How can Kerry say there was a right way to go into iraq

[corporatewhore]

When there are no and never were any WMDs?

[jpgray]

1. If we went in the right way, it would involve exhausting the inspections

Which did not happen. That could have negated the entire conflict. Unfortunately the resolution Gephardt made with the president UNDERCUT the provisions for exhausting diplomacy, and Kerry made a bad compromise when he voted for it.

edit: Making sure Iraq had no WMD is at least something most people can agree is a legitimate thing for the UN to do, but invading without any evidence is NOT at all all right.

[Guaranteed]

10. Why? If we were going to go in at all, i.e. "as a last resort,"

WHY was it the wrong time to do it when Bush did it?

IF we thought that Saddam really DID have WMD, and it was WORTH going to war over, then what, exactly, did Bush do wrong?

Saddam wasn't coughing up the WMD that we thought he had! We gave him a couple of months, and he was still playing games (in our eyes.) So we invaded!

Given the premises that Kerry accepts, I actually agree with BUSH on this! Kerry is wrong BOTH ways.

[TheDonkey]

11. Kerry wouldn't of gone to war

the inspections would have come up with nothing end of story.
---if he had WMD we would only gon in at the last resort.---
Now we must internationalize the forces.

[Guaranteed]

36. So then was it worth going to war over or not???

You SEE???????

You call this CRAP leadership? How about taking a goddamned position???

[HFishbine]

52. Amen

Kerry doesn't say, "There was a rigth way and a wrong way to DEAL WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN."

He doesn't say, "There was a rigth way and a wrong way to FIND OUT IF SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD DESTROYED HIS WEAPONS."

He doesn't say, "There was a rigth way and a wrong way to ASSURE THE SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."

What he insists on saying is, "There was a rigth way and a wrong way to GO TO WAR."

[diamondsoul]

59. *sigh* The inspections came up with

nothing for 12 effin' years and Kerry STILL was able to be convinced there was something there. Nope sorry, no sale.

[jpgray]

42. Because he didn't wait to see if Saddam had WMD

The inspections WEREN'T finished. Diplomacy was NOT exhausted. To know that Saddam had no WMDs, you can do two things--invade or inspect. Kerry wanted inspection with the threat of invasion, Bush wanted invasion with the pretense of inspections.

[Guaranteed]

43. If Kerry didn't know, why did he authorize the war?

He authorized the war because he thought that there was a threat to the US. He thought he DID know.

[jpgray]

44. He wanted inspections/diplomacy with the threat of invasion

If based on the inspections Saddam had WMD, he would have gone in. If they found nothing, we honestly don't know what would have happened. Based on Kerry's statements, he wouldn't have gone in.

In contrast to Kerry, Bush used that for his plan to have an invasion with the pretense of inspections.

Unfortunately Kerry voted for a bill that was not as restrictive as it should have been. He got backstabbed by the Rose Gardeners and so he compromised on a lesser bill than HR 100 or Biden/Lugar. IMO, that was a big mistake.

But anyway, Dennis is the one who did the right thing on IWR. The others have to make excuses or didn't have to cast the vote.

[blondeatlast]

77. Read this line again carefully:

Kerry wanted inspection with the threat of invasion, Bush wanted invasion with the pretense of inspections.

A fine, fine line but a very important one. At the time, Congress had NO evidence that there were no WMDs, but oodles of "evidence" that there was.

I'm a Kucinich supporter, but I have no problem with a "yes" on IWR GIVEN THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. That is not to say that I supported invading Iraq because I don't, and neither did most of the IWR "yes" votes.

Honestly, I didn't think *it* was evil enough to forge the evidence and start an illegal war with crappy evidence. I just couldn't believe anyone was that sneaky and ethically bankrupt--completely beyond comprehension.

I believe it now. What we need to do now is focus on stopping the war with the UN's considerable help and patching up our critically wounded integrity with the rest of the world.

[Guaranteed]

2. He's so full of shit.

He's trying to pull off this being against the war while being for it thing.

I'm so sick of this crap.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. So are people who keep pretending he has not made a complete

statement in the matter.

[turnhardleft]

32. Those people who keep pretending he has made a complete

statement in the matter are fooling themselves.

He has not admitted he was wrong yet.

[yowzayowzayowza]

60. He sure did.

He said quite clearly that he was wrong to trust the pResident.

