was a sham. Now they all are like "Johnny was right all along." Actually, my lame Dad still supports the war. Everyone else is staunchly opposed now, because I have been feeding them the truth over the last 3 years.

Being part of the dissenting 10% in a country of angry, hate-filled people sucks.

[TiredOfLies]

140. the senate knew he was lying

but didn't have the guts to vote against Bush just in case he got lucky in Iraq and did find WMD. Given Sadams track record i thought maybe he had them also, but i also knew that it was 16 Saudies that was flying those planes that attacked us and we had no right to invade Iraq.

[KoKo]

143. What this post comes down to though...is "Which DU'ers were ON THE GROUND?

How many of you went out there and REALLY WORKED FOR KERRY/EDWARDS as opposed to the "all talk...101st Keyboarders?"

That's the question. :shrug:

[jillan]

144. Maybe YOU should run for President since you're so smart.

[JohnnyCougar]

155. I have thought about politics.

I'm pretty young, still in school. My goal is to make the most out of my life in the next 20-25 years, and see where I am at then.

And yes, I am very smart. Thanks for the compliment!

[goodhue]

145. I agree wholeheartedly.

Except for statement that everyone being a bit scared of Bush. There was at least one democratic presidential candidate honest and hopeful enough to state consistently and repeatedly that there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq had any WMD programs. And it was not Kerry.

[B Calm]

147. After tomorrow, you'll see a lot of them speaking out against

this stupid unecessary war.

[mike_c]

150. I don't believe he was deceived....

Scott Ritter has made it clear that the U.S. intel services knew that Iraq had been disarmed by 1992. If Kerry was THAT far behind the news, he had no business running for president, let alone being entrusted with the IWR vote. I think he read the lies coming from the admin as being sufficient political cover to avoid a confrontation over opposing Bush's call for war. Case in point: Kerry has repeatedly said that he only voted for the IWR to give Bush the authority to pressure Iraq to disarm, but Iraq had been disarmed for at least a decade by that time, and U.S. politicians had worked diligently to recastthe disarmament question in such a way as to require proof of a negative, i.e. to be impossible to certify. It was a decade long frame up, and I cannot believe that Kerry was so far out of the loop that he didn't know it.

[progressoid]

151. Deceived sounds better than "I made a mistake in judgement"

I too knew it was a farce. Powell was pretty convincing but that wore off fast.

[Beelzebud]

152. Kerry should have given a speech like that a year ago...

What a waste of a candidate. He comes out 1 YEAR after the election, saying what needed to be said during the Convention...

If they nominate Kerry again, I just won't vote next time.

[Justice Is Comin]

153. I begged and wrote and pleaded for Kerry

to get some balls and call Bush what he was. Kerry used words like "error, mistake, wrong judgment. He is--and like it or not--the vast majority of the democratic party is the

Gerry Cooney of politics.


Bush said he would "STEP ON KERRY'S THROAT!! Do you remember that??? Kerry should have said well then let's just step outside. But no, out of deference to Bush being president, he wanted to be polite and sanguine in his comments.

Jessee Jackson left you wringing wet after one of his speeches. Kerry left you wondering, why in the hell didn't he say something about the twenty five different issues of incompetence with some anger. Pound his fist on the podium. Do something to get the 30 million people who don't vote in this country to want a reviling putz out of the highest office in our land.

We were ready to come out of our chairs for him but he never gave us the opportunity. We do not know how to go into the ring and do what championship fighters do. We just show up like Cooney did with his Irish hat and his gentle smile. And Cooney got his block knocked off.

We will continue to follow in his footsteps if we don't create some anger and enthusiam to somebody beyond our base. You have to do something to BE president before your skill in diplomacy can do any good. If we don't learn that lesson, we'll be cursing the results of our golden opportunity to take back the congress in one year.

If we lose again, we should lose. We're the corrupt ones.

[mistertrickster]

167. Good post. Democrats have to stand for something again.

Running on "we're radical moderates" just doesn't cut it. Let's hear something about JUSTICE, about stopping croneyism and corruption, about helping the poor, about fairness for the 90 percent of the people in this country who aren't rich and working just as hard and just as smart as the people who are.

[WildEyedLiberal]

159. More bullshit armchair quarterbacking. It never gets old, does it.

GET OVER THE FUCKING IWR. JUST. GET. OVER. IT.

There is no real world difference between the IWR and Biden-Lugar. Not really. Yet, though most of the Dems you lionize (Dean, Feingold, etc) claim that they would have voted for Biden-Lugar, they are exempted from any blame whereas those who voted for IWR are VILIFIED constantly.

