John Kerry Interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board...

[flpoljunkie]

http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c2125555/23079892.html

Several times in the conversation, Kerry defended his vote, insisting it was the right thing to do, but expressing a deep sense of betrayal that the president ordered an invasion without first exhausting other options.

<>The recent capture of Saddam Hussein, Kerry said, "does not change the fact that the president has conducted one of the most arrogant, and at sometimes reckless and many times inept foreign policies in the modern history of our country."

Kerry said he voted for the war resolution because, had he been president, he would have wanted the same authority to use military threat as a means to make sure Saddam was disarmed. He said the Bush administration promised that actual force would be used only as a last resort and only if a "legitimate international coalition" was assembled, but the president went back on his word.

"I knew that properly managed we could have had a genuine coalition," said Kerry. "We could have exhausted the remedies of the inspections, we could have gone down that road thoughtfully, and that's why I'm so angry at the president, because he completely blew the opportunity . . . that might have averted war, that might have held Saddam Hussein accountable without it."

...more...

____________________________

Worth reading in its entirety.

[Monte Carlo]

1. Kerry did what he had to do...

... and it is a pity that many DUer either can't or won't see past his 'yes' vote for the Iraqi War Resolution, because behind it there is a very intelligent, principled, and experienced man who any Democrat would be proud to call their President. The word of the POTUS cannot be discounted so easily, even if we don't like him.

Kerry has a superior debating and speaking ability, is as green as they come on the environment, and understand the importance of both social welfare program and fiscal discipline, as well as the importance of small businesses in our economy. Go Kerry, go!

[SayitAintSo]

3. I agree ... I am sick that Kerry's campaign has floundered

I still think he would make the best president.

[Octafish]

18. Kerry is the best candidate Liberal DEMs have had since RFK.

That's going back almost two generations!

With the problems our country now faces, we need a President who would know what to do from Day One.

Besides being a genuine war hero like JFK and real liberal like RFK, John Kerry has their political philosophy, governmental experiences, and track record of being on the side of the good guys his entire adult life.

You're absolutely correct, SayitAintSo! Kerry would be the best President.

[SayitAintSo]

23. Think there is any way he could pull it out ?

Wishful thinking ?

[adadem]

31. There may be an Iowa suprise

for Kerry...just a gut feeling. If not, I think we may have lost the strongest, most experienced candidate to challenge shrub.

[Octafish]

39. Heck, yeah! Focus the message: "Kerry's the Best."

According to the campaign, John Kerry's the only DEM with support across the DEM board and across the country. His support may not be at the top in all states, but it is consistent in the top two or three.

So, it isn't wishful thinking. John Kerry can win the nomination. What's more, he is the one Bush, Rove and the BFEE fear.

The reality, John Kerry is:

The best qualified.
The most progressive.
The most accomplished.
The most heroic.
The best under pressure.
The best thinker.
The best at beating Bush.

He IS the Real Deal.

The thing is getting the message across. And that's where you, me and DU come in!

Go John Kerry!

[IndianaGreen]

20. The word of Bush can be discounted outright-he is a pathological liar

The word of the POTUS cannot be discounted so easily, even if we don't like him.

It will be a cold day in Hell when I refer to that piece of shit in the White House as POTUS. You might see him as YOUR President, but he is no President of mine. Bush is as much of an usurper as Richard III.

[dfong63]

22. Kerry did what he did not have to do,

and it's a shame that he didn't have the guts or the party loyalty to vote with the House dems - the majority of whom voted AGAINST the IWR.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

35. I totally 100% agree with that.

I'd be proud to have John Kerry as my President. He is superb in dealing with environmental, education, welfare issues. He is an excellent speaker, and debater. I think his experience would serve the country well.

[worldgonekrazy]

37. Why did Kerry "have to do it"?

Political expediency? I believe there comes a point when principle must take precedent over that. I can't say exactly where that point is but it for damn sure is before 500 U.S. and thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths.

Or because he got fooled by Bush? If so, that just means he is a fool, and I am not voting for a fool. I knew, you probably knew, hell everyone on this board knew that Bush was completely full of shit from the start on the Iraq War. If Kerry couldn't see that, surely knowing much more than any of us do, he is an idiot.