[emulatorloo]

50. You are pulling crap by willfully misinterpreting "right way"

It is not a quibble w george bush over how many bombs to use, as you imply.

The "right way" was to let inspections run their course, to work with the UN to put pressure on Saddam to disarm.

If those things had been allowed to happen, we would not have gone to war w Iraq. Because we would have found there were no WMDs.







(I know this thread is pretty much dead and you won't see this, but it disturbs me that you are pretty much willing to give GWB a pass because you hate Kerry so much. That just doesn't make sense - I know full well that you are an intelligent person)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Because the right way to go would have been to let the inspections

work which is what he has said repeatedly. YOu simply have refused to hear him say that.

[corporatewhore]

6. maybe its just cause he gave bush permission to use my father

how fucking stupid/spineless does he has tobe to trust bush

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Sorry...I am sorry if your father was in fact used

this is the internet so I don't know it for a fact and can't answer or rebut an attempt to personalize it.

George Bush sent your father..John Kerry voted for a resolution which laid out the manner in which we should go IF WE WENT ..Bush did NOT even live up to that resolution.

[ordentros]

15. then why did Kerry have war protesters arrested?

they were backing Kennedy's bill which stated that the president had to ask congress for a war declaration? All Kerry had to do was read the European papers to see that Bush's case for war was bogus!

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2003/02/06/News/AntiWar.Protesters.Arrested.In.Kerrys.Office-362613.shtml

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Does your article indicate Kerry was in the office that day?

[ordentros]

28. maybe he was hiding in a bunker someplace...

and Kerry should have done the "right thing" by co-spondering the bill after he was told about the arrests.

instead, Kerry did the "wrong thing" and remained a cheerleader for an unnecessary war.

[G_j]

75. protesters arrested at Edwards office

note** previously - Eight war protesters were arrested at Sen. John Edwards'
presidential campaign office..



The Independent Weekly: Front Porch
.. 60 protesters were gathered refuse to leave Edwards' office.
www.indyweek.com/durham/2002-10-02/porch.html


..it's great that the peace movement has been left with such clear choices..NOT
we've been effectively shut out. The very people who re-energized the Democratic party have now been cast aside. :mad:

[For PaisAn]

37. a bit more info...

1)Kerry also voted against the Byrd amendment that would have limited the IWR to IRAQ.
2)Kerry refused to hear testimony from Scott Ritter on the impending IWR.
Can you or preferably Kerry explain these facts.

[edzontar]

68. It's not only his father. It is thousands sent to die, kill, be wounded

For what?

For one man's political ambitions?

How is this worth the lives of so many fathers, mothers, sons, daughters?

Kerry is a disgrace, and he knows that if he gave the real reason for his vote, he would be lucky to get TEN votes in November.

[diamondsoul]

57. Oh but he said lst night-

"Nooo! I didn't trust him(Bush)" and invoked the "Clinton did it first!" right-wing defense.:puke:

[Guaranteed]

14. Read #10. nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. You've already indicated there's no satisfactory answer

So why should I piss in the wind?

That's your interpretation...I accpet his answer..you and others don't. It's as simple as that.

[Guaranteed]

34. Yeah, don't bother.

There isn't one.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[diamondsoul]

58. cheap shot and totally unappreciated by me. n/t

[zoeyfong]

45. We all know what that vote was about. You refuse to admit reality.

Bush had already been moving troops and equipment over to the region for months by the time the vote happened. It was apparent to everyone, including sadaam hussein, that the war was happening no matter what. Congress hardly needed to tell sadaam hussein that his days were numbered; he already knew, and said as much in his interview with Dan Rather and through other gov't representatives. It was clear from day one that the "threat of invasion" tactic was having no impact on Sadaam, and if kerry thought it was, it is yet more evidence of his poor judgement. Kerry could at least have gone on record for the world to see that he did not support war; instead, he willingly lent his hand to Bush's madness.

[HFishbine]

55. The "right way" to what?

You have to complete that phrase to find Kerry's problem. He doesn't say, "right way to get the inspections to work." He says there was a "right way" to go to war.

[G_j]

74. The Nuremberg War Trials Agreement

Statement by Justice Jackson (Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals) on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.