Grow the FUCK up. We are in this war because BUSH rigged the intelligence. BUSH. LIED. He lied to KERRY and the SENATE. He had his surrogates lie to the UN. He lied to the AMERICAN PEOPLE. *HE* and his filthy administration are the reason we're here. NOT Kerry; NOT Hillary Clinton; NOT any damn group of people other than BUSH and the WHIG.

Guess what? Kerry - and no one else with any foreign policy knowledge and a brain - has ever *trusted* Saddam Hussein. Clinton conducted bombing raids against Iraq too, and sent in weapons inspectors. America has kept a wary eye on Saddam for over 10 years. It was, contrary to what you Monday-morning quarterbacks now claim, NOT inconceivable in 2002 that Saddam might have WMD. It WAS NOT INCONCEIVABLE. THAT is what the IWR was a vote for - to GET IN UN INSPECTORS and find out once and for all. The WORDS of the IWR provide for a multilateral force against Saddam IF he had WMDs. BUSH LIED AND VIOLATED THE RESOLUTION - HE IS THE REASON WE'RE HERE NOW.

Your thread does NOT help change a thing, not a damn thing. So you thought Bush was a liar, sitting in the comfort of your chair. It likely had nothing to do with your intimate knowledge of Iraq or national security, but more with your kneejerk hatred of Bush. You "knew" he was lying because you hate Bush - not because you knew something that Kerry et al. didn't. Good for you - you happened to be right. But it had nothing to do with your insight or knowledge.

So please, oh wise armchair quarterback - all of you wise armchair quarterbacks - what are you doing? Have you proposed a plan to leave Iraq? What have you done lately? Hmm?

Kerry has proposed a plan to get us out of this fucking mess. He acknowledged his mistakes. I do not give two shits and a fuck if that's "not good enough" or "too little too late" for the armchair quarterbacks here. It's good enough for people who give A DAMN about RESULTS, as opposed to whining indefinitely about things that happened over three years ago.

The IWR is in the past, and as the days crawl by, it will only become more dusty and irrelevant to the situation today. What matters is NOW. Kerry is living in the now. Are you? Are any of you? Until you stop focusing on 2002, how the fuck do you think you're going to change anything in 2005?

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. If you don't like Kerry's leadership on this issue, then by Christ, propose your own solution, or get the fuck out of the way and let those of us who give a damn - those of us who live in the present, not the past - take this country back.

[politicasista]

161. Amen sister!

:yourock: :hi:


Note: I don't like this IWR stuff either and I wish that all Dems voted against it, but it looks like too many people spend more time blaming dems that voted for it rather then * who lied to Congress, the media, and the American people. Basically eating our own. They are other serious issues besides the war. Are you going to blame dems for that too? This is *'s mess period.

[mistertrickster]

170. Sorry, that's wrong. The Dems may not have been able to stop BushCo's war

but, goshdarnit, they didn't have to vote FOR it.

When they voted "yes," they aided and abetted evil. As the famous holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel noted, accurately in my opinion, "The question is not how this one man, Hitler, could be so evil but how so many others had not the courage to be good."

[JohnnyCougar]

168. You're way off the mark.

And you make wild, unsubstantiated accusations of me.

I didn't trust Bush not because I hated him, but because I could read his intentions from his words and actions.

And stop calling me a Monday morning quarterback. I was saying the same goddamn thing as soon as Iraq was brought up as a possible target. I said that because I have 100% faith in peace unless we are attacked first. I said this because I read the reports about what weapons inspectors had to say. Do you realize how this is wrong for you to think that someone who sticks to the same story and says the same thing for 4 straight years is a Monday morning quarterback? Monday morning quarterbacks make up their minds after the game, not before.

As for living in the past, that is Kerry. The time to call this war out has past. It's too late now. I am not old enough to run for federal office, so I don't know what you want me to do now except for write to newspapers and be vocal about withdrawing troops myself. Oh...and campaigning for politicians that will never lead this country to war again with their chickenshit pandering.

You people and your catch phrases like "Monday morning quarterback" remind me of Fox News on a witch hunt. Are you and your DLC talking points all connected to Joe Lieberman's fax machine or something?

[WildEyedLiberal]

172. DLC talking points, how fucking original

Joe Lieberman, haha. I don't agree with your bullshit whining, so I'm a DLC Lieberman lover. Really fucking original.

Kerry's speech wasn't about "calling out the war," so no wonder you missed the whole fucking point. It's about proposing a plan to get us out now. It's about moving forward. It's about what we're going to do in 2005, not what we should or should not have done in 2002. YOU'RE the one living in a time warp. You're the one who'd rather crow about being right three years ago than set aside your whining to do something for the good of the country. People like you who'd rather be "right" than actually do anything productive.

I don't give a rat's ass who was right in 2002 or who wasn't. I care about who's doing what now. Kerry's doing something now. What are you doing? Bitching about something that's three years past.