You see? There is no way to justify it. That is why I can't see past it. I really wish he hadn't made the vote because he is pretty liberal on most issues, but that is what happens when you abandon principles.

[calimary]

40. Good point. I mean, YES, we DID know much of what the bushies were

saying to drum up support for war was bunk. Total bunk. And for those who say - boo-hoo! Kerry was fooled, and lied to like the rest of us...

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllll.....

Yes, we know bush lied. CONdi lied. Cheney lied. Rummy lied. Colin lied. Everyone else was lying or spouting PNAC "truths." And to believe them, and be just taken in by all that, is frankly INEXCUSABLE!

Why? Because of this: We all knew the score. Even when Colin Powell was temporarily "impressing" people at the UN, we knew. What we knew was a long-running track-record, BY and OF bushco - of lying, misrepresenting, fudging the facts, avoiding answering questions, from the campaign season and even farther back than this. Did ANYBODY bother to check, for example, going back to when Ann Richards was defending her governor's job against bush and he had the nerve to portray her as in bed with Ken Lay, when actually Lay gave him 3 or 4 times the money he gave Richards. So that does go back a little farther than the arguments in the run-up to war. The whole Harken energy business that was "fully vetted" (another one from the "YEAH, SURE" file). There were MANY lies that bush was guilty of, throughout the campaign, even, that laid an unmistakable track record of lying, misrepresenting, twisting the facts, avoiding the facts, avoiding answering questions, avoiding coming clean on his military, school, personal (alcohol and coke addictions), and business backgrounds.

We here at DU picked up on it, and we're out-of-the-loop NON-PROs. Okay? We're not members of that exclusive Inside-the-Beltway Club that gets all the high-level memos and briefings and insider stuff. We just know what we saw, heard, observed, and made a point not to forget. That bush, FROM DAY ONE, built a track record of dishonesty and deception and misrepresentation about EVERY aspect of his life. THAT'S what we here at DU, and other true bush DISbelievers and opponents, know, and HAVE known, for years.

Every bit of that was fully on display for everyone in America and around the world to see throughout the last campaign season. EVERYWHERE above the fold in EVERY newspaper, the lead of EVERY radio and TV newscast, EVERYWHERE. All those mis-statements and misrepresentations that we railed against day after day after day as not being covered and NOT being "fully vetted" or even PARTIALLY vetted. And if we amateurs saw it, you can bet it was clearly on display for all the insiders, like Kerry, to see. So why didn't he? Why didn't everybody see that the nice, fuzzy, cuddly, snow-white, clean-as-a-whistle sheep's clothing covered a dirty, slimey, sneaky-ass wolf? Why did they not see this? And if they didn't, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THEIR JUDGMENT? And I absolutely include Kerry in this. He's been around long enough to know. Hell, especially him. He has a background at Yale and should have known PLENTY of insider stuff about what a total nincompoop his fellow Yalie was. And his connections and experience and positioning, and having seen young george in action as his daddy's hatchet man during Bush I, in official Washington should have further clued him in about ALL OF THIS. NO EXCUSE!!!!!!!!!!

To give bush the benefit of the doubt when it was clear, to anyone who examined his background, what a complete, useless and reckless flake he was/is, how he cheated, smoked, snorted, slept, and conned his way through the finest schools in this country, his so-called business experience where he led a succession of oil companies (TEXAS OIL COMPANIES - HELLO?!?!?!?) down the drain, always with a bailout from his daddy's pals, always getting somewhere by pulling strings, not merit, and learning the fine art of dirty tricks and character assassination (along with his good buddy KKKarl Rove - they were Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum together during Bush Senior's reign) at the knee of that human vermin Lee Atwater. Okay? This was public knowledge. On the record. For ANYBODY to see and look up and look into.

We know the stuff he was made of, from the get-go, WAY WAY WAY long before any of the run-up to war. And these numb-nuts in the Senate and the House TRUSTED HIM ANYWAY.