<snip>
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which
their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the
war, but that they started it. And we must not allow
ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,
for our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."
<snip>

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson

Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[slinkerwink]

5. funny---that's what I was thinking also

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Because he supports US policy regarding its properties around the globe

bush has botched things by being stingy with America's Iraq oil. Kerry knows that a little generosity can go a long way toward getting some European boots on the ground, and traditional Sunni-Shia rivalries can be used to very good effect to engage pro-American governments in the region to join America's sons and daughters in achieving US military goals and objectives.

This will be especially helpful in the liberation of Iran, and Kerry's strong Israel ties will avoid the risk of any quibbling over deploying America's Israeli resources to liberate Syria.

It's multilateralism. Instead of a situation where you have the US occupying, stealing, massacring, seizing peoples' wives and kids, by something as simple as giving allies a share of the loot, you can have people from LOTS of countries occupying, stealing, massacring, seizing peoples' wives and kids - and you can bet that those countries that are helping the US will put a lid on the anti-American talk!

[BootinUp]

22. properties Lol

[mobuto]

8. There was a right way and wrong way to ensure

compliance with UN resolutions. The threat of force made Saddam take UN inspectors back. Kerry's plan worked - the IWR made Iraq compliant.

What Kerry can not be blamed for is that Bush wasn't satisfied with compliance - he was interested only in conquest.

[ordentros]

30. I blame Kerry!

because the European papers dispelled Bush's lies in realtime.

I can only conclude that Kerry wanted the war to happen and enjoyed being a chairleader for it...

[mzmolly]

9. I hate when he says that... but in fairness to JK he also said that Bush

promised war as *a last resort*

Kerry needs to drop that sorry line though. There is no right way to go about an unjust war.

[sadiesworld]

13. The same way the only other (reasonably) viable candidate can.

[liberty rising]

16. Kucinich challenged him on the issue

Kucinich is the only candidate with an exit strategy regarding Iraq; In fact, throughout the debate, Kucinich stayed focused on real issues like the war, like universal health care, like withdrawing from NAFTA/WTO, like universal higher education for all...Edwards and Kerry did not respond directly to DK's queries on these issues.

Kucinich and Sharpton are the only candidates who consistently address these issues head-on, who give a substantive voice to Americans frustrated with the same old rhetoric, and again, they were arrogantly dismissed during the debate tonight--dismissed by Kerry and Edwards, and by Larry King as well.

KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT

[Sugarbleus]

24. I agree LR. I might vote for Edwards but

DK is really the man of the hour,IMO. We are in 2004. I was born in 1949............when is America going to come into the modern world? We can and should change the way we do business with the world and within our own country.

The Kerry's of this world, while calling themselves Dems, are still too close to the old world system in that they continue to support worldwide economic globalization! How "powerful" do we actually NEED to be? How much money does any person or nation need in order to be happy? I'm sick to death of the "investment class". They are the ones who prop up the corporate raping of the working peoples of the world.

NAFTA and all the other free trade schemes are undermining and producing MORE poverty in second and third world countries. It is a scandal and an outrage. Kerry supports outsourcing "some jobs" hmmmm
He isn't going to bring our soldiers home any time soon; he is looking at the "bigger picture"....ie: Future profits and/or protecting the profits of the "investment class" by way of doing and creating business in Iraq.
How did we get suckered into Kerry for the nomination? I think not a few conservative cross over voters like him because he Doesn't stray too far from the conservative agenda.
:thumbsdown:

[Martin Eden]

17. The status quo in Iraq was unacceptable

Half a million Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions. This simply could not go on. Something had to be done.

I am in no way supporting what was actually done.

Certainly, the inspections process should have been thorough and complete. But what happens when the inspectors find zero WMD? Are the sanctions and no-fly zones lifted, and Saddam not only left in power but also left in a postion to rebuild his military might with the vast oil wealth of the country?

I'm asking questions here, not suggesting answers.

But I do suggest that -- right or wrong -- it was highly unlikely that any American administration would allow that to happen.

Anybody care to suggest what the ultimate resolution of the Iraq problem should have been, and how we could have gotten from here (pre-invasion) to there?

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. Sure. anti-sanctions.

Flood them with stuff.

Instead of dropping bombs and sick little leaflets ordering them to kneel before their new masters, drop food, drop penicillin, Imacs, Levis, drop palm pilots and books, Prilosec and Pringles.

Instead of hiring rentaKurds and "commercial operatives" to sneak in to prepare for more bombs, hire them to sneak in and install fiberoptic cable. Satellite dishes. WiFi. Sneak in covert health care operatives heavily armed with medical supplies. Low or no-interest microloans for ladies to buy sewing machines. Clandestine perl classes, Saddam would have been gone in a month.