"Democrats" like you who actively try to derail Democrats over your petty need to be "right" disgust me. You just get in the way.

You think Kerry "led us to war"? Read his fucking speech sometime, and try - really hard - to think about things in something other than your black-and-white framework. You claim to be a political science major? You sure do have an abysmal understanding of political reality if the most important thing for you now is whinging about a three-year-old vote.

Pathetic.

[JohnnyCougar]

179. Are you dense or something?

You think I am calling you a DLC shill because you don't agree with me?

I believe I stated it was because you and several others were using the same inaccurate slogan methodically and repeatedly that had no basis in fact (i.e. Monday morning quarterback). If your arguments were based in reality, I wouldn't have said anything. But they are purely fantasy and they show your brain has yet to get a grip.

If you'll notice, I congratulated Kerry on his speech saying it was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, he still was not telling the truth, even now. I'm sorry, but you can't act like a loser and give a half-assed excuse nearly three years later and expect to instantly win back my respect.

And of course, you imply that calling out Kerry is not productive and not good for this country. Wrong. Our politicians do not deserve to have respect after pandering for 3 straight years and then "finally" seeing the light. If everyone were that easy to convince, our Democracy would be even more of a joke than it already is. You can't be an idiot and then start pandering again only when it's obvious that you supported a disaster before. FYI, Kerry said he WOULDN'T have changed his vote a year and a half AFTER the invasion.

Furthermore, I have NO clue as to how you got the idea that I am a political science major. I am not, and I never said it. I am a grad student in an unrelated field. But this is just further evidence that your mind is not paying attention nor interpreting what I say correctly. As if I needed any more proof...

[WildEyedLiberal]

186. Gee, if you hadn't meant to call me DLC, maybe you.... shouldn't have!

There's a novel idea. :sarcasm:

Like a freeper, you dismiss me by calling me stupid and claiming that my arguments "aren't based in reality." That's a personal attack, and is forbidden by DU rules. Sorry I assumed you were a political science major. But the fact remains that if someone calls you on your bullshit whining, your response is to a) call them DLC and b) call them stupid.

If YOU were capable of reasonable thought, you'd actually get off your ass and read what Kerry's said about Iraq - from 2002 to now - and see that his position has changed *very little*. But of course, if a politician does something you don't like, they're pandering. And an idiot. And DLC. I could go on, but your "arguments" are all too predictable.

I do not appreciate being called "stupid" because you don't like what I have to say. If you have a point, then you can argue it without inane namecalling. The fact that you instantly resorted to the "DLC/Lieberman lover" tripe shows how intellectually bankrupt your argument is.

People like you are always three steps behind, letting others carve the path for them as they complain and obstruct, then attempt to claim the victory as their own. I really don't believe that everyone in this thread was as capable of such great foresight as they claim, including you. You're telling me that everyone on DU *KNEW* Bush was lying 100% about Iraq? I call bullshit. Maybe the Monday morning quarterbacking hit a nerve. It's just so easy to call the shots right after the game's over, isn't it?

[mistertrickster]

164. DAMN RIGHT! This is what I was saying before Kerry sewed up

the nomination to whoever would listen. I haven't believed anything GW has said ever since he STOLE THE ELECTION in Florida.

The Democrats should have declared a fatwah on all things Bush as soon as he showed his true colors by obstructing democracy during the recount. They should have fought everything and anything--MOST OF ALL, THE WAR.

But no, they go along to get along, and Kerry is the leader of the pack.

I don't even read his e-mails. Let him go windsurfing on one of his yachts.

Meanwhile the rest of us have to live in George Bush's hell . . .

[Firespirit]

173. Anyone else remember DU around the time of the first invasion?

When the board erupted into fights between people who believed Bush (YES, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there were non-troll DUers who argued with other DUers about the truth of Bush's words) and people who didn't? When the general consensus was that "there are WMDs in Iraq but we shouldn't go to war"? When the tiny percentage of people who believed that there were no WMDs were laughed at by everyone? Saddam gave an interview on CBS shortly before the invasion in which he denied having WMDs or working to produce them. After that, anyone who advocated that position was said to be "believing Saddam Hussein" and was seen as radical fringe. And YES, THIS TOOK PLACE ON DU. Any person who has been a member, or even just lurked, since 2002 will remember this, though they may not admit it -- probably won't, knowing the incredible ability of some people on this board to completely ignore what suits them, a la their counterparts on the other side of the spectrum. I see that the author of the OP has not been around that long, so I cannot prove anything about what he may or may not have believed.



Instead, I merely refer you to an archived poll from PollingReport.com, and let everyone draw their own conclusions about the likely veracity of the poster:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq9.htm

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 9-10, 2002. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).