THAT was their big mistake. If we knew enough not to be fooled, why did they fall for it? And yes, I include Kerry and everybody else who bought into his crap and voted for IWR and the Patriot Act and everything he's demanded, in that. They should have known. And there is NO EXCUSE FOR THEIR NOT KNOWING. Kerry can tell me all day long about how he trusted this schmuck and now feels betrayed. My response would be - what the hell took you so long? Nice of you to wake up, finally. NOW you feel betrayed? Hope you had some nice dreams while you were asleep at the switch. Because while you and yours were sleeping, the rest of us were stuck in a nightmarish reality that YOU could have nipped in the bud. And a guy named Howard Dean was able to sneak in and start making quite an impression.

And you, John Kerry, and everybody else - Richard Gebhardt, John Edwards, and the rest of you, LET IT HAPPEN. You trusted a "man" who already proved over and over that he's not worthy of Judas's trust. And you let him walk all over you. And now you come crying to us, trying to justify your gullibility and trying to win us over.

I, for one, am NOT impressed.

Answer, worldgonekrazy, AND EVERYONE ELSE (sorry about this. Geez, I'm not getting fed up or anything, am I?), NO! John Kerry DID NOT HAVE TO DO IT. THERE WAS NO REASON ON EARTH WHY HE HAD TO DO IT. The reasons were clear BEFORE - REPEAT, BEFORE any of this ruckus started over the war. WAY before. DECADES before. And if WE could see this, why the hell couldn't Kerry and company?

on edit - corrected grammar, syntax

[HFishbine]

2. What did Kerry know, and when did he know it

Okay. Maybe Kerry means what he says, but where's the public record? If Kerry truely beleives that Bush went to war without exhausting all options, then did he speak up against starting the war when all options had yet to be exhausted? It's an honest question and I'm keeping an open mind. Can anybody point to Kerry on the record opposing the war before it began?

[killbotfactory]

4. I've been asking the same question for months...

But haven't found much.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

May 4th, 2004

Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

March 17th, 2003

"Saddam Hussein made a grave error when he chose to make war with the ultimate weapons-inspections enforcement mechanism."

April 11th, 2003

[SayitAintSo]

7. I don't think his opposition is on the record ...

I think his caution for action is though. Read his pre resolution speeches I think he like many others put much more faith in the president and the intelligence. And maybe he was hedging some in the mix as well. I remember when he was in SC during the run up to the war and one of my friends approached him and said " Senator Kerry - don't let that idiot get us in a war !" His response was very measured and he appeared genuinely concerned about the threat of Saddam's regime. We walked away thinking he won't oppose any war resolution. And sure enough .... the rest is history. I still think his heart was in the right place. I believe him in defense of his vote.

[isbister]

50. Re: I don't think his opposition is on the record

His opposition is on record. He spoke of what he expected from the President and what his position would be if the President failed many times before the war.

Even without the intelligence failures/misleading information most of the world felt Saddam was a threat to US allies and interests with or without WMD. Saddam was never a good guy. The choice was between liars... ours and Iraq's. bush had not shown exactly how far he'd go until after that vote.

[Monte Carlo]

9. Kerry has been rather hawkish with Saddam over the years...

Here's a snip from his Oct 9 Senate speech...

In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.

...

The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Kerry fully knew of Bush's motivations for war. But that did not change the nature of the threat that Saddam posed to the U.S. or the world. Bush's lies aside, Saddam still could have very well has the ability to strike with WMDs.

[IndianaGreen]

24. In other words, Kerry voted for war because he wanted war!

All of his bullshit explanations of the rationale for his IWR vote were just that, bullshit.

For once I am going to agree with Joe Lieberman, who criticized Kerry for trying to have it both ways on the IWR vote, knowing that the vote itself authorized Bush to go to war whenever he saw fit.

When it comes to the IWR vote, Lieberman deserves our respect for his consistency and intellectual integrity, which does not change the fact that the vote was wrong. Kerry has earned nothing but the contempt and disgust of those that opposed the war as a matter of conscience!

[polpilot]

29. Kerry's pro-war platform failed. If Iraqis were drinking Cokes and lined

up at McDonald's today then Kerry could smile and proceed to the White House. EVERYONE KNEW THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME FOR AN IRAQI INVASION IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. THERE WAS NO OTHER POSSIBILITY.