There are lots of things America does well. If we must impose hegemony, let it be humanitarian hegemony, and let us impose it on well-fed educated people on whom we also impose the resources to gain access to information and make their own decisions.

It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than killing them.

[Martin Eden]

67. Good answer

Although I think the logistics of some of what you propose is problematical, and I'm skeptical it would quickly result in the overthrow of Saddam, I agree with you that by far the best solution was to help the Iraqi people without killing them and siezing their country.

The U.S. has a bit of an image problem with the Islamic world, and we can only address that issue through nonviolent helpful means.

If Saddam remained in power, we could have entered into a regional agreement that if he invaded another neighbor he would be dealt with as he was in 1991 (except that the consequence of his actions would be unambiguous -- no "green light" to invade like we gave him for Kuwait).

[eridani]

46. Very easily, according to Jimmy Carter

Drop the sanctions in return for permanent weapons inspections, WHICH WORKED!

[MrPeepers]

18. Because there IS a right way to go into Iraq.

Inspectors. An international coalition. The avenues that President Bush did not pursue. The fact is, Hussein was a bad guy, and that's a tremendous understatement. He hired people to rape women as political intimidation. He ran some of the most digusting prisons, if they were even humane enough be called prisons, in the world. He was a paranoid and ruthless dictator in every sense. He deserved to get his ass booted out on the street. The way we did it was flat wrong. It does not matter if there were WMD or not. That matters because of the avenue the Bush Administration pursued in order to justify this conflict. They argued that Iraq's posession of WMD was in violation of UNSCR 678. They did not make the argument that Hussein was vile, their official position was that WMD were there, and we had to invade out of our own interests of National Security. That was not true. The WMD were not there, so that position is bunk. What is not bunk, however, is that the world is a better place for having Hussein out of power. Had the United Nations been utilized, had the United States pursued diplomatic avenues instead of leaping to a military confrontation, had the United States taken military action with the backing of the United Nations, THAT is the right way to go into Iraq.

Peepers

[ordentros]

31. there wasn't a right way...

"What is not bunk, however, is that the world is a better place for having Hussein out of power."

are you suggesting that someone can legally bomb the whitehouse if they believe that getting Bush out of power makes the world a better place?

[MrPeepers]

53. That's not a valid comparison.

I'm suggesting that an international coalition can, without moral reprehensibility, topple a Government which has participated in the use of WMD against civilians, tortured civilians, violently oppressed ethnic and religious groups, and actively pursued other egregious human rights violations.

Peepers

[eridani]

47. "We" don't have to do jackshit

Marcos, the Shah of Iran, and Ceausescu were overthrown by their own people. Saddam would have gone down if the sanctions ended and people were relieved of their dependence on the government for food.

[MrPeepers]

51. Just like they did...

in 1991? When the Iraqi Government and Military was at its weakest, they rose up in Iraq, and they were slaughtered. He wouldn't have gone down on his own.

Peepers

[eridani]

72. That revolution happened to have been successful until--

--the US intervened directly on Saddam's side. Rebel access to weapons dumps was repeatedly blocked. Saddam also got permission to use helicopters in airspace that the US totally controlled.

And if you think that just because you're too poorly informed to know that, that the Iraqis share your ignorance, you are sadly mistaken.

[BootinUp]

19. Because 1) thats what most Americans believe

2) He voted for IWR
and

3)He wants to get elected.


later

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[diamondsoul]

23. HAH! He can't which is why he ignored

the question when Kucinich asked him!

[truizm]

26. Because it makes good rhetoric

[GreenArrow]

33. official US policy

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Right way was to use our aliies and go in as a "coalition." Wrong way was to go unilaterally. Either way was predicated by motivations of dominance and piracy.

[Guaranteed]

35. I put my ass on the line being against the war, and took serious heat

for it.

If Kerry can't do the same, then I don't see why I should vote for him.

[lcordero]

38. There is NO RIGHT WAY to go into Iraq

Even if they have weapons, they are ENTITLED to have the means to defend themselves.

Pure and simple.

