Kerry's IWR Vote: Here's how he can put that issue to bed for me.

[stopbush]

Kerry's IWR vote has been one of the main sticking points to my supporting him. There are other points, but they pale in comparison to the IWR vote for the simple reason that most of us here "got it" back then. If we could see through the charade, why couldn't Kerry? And why would ANY Congressman vote to cede their Constitutionally granted powers to a proven madman?

Well, there might be a simple answer. And that answer might be that bush looked Kerry and the others in the eye and outright lied to them. And by that, I don't mean that he was beating around the, er, bush and tweaking obvious falsehoods, but that he (bush) presented false information to Kerry and others and stated it was rock-solid evidence, all in an effort to get them to vote for the IWR.

If that's the case, then Kerry needs to get out there NOW and state that the president looked him in the eye and LIED to him...and by extension, to the American people and the world. Not "mislead," not "misstated," not "tailored the info" - LIED. If Kerry can do that, he can turn the big negative of his IWR vote into a positive. But if he can't do that - either because he doesn't have the guts to say it, or, more importantly, if his saying it would just be another lie - then his IWR vote will still loom large in my evaluation of the guy who at this point looks to be our nominee.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Kerry would lose more votes than he would gain

by stating it in those terms.

Sorry to be so cynical about it, but I don't want him to say anything that will diminish his chances of beating Bush.

[Bok_Tukalo]

2. Unfortunately

that would let the entire Legislative Branch off the hook for their enabling of the Bush Administration's actions.

But then again, both an Edwards or Kerry nomination does that so I guess it doesn't matter anyway.

[Raya]

3. Kerry has said that Bush lied to his face. Rumsfeld lied to his face.

His anger over this is one of the factors that energizes his ambition to destroy Bush.

[boxster]

4. Here's the problem.

The entire faulty intelligence problem is being blamed on the CIA and others. If Kerry (or anyone else, for that matter) calls Bush a liar and subsequently, either WMD are found or someone other than Bush takes the fall (Cheney, for example), then it looks simply like a political move and would look like a petty jab.

And, frankly, I think it would be a mistake to do so at this point. Kerry has momentum; Bush is dropping in approval. Bush's scandals are showing some life.

The bottom line is that Bush needs to go. Calling him a liar does nothing to perpetuate that. Anyone who wants to believe that he's a liar likely already knows he is. Hammering on his inconsistencies and addressing his failed presidency is a tactic much likelier to be effective. Iraq is not his only failing.

By the way, has Dean ever publicly called Bush a liar re: Iraq?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. re: By the way, has Dean ever publicly called Bush a liar re: Iraq?

I don't think so.

[bigtree]

6. Why not use the words already spoken?

Why should he change a word to pander to anyone? It hasn't caused any catastrophic failure to his campaign that some contend is inevitable. That may be because most Americans share (and shared) his ambivalence in voting for a resolution that Bush sought as cover for his preconcieved plan to invade.

And your response to that is what, Senator?

KERRY:

. . . look, there is a very direct answer to both of those questions. I said we had to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I said his invasion would not stand. I knew we had to use force ultimately, or might have to use force ultimately. I simply thought, given my experience in Vietnam and given Colin Powell, who was joint chiefs of staffs, reservations and other people, we ought to take another month or two to build the support in our country. And I though it was worth building that support, because when you go to war, you want to make sure the American people are really supportive if things go badly.

Secondly, with respect to this, nobody voted precisely for a war. They voted for a process. They voted to go to the U.N. They voted to build an international coalition that was legitimate, voted to have inspections exhausted, and voted to go to war as a last resort, which is what the president promised us. The president broke every single one of those promises, not to mention misled America with respect to the intelligence, which we now all know.

I stood up for the security and the common sense with respect to the soldiers who fight wars. I've been one of those soldiers. I know what it means when you lose the consent and legitimacy of the American people in a war. And as a president, I think there is a special test as to when you send young American men and women off to fight and die. I know that test, and as president, I will live up to the highest standard with respect to that.


: CNN American Morning Transcript
Location: Manchester, NH
Date: 01/27/2004
CNN American Morning Transcript
January 27, 2004 Tuesday 7:07 AM Eastern Time
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027573&keywo ...


Here's a similar post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=273103

[Options Remain]

7. IIRC

He has already said that exactly.

TearForger