The ONLY way Bush can possibly beat Dean is if somehow nobody in the U.S. notices that we're still being shot at and killed in Iraq and are seen as the unwelcome invaders that we are. There are not enough smoke and mirrors in the world for Bush to pull this off.

Dean '04...

[isbister]

49. Re: Kerry's pro-war platform failed. If Iraqis were drinking Cokes and lin

You should research your candidate's position and compare it with Kerry's actual position on the war instead of making statements that are not true.

[Monte Carlo]

36. You oversimplify much.

First of all, if you will not see past the IWR vote, you are not ready for prime time in American politics. I don't know any other way to tell it to you. Evaluating each candidate in terms of their vote is tantamount to ignoring every other facet of their lives and their careers in politics.

Kerry has NEVER waffled on his stance towards U.S. involvement in Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Only the hysteric perceptions surrounding it has, the expectations of what he's SUPPOSED to do.

[IndianaGreen]

43. The consequences of the IWR are measured in human lives

I am appalled at the apparent lack of concern about the dead and maimed in Iraq that would be alive and healthy today had our politicians acted with courage and voted against IWR.

What price human life? How do you excuse an attack on another sovereign nation that did not attack or threaten the United States? How different was Bush invasion of Iraq from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

if you will not see past the IWR vote...

I won't ignore the over 10,000 dead Iraqis, 500 dead Americans, and countless wounded and/or maimed by a war that was totally unnecessary and preventable.

We should not reward the politicians that voted for war with the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination!

[Monte Carlo]

53. Every one knows there are consequences, but no one knows.

Well how noble it is for you to be appalled at the apparent lack of concern. I'll let you in on something - I am very concerned the human toll of this war. Thousands of people died who didn't have to die. But Kerry did not vote for those people to die, that is just melodramatic. He voted to give the President the power to use military force against Saddam because he was indeed a danger. No one knew that Bush would take things this far and screw things up so badly. We cannot simply disregard the POTUS, even if we think he's a liar.

[IndianaGreen]

57. If Kerry believed in Bush, then...

he is not qualified to be President because that put him on the same intellectual level as the Faux News audience.

[isbister]

54. Re: In other words, Kerry voted for war because he wanted war!

For once I am going to agree with Joe Lieberman, who criticized Kerry for trying to have it both ways on the IWR vote, knowing that the vote itself authorized Bush to go to war whenever he saw fit.

The President of the United States can use the military wherever and whenever he sees fit if he is doing so to protect the national security of the United States.

If you read bush's letter to hastert (first paragraph - http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_documents&docid=f:hd054.108) the national security of the United States is exactly what he bases his decision for war.

...my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq....

The decision was bush's IWR or not.

[IndianaGreen]

59. And when did Kerry call for the impeachment of Bush?

The moment Bush decided to go it alone, Kerry should have demanded his impeachment, not congratulate him for "Mission Accomplished" or for making us "safer."

The fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq, and that we were lied to by the Bush regime, are reasons enough to impeach that worthless piece of meat in the White House. Where is Kerry on this?

[isbister]

63. Re: And when did Kerry call for the impeachment of Bush

The moment Bush decided to go it alone, Kerry should have demanded his impeachment, not congratulate him for "Mission Accomplished" or for making us "safer."

Kerry's position, and I believe it is correct, is that bush did not need the IWR to act in Iraq. Not necessarily because bush was correct but because the President has the authority to use the military if he believes there to be a threat to the national security of the US (bush's position). So, going it alone is not an impeachable offense.

To my knowledge Kerry has never congradulated Bush on Mission Accomplished. If you have some evidence of this I'd like to see it.

Kerry did disagree with Dr. Dean's statements about Saddam's capture not making Americans any safer. There are American soldiers in Iraq and Saddam's capture eliminates the possibility that he will return to head up any future Iraqi government or resistance movement. Saddam is not a good person and his removal from the situation is good for everyone. (even though we disagree with the method used to remove him from power)

The fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq, and that we were lied to by the Bush regime, are reasons enough to impeach that worthless piece of meat in the White House. Where is Kerry on this?