[Nicholas_J]

39. Of course there was a right way to go into Iraq

It was for the international community to decide that Saddam Hussein was in flagrant violation of all of the terms agreed to after the Gulf War, which were placed upon him by the interantional community with his agreement as the terms of ending that war. He agreed to inspections after 1991, and agreed to allow the inspectors to remain as long as the international community deemed it necessary. They left in 1998 due to Husseins refusal to allow them to perform the inspections that he agreed to in order to end the Gulf War. Among over a dozen other resolution enacted and entered into by Iraq's own agreement everytime he violated one, and new sanctions or threat of war were invoked again.

Hussein agreed to behave in a certain manner with regards to the international community and as a result received benefits from those agreements. He wanted the benefits, but did not wish to comply with the responsibilities he took upon himself as the terms he agreed to in order to remain in power. Iraq did not exist in a vacuum, and if he wanted to take part in the benefits of international agreements, he certainly had an obligation to live up to the repsposibilities that all other nations are expected to abide by in being part of the international community.

A good example would be Pakistan and India, who did not sign Nuclear Non-prolifreation agreements. They both had to lose certain benefits gained by signing those agreements. They were not invaded when they developed their own weapons. Iraq however, agreed to not develop any of the WMS's at any time in any way. They were found in violation of those agreements a number of times. But WMD's were not the only conditions agreed to under any number of U.N. resolutions and international agreements that Iraq entered into. Iraq benefited from entering into those agreements a number of times, and among the benefits it recieved for the many agreements it entered into both before and after the Gulf War included the weapons itrecieved from the United States before the Gulf War. The assistance from France in building the Osirak reactor was based on Iraq's agreement to not utilize the technology to attempt to build nuclear weapons. Even after the Osirak Reactor was destroyed by the Israeli's he was given assistance again in developing other reactor technology. After the GUlf War, it was factually ascertained that he did break the agreements again to not utilize the foreign technology he benefited from and attempted a nuclear program again. If Iraq did not want to agree to the terms of international agreement, go it alone, develop its own technology, and not get it from other nations, like Pakistan and India, he would have been free from the terms of that agreement.

They arte only entitled to develop such weapons if they do not enter into agreements that allow them to purchase the technology to do so from other nations. Thats the bargain he made. Thats the bargain he broke repetitavely. These are the bargains that time and time again over thirty years he was cut slack on. Eventually the international community has to insist that he keep the agreements he mad, or face consequences for violating them. It was not a one way street. Kerry's stance is that you break international law in which you have agreed to participate, then you are subject to the consequences of breaking the laws that you agreed to be subject to in order to benefit form the relations you established by taking such agreements.

Like signing a contract to purchase a car and make payments. Stop the payments, the car gets taken away from you. Saddam bnefited greatly from his agreements. He was sold a great deal of modern technology that allowed a great deal of technological development to aoccur in Iraq. Iraq was the most technologically advanced nation in the Middle East as a result of those agreements. He was given opportunity after opportunity to go back,start over, and allowed to abide by new agreements. He broke them again and again. Simply waiting for the day when the U.N, would finally withdraw inspectors, end the terms set in the resolutions he entered into, and then start again. He has proven unreliable in his agreements for three decades. More than enough time for the international community to decide to do something about breaking those agreements.

[Guaranteed]

40. Sounds like a pro-war argument to me!

Yeah! Go Kerry!

[lcordero]

41. ???????

sarcasm?

[zoeyfong]

48. Yeah, blah blah blah. Regardless of the 'way,' the end will be the same.

The reasons bush sr. gave for not going to baghdad were entirely correct, and many people saw the present quagmire coming from a mile away. Regardless of the legalistic talk of NNPT, UN resolutions, etc, there were a million more practical reasons why the present course of action was doomed from the start, and it really doesn't matter what the 'justification' was. It also doesn't matter how the war was 'handled' as kerry suggests, because the bloody, chaotic end was going to be the same. Kerry never should have signed his name on the permission slip for an immature, reckless, madman with a mesiah complex to use the american military as he saw fit.

[edzontar]

69. Kerry support=War support=Bush support?

Just a thought.

[emulatorloo]

49. You are twisting Kerry's words very badly - that is not what he said

It is not a quibble w george bush over how many bombs to use, as you imply.

The "right way" was to let inspections run their course, to work with the UN to put pressure on Saddam to disarm.

If those things had been allowed to happen, we would not have gone to war w Iraq. Because we would have found there were no WMDs.

[WitchWay]

56. Can I ask why ....

Why the HELL Kerry didn't make a big stink when he saw that Bush was going to war in the (in the quaint Kerry supports tend to phrase it) WRONG way?