"Do you think Iraq currently has weapons of mass destruction, is trying to develop these weapons but does not currently have them, or is not trying to develop weapons of mass destruction?"

12/02
Currently Has: 63%
Trying To Develop: 28%
Not Trying To Develop: 4%
No Opinion: 5%

11/02
Currently Has: 66%
Trying To Develop: 27%
Not Trying To Develop: 2%
No Opinion: 5%

8/02
Currently Has: 55%
Trying To Develop: 39%
Not Trying To Develop: 1%
No Opinion: 5%


IWR was passed in October 2002 and covered "Currently Has" AND "Trying to Develop," since the inspectors were going to look not just for WMD, but for active facilities and materials to produce them. If you are, by some chance, not full of shit, and were actually in that 1 - 2 percent, well, I congratulate you for your lucky damn guess, because that's all that it was.

[salin]

175. I recall that before the war vote (aug-sept 02)

most people were skeptical of the intel - because each charge made in dc would be disproven in the international press within 36-48 hours. The arguments then (before the vote - and before the big propoganda push from the WH) was whether or not the "democrats had a plan" to stop such lunacy before the vote.

Preinvasion - there were a few supportive of bushco - but I don't recall any real large contingency of folks believing the weapons myth - esp given the manipulation of the inspections - and the sudden dropping by the WH of a second attempt to go the Security Council before starting the invasion. Those moves discredited bushco's claims - because WHY would they be in such a hurry to push the inspectors out.

DU then, and now, is simply a very different sample than a generic "males nationwide" poll.

I do give slack, more now than then, to some in congress who voted for the war. Recall that on the eve of the vote the WH held a number of private briefings. What we know now- is that they presented a version of the NIE that had been stripped of all of the original caveats on each item of "scary" intelligence. In the shadow of 911 - I think that many would be pushed to the... what if it is true (this intel)... and we do nothing. The point is that there were two NIEs - one done by the intelligence community (this came out in the senate hearings - but was then dropped to be explored in promised follow up hearings that have never been held) - and that NIE was very cautious - included all of the speculative pieces of intel - but carefully noted the concerns held by the intel community on nearly each piece of intel (such as, item x has not been verified; or item y was passed on by a source known to have provided faulty intel in the past). SOMEONE (this was an issue for one session of the intel hearings - then dropped) CHANGED the NIE that was presented to congress - all (most?) of the caveats were stripped out - just frightening tidbit after tidbit. That hearing changed by view - I think some congressional folks simply could not fathom the extent to which this admin would go to manipulate congress - were given fraudulent intelligence - and were still in fear of 911 and fear of what might happen if the intel was correct.

All that said, I wish more would speak out as former Congressman Hill did (and then was promptly targeted for defeat) - as one who was disinclined to vote for the IWR, until briefed by WH, voted for IWR - and later was appalled when it became clear Congress had been intentionally misled. He was an early signer of the call for congressional investigations into pre-war intel. THAT is the story that the American public has to chew on - but it is so inflamatory that most folks in the media (and even most of these debates) side step it.

[KoKo]

181. I remember a huge group of us who were reading the info about forged

documents and all the Press from Great Britain and UN which questioned whether Saddam had WMD. Also we had threads for weeks with Robert Byrd's speaches from the Senate floor urging us not to go into Iraq.

It was a huge movement here on DU where we supported each other by going to demonstrations locally and in DC BEFORE the invasion. I would say it was hundreds of DU'ers who didn't believe the WMD and we were a smaller board at that time.

Maybe here on DU one tends to read only the posts fellow DU'ers who agree with them, but I remember the time very differently than you.

It's okay, I'm not criticizing you, but just remember that time differently. I was so glad I was here on DU because there was so much support for research and for forwarding information about the truth about No WMD that it was like being in a "hive" where we were all working together to expose the truth.

Also so many of us sitting up a couple of nights on here e-mailing the UN Ambassadors from France and Germany urging them to not give Bush/Blair authority to go into Iraq. Move On. org. had petitions that they delivered to UN by the box load, too.

It was an interesting time with so many of us determined and dedicated to stopping that invasion.

[leesa]

182. I don't think he was. Many Dems want this war just as much as BushCo did

They were willing to look the other way, ignore the CIA saying, "we don't think we have enough evidence", etc. You and I heard it, so did they. We knew the evidence presented by Powell was bogus, so did they. We knew the inspectors were on the ground when Bush lied and said they weren't, so did they.
We need the oil to survive. Watch em all hop on the 'invade Iran' bus next.

[Tom Joad]

185. What Leesa said. To hell with these Dem Warlords.

[Mass]

187. Apparently, we prefer to attack Democrats than to care about what is

important.

This story is huge. Why are you pushing this damn thread up!!

[Dr Fate]

188. Agree but don't care. Kerry came clean, that is good enough for me.

n/t