Although many people believe bush and his gang lied about WMD in Iraq there really has not been any formal proof put forward... proof that is not currently under some sort of ongoing investigation. Candidates must take some care in the accusations they throw around.

And let's be serious, this republican controlled Congress is not going to impeach bush no matter what evidence is shown against him. If we've learned anything over the past few years we've learned that the republican party serves the republican party before it serves the nation. A good example of this would be the investigations into the "failed" intelligence.

Kerry has spoken out about bush lying but more the ones that are proven facts, his promise to work with the international community to resolve the Iraq situation for example.

[isbister]

51. Re: Kerry has been rather hawkish with Saddam over the years..."

Here's another snip from his Oct 9 Senate speech...

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

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


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

That speech is best read in full:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[Raya]

27. Absolutely. Kerry was LEADING CRITIC OF BUSH'S WAR rhetoric before Dean

Jumped in and starting slamming Kerry for his IWR vote and calling him bush-lite. I will find you quotes. I really want your support for a great leader for President.

[HFishbine]

28. That's admirable

I appreciate you taking a mature approach to my questions. They are sincere. By the time my state votes, my vote probably won't matter, frankly.

[Raya]

32. Here Are some Clips of JK Opposition to War. Cheers

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War

TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
…..

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

. . . . . . . . .

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

After the IWR vote, During U.N. Inspections

Senator John Kerry
Remarks Georgetown University
Thursday 23 January 2003
"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"

………

And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.

Mr. President, do not rush to war!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htm


After the war started:

April 4, 2003
''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/04.html

April 7, 2003
(AP) Presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that democracy affords rival Democrats the right to criticize President Bush even with the nation at war.

The Massachusetts senator has come under a withering attack from Republicans for suggesting that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change. Traveling through Iowa, Kerry rejected what he called "phony arguments" from the GOP that political candidates should mute their criticism of the commander in chief.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/politics/main547730.shtml

Bush sidestepped process on war in Iraq, Kerry says


By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES (July, 22, 2003)


Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry yesterday said President Bush "circumvented" the process laid out in the congressional resolution authorizing action against Iraq, which Mr. Kerry supported in the Senate last year.



http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030721-103628-1890r.htm

[isbister]

55. Re: That's admirable

Should you rethink your signature?

#1 - Kerry was anything but silent and
#2 - Doesn't Pitt believe Kerry would make a good/great presidental candidate (although I believe he endorses anyone but bush)?

[adadem]

30. If, what Kerry knew

and/or saw was classified it could not be put into the public domain. This is what I believe....he was one of the Senators who were given some classified info. I think Kerry was between a "rock and a hard place" on the IWR vote....this interview clarifies his stance quite well.

[isbister]

48. Re: What did Kerry know, and when did he know it

Contrary to what is commonly believed Kerry has been consistent in his position before, during and after the war. Visit his web site and read his speeches through the time period.

[CWebster]

5. the truth of the matter, Kerry, is

you abrogated your responsibility, washed your hands of your responsibility, bought the lie that you had to support a popular war time president, when you knew the entire scam, tried to play it both ways and are still beating the drums for Bush ---and you now expect to be rewarded the presidency after you demonstrated such a dismal lack of leadership and judgement? Go to hell.

[Monte Carlo]

10. Bush's lies had nothing to do with Saddam's threat.

Maybe not in the short term, but most certainly in the long term. If not from Saddam, then from a dynasty of his sociopath sons. Sometimes the threat of force is the only deterrent short of war that will keep a gangster like Saddam contained.

[IndianaGreen]

25. The bigger gangster in the Bush/Saddam saga is Bush

It was not for the United States to use force in Iraq. That was the role of the United Nations.

Where was Kerry when Bush was pushing the UN to pull the inspectors out of Iraq?

Kerry is a sorry ass sack of shit that betrayed everything that he stood for during the Vietnam War. Kerry the peacemaker became Kerry the warmonger!

[isbister]

58. Re: The bigger gangster in the Bush/Saddam saga is Bush

That is just outright lying and shows you have what may be absolutely no understanding of Kerry's position and, yet, you are speaking out??? We have enough misleaders in the country and don't need any more.

Kerry spoke out before Bush went to the UN in Sept 2002, at the IWR debate in Congress and in early January 2003, when Bush was pushing inspectors out and other candidates were still formulating their position(s). (He spoke out even more than these few I've mentioned)

[Patriot_Spear]

6. How many 'N's" in YYYAAAWWWNNNN?

I like Kerry, but the man just has no excitement about him. His campaign will catch fire when he does.

[Octafish]

16. You point out a basic problem of intellectualism in America.

Most people (not you, P_S) find it difficult to follow an extended speech or complex thought. Candidates like Bush and Dean connect well by putting complex things into simple and simplistic terms. It's like the newspaper being written for the 8th-grade reading level. Anything toughter, will lose the audience.

The more erudite John Kerry, for whatever reason, has not had the rhetorical dumbing-down coaching needed to put the complex arguments into the simplest terms possible. I heard him speak at the Detroit Economic Club, where he delivered his manufacturing plan.

In a manner reminiscent of the giant lecture halls of academia, Kerry pointed out the strategic importance of manufacturing, how it helped create the middle class, the importance of manufacting the next generation vehicles in America, and how to build a better future. In short, Kerry made clear he understands how to use the power of the federal government to make life better for ALL Americans. Unfortunately, few could follow the guy's intricate train of thought to that conclusion.

[Patriot_Spear]

19. You have a point... n/t

[mouse7]

8. Kerry is losing to Dean in Mass.

What else need to be said.

[Monte Carlo]

11. Exactly one poll in this primary race matters...

... and that hasn't happened yet. Pride cometh before the fall.

[isbister]

60. Re: Kerry is losing to Dean in Mass

What else needs to be said?

1) I live in Massachusetts and we have had our primary yet, Kerry isn't losing to anyone.

2) Those pollsters called the 2000 election this way... then that way.... then this way.... they aren't very good at their jobs... I wouldn't be placing any significant bets based upon their figures if I were you.

[JNelson6563]

12. I think it's interesting that we don't hear

all about Kerry the BFEE expert anymore. For so long all we heard was Kerry was THE expert on the BFEE and he was the only one who could bring them down.

The recent capture of Saddam Hussein, Kerry said, "does not change the fact that the president has conducted one of the most arrogant, and at sometimes reckless and many times inept foreign policies in the modern history of our country."

One would suppose an expert on BFEE would have had a clue this was coming. Hell we here on DU knew that much. A reading of one simple essay would have helped any novice, much less a BFEE expert.

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm

Julie

[Monte Carlo]

13. Bush's antics aside, there were legit issues about Saddam.

And I don't think Kerry should have ignored them, even if he knew Bush was an arrogant, reckless, and incompetent President.

[JNelson6563]

14. yes, the condition of spider-hole-Hussein

revealed what a terrible threat he was. No friends, no support network, no means of communcation......truly a scary, scary man.

Not.

Julie

[Monte Carlo]

15. We're talking about IWR time, not the spider hole.

When he was in control of Iraq, and when he was both very rich and very well connected to all the worst underworld elements of the world. Saddam was a man who, given an opportunity, would have jumped to acquire more power through more fearsome weapons.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Excellent point, Julie!

If Kerry was such an "expert" on BFEE, as he is portrayed by many of his supporters on this board, how come he failed so miserably to be on his guard regarding anything Bush said. Why did Kerry allowed himself, the great BFEE expert, to be duped by someone that was so clearly lying.

Why did Kerry say that America was safer after Saddam was captured, and why did he chide Dean for saying that America was not any safer after Saddam's capture than it was before?

To accept Kerry's explanations at face value is to suspend disbelief!

[Octafish]

21. Certainly, we are entitled to your opinion about Bush being a liar.

And despite the reality, a United States Senator, by rule, cannot call another Senator, or a President, a "Liar."

Besides, Clinton and DCI Tenet had been giving the Congress the goods on Saddam long before Selection 2000. Why would Kerry change his stance toward Iraq when Bushler said things were even worse after 9-11?

Regarding the BFEE: If Kerry says anything about the connections from Dallas to Watergate to Iran-Contra to Iraq-gate to Selection 2000 to 9-11, the GOP McMedia will rip him apart as a "conspiracy nut."

Kerry has to be careful as to when he drops the bomb on the Bush Organized Crime Family — preferablly when he frog-marches the sad lot of them out of the White House and straight into Leavenworth, stopping off for a public trail, of course.

[IndianaGreen]

26. So, you think that Bush is not a liar?

Do you believe the "Mission Accomplished" and the "America safer" crap that Bush's propaganda machine is putting out on the 24/7 media?

Or are you still among those that are waiting for WMD to be found buried in the Iraqi desert?

Regarding the BFEE: If Kerry says anything about the connections from Dallas to Watergate to Iran-Contra to Iraq-gate to Selection 2000 to 9-11, the GOP McMedia will rip him apart as a "conspiracy nut."

To accept your excuse for Kerry, is to believe that Kerry is a coward. Is Kerry a coward? No, don't tell me about Kerry and Vietnam. The Kerry that is running for President is not the same Kerry that served in 'Nam and opposed the war.

Is Kerry a coward?

[Monte Carlo]

33. What does it matter what we think?

Bush may be a liar, but like it or not, he occupies the Oval Office and has controls the bully pulpit. We cannot simply discount him because we don't like him - it doesn't work that way in politics.

Kerry is not a coward. He voted 'yes' to a Congressional resolution that he knew would cost him big in a race for President, for an example.

If we expect to win, we must be the ones that choose the time and place for confrontations, not Bush and the Republicans. Kerry or anybody else can have all the truth in the world, but if no one out there in this country listens to them, it is wasted.

You know how we know Saddam had WMD's? Because we still have the receipts. Intelligence is world of odds, not proofs.

[IndianaGreen]

34. A "Yes" vote on IWR can not be characterized as courageous

unless Kerry has adopted the same Orwellian language of the Bush White House.

Kucinich showed more gumption and guts by voting "No" on IWR than Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards showed by voting "Yes."

[Monte Carlo]

38. Oh yeah? It cost him a lot of support in this primary process.

Kerry's history in the Senate shows he is not unwilling to make unpopular votes. He has never been much of a populist.

You must recognize that Bush's antics and the threat Saddam Hussein posed are two seperate entities. Bush exploited a well-known bad guy for his own political gain, but that does not change the fact that Saddam was a very bad guy and the threat of overwhelming force was sometimes the only thing that kept him contained.

[JNelson6563]

52. you act as though that was expected

I think we all know differently. Kerry expected to be the frontrunner and had no idea he would pay so steep a price for that one vote. Let's face it, all the candidates who support this war have been very surprised at what it has yielded them.

Live and learn, eh? ;-)

Julie

[Monte Carlo]

56. Oh, well, you ALL know differently, then...

Just how do you know what Kerry expected, anyway? And I think a liberal Democrat, with a history of anti-war activism, was well aware of how a 'yes' vote to war would go over with the liberal and anti-war voters of the United States. He went to Yale for God's sake, he's not stupid.

Why do you have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?

[IndianaGreen]

61. Bush went to Yale, and he is stupid!

I think that we may have underestimated the powerful culture of Skull & Bones. It is no mere accident that all the Bonesmen share a common world view, i.e., American imperialism. I am advancing the theory that Kerry's vote on IWR was the only possible vote for a Bonesman to do. As a member of the ruling class, Kerry was seduced by the idea of expanding American power and hegemony at the expense of another hapless country.

If this theory were true, then we can assume that Gephardt's vote on IWR was because he wanted to put the issue behind, convinced as many were in the DLC that by next year the economy would be the only issue.

Lieberman's vote on IWR was due to Lieberman's mirroring the views of the Sharon government that Saddam needed to be taken out no matter what.

I cannot gauge the reasons why Edwards voted for IWR, unless they were cultural and regional in nature.

[Deesh]

41. Kerry's chances...

...have fallen but he's not gone. He is taken seriously because he has a statesman's mind. Hypothetical: If Dean had to withdraw from the race owing to health problems, and if Clark ran into dire financial straits, and the race came down to Gephardt and Kerry, I think Kerry would win the day. If he won the nomination under these or any other terms, I think he would kick Bush's ass in the debates and go on to win the White House.

I would rather live in John Kerry's America than George Bush's America, even if I disagreed with the Iraq vote.

My own winnowing process is coming along for the Primary. I'm down to six candidates. Kerry's one of them.

[IndianaGreen]

42. If the race came down to Gephardt and Kerry...

I would probably go listen what the leaders of my union are saying and vote for Gephardt because Gep was right about NAFTA!

[dd123]

44. What I don't understand is why Kerry just doesn't work on

inspiring people.

This is what wins dedicated supporters, not talking Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean all the time.

By going negative, the best Kerry is hoping for is to sway people against Dean, but that does not translate into their supporting Kerry with all their heart and soul.

Clark gets this...Kerry doesn't.

That is why Clark is not going to have to mortgage his house to keep his campaign solvent. And I'm not a Clark supporter btw.

[Raya]

46. Let's be Honest. Kerry has been Panned by Media with NO GOOD COVERAGE

We don't see Kerry enough to know what is he is saying on the
campaign trail. Watching C-Span. They gave a brief coverage for Kerry reading a children's story and then started a 1 hour coverage of Clark campaigning. They said Kerry had been on a 24 hr campaign swing. How come they caught only 15 min of a children story.

[Lobo_13]

45. The short answer is

That Kerry voted for the war for the same reason that the other Dem Senators did. Political expediency, nothing more.

How many of the Dem IWR supporters are up for re-election in 2004? Or had their eye on the White House in '04 (or '08) How many of them watched silently as the GOP mulcher savaged a real hero like Max Cleland over a fabricated homeland security issue?

They were appeasers, each and every one of them. (Except for Lieberman, at least he actually believed in his vote.) They watched as Bush bludgeoned their colleagues over the head in the previous election cycle and then came up with the brilliant strategy of give him whatever he wants so he won't have another club in his golf bag.

They've lost touch with the people who they owe their careers to (not the lobbyists) the voters. They each had the opportunity to stand up and fight, and they laid down. They were relying on a strategy of aggressive damage control and missed the opportunity to stand up and fight in the most important vote of their entire careers. They chose to lay down.

Kerry knew exactly what he was doing when he voted "yes". He was watching the White House when he should have been watching out for the country.

To quote a movie: "All the good you've done all these years has been washed away by this. No one will remember your heroism of the past, only the cowardice of today."

edit: to clarify, I am not lumping Kucinich in with this group. I may not agree with him, but at least he has had the balls to what was right.

[IndianaGreen]

62. To quote Shakespeare

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interrèd with their bones

-- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

For millions of Americans, a "Yes" vote on the IWR vote disqualifies a candidate for the Presidency, including some non-candidates such as Hillary Clinton.

As long as blood is being shed, there is no way to get around that!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

64. Kerry voted Yes because he WAS watching out for the country

You haven't been paying attention. Holding Saddam accountable for weapons inspections and compliance with the UN resolutions was the whole point. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. The goal of IWR was not War. Saddam didn't comply- but neither did Bush.

[Lobo_13]

65. Apparently they were counting on people not paying attention

Too bad it backfired.

Anyone who buys that each and every one of those senators didn't know exactly what was going on in W's head, well lets just say that I got some oceanfront property in Colorado.

[Shanty Oilish]

47. Though a supporter, I'm not very satisfied with his comments

I don't think he'd have had better luck with the resistant nations at the UN, or with Saddam Hussein.
And I'd like to hear some details about this "legitimate international coalition," and what makes Bush's C.O.W. illegitimate in Kerry's view---not enough countries? not the right reasons? not the right proportion of involvement? not the countries that matter (which are---?)
IIRC France was not getting on board no matter what, and Saddam was not leaving Bagdodge no matter what. This doesn't leave much room for ingenious solutions from John Kerry.
Again---"...properly managed we could have had a genuine coalition," he says. What would that entail?
Yes, Bush blew it, and not alone, but in concert with intransigent world leaders and Saddam himself. Show me how removing Bush and inserting Kerry would have made a difference. I'd appreciate it, Mr. Kerry.
Better yet, get past it and be more explicit about what to do now.