I mean -- he didn't PROTEST to much, did he? He didn't do or say things that would make it clear that Bush was going to war in the "WRONG" way?

"If those things had been allowed to happen..." - why didn't he raise a stink when these things were not allowed to happen?

Didn't he notice that SOMETHING WAS A LITTLE STRANGE when Dubya wasn't working with the UN or letting inspections run their course, or when Bush was talking about how Saddam seemed to be behind 9/11, or when Dennis Kucinich stood up against the war, or when their were massive war protests?

Why is it okay for Kerry to NOT do his homework (research) and to NOT PAY ATTENTION and to be apathetical and to enable Bush's war?

And, do you really want a guy like this to be President? Someone who can't even stand up to an Illegitmate President's Illegitimate war? It's either that, or he had some reason that he approved of the illegitimate war.

[emulatorloo]

61. He ***did** speak out, and a lot, and was attacked by repugs

for being unpatriotic - just wasn't covered much. . . .he spoke out again and again.

here are some DU threads w quotes from those speeches etc

mb7588a did a thread called A History of Kerry's Words Related to His IWR Vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1895


Dr. Funkenstein did a nice thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=248417

[WitchWay]

62. Nah, I'm not buying this...

"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"

“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.”


This is NOT anti-war. Give me a Break "I would have preferred..." -- yeah, that's REALLY angry.

This is Bush-enabling talk if I've ever seen it.

Just becuase Kerry says he wants some in the international community (oh, didn't Bush get a few little countries from the international community) to go to war and only if their was a grave and imminnent threat. (oh, didn't bush believe there was a grave and imminent threat?)

Sorry - there's a subtext to Kerry's words and his patriotic pretenses and I don't like the way it smells.

[emulatorloo]

63. Bush pulled out the inspectors and built a totally fake coalition

Why are you defending bush?

At any rate, Kerry has said stronger things than the ones you quote, such as calling for 'regime change" in washington and saying that bush "f*cked" up. Is he gonna say that on the senate floor? No.

It is fine if you don't agree with or 'buy it' but he did speak up, and has been pretty consistent about it. he's anti-weapons proliferation, disarm through process that includes inspectors, coalition of allies, and war only as a *last resort* after everything has failed.

I am getting increasingly nervous about anti-Kerry arguments re IWR that blame Kerry so much and that seem almost be about vindicating Bush. . .I am not singling you out here - just expressing myself about something that bothers me. I don't think JK is perfect, I was not thrilled at the time, and he could have done better. But I can understand his position. . .On the otherhand, I can't understand GWB's position at all. . .and I can't understand Duers who want to blame Kerry 100000% for the war and let GWB off the hook. . .because make no mistake about it, this was GWBs baby.

[WitchWay]

64. Am I defending Bush?

No. I think Bush is horrible, this war is outrageous and illegal, the president should be impeached for his lies concerning the rationale for war, and that he is conducting this war to fuel a military-industrial complex, with oil industry interests (along with imperialist and strategical interests in the middle east.)

But I am not going to defend Kerry either. No. Because I think he is going to war for the same reasons. IF not, he can and should defend himself by taking an appropriate anti-war stance and having a plan to pull the troops out of Iraq a.s.a.p. Also, I don't think that there IS a "RIGHT" way to go into a war like this, in the first place and I'm rather offended that there is a "right" way to go to war at all.

Why won't he say things on the senate floor, may I ask? If the president is conducting an illegal, illegitimate war, Kerry SHOULD be saying things on the senate floor. And he should encourage others to do the same. He is supposed to be a leader, after all, isn't he?

As for nervousness - People are getting increasingly nervous that Kerry hasn't come out against the war. He's the frontrunner candidate but he's not looking anti-war. Instead, he shows off to Bush what a war hero he is in comparison. I don't like the subtext to this.

Maybe you can understand Kerry's position...but just like you can't understand Bush's, I can't understand Kerry's. I understand that Kerry is in a tough spot, but this has to do with decisions that Kerry has made for his own motivations. He can, if he wants, make new decisions. The reason that Kerry is being attacked is because he will not make a strong stand against the war. He should be attacked for that.

I know that there are no perfect candidates, but I also remember when everyone was pledging to vote for only anti-war candidates. To me, that is somehow who is anti-war all the way, not just part of the way. To me, it really does come down to this issue. I hope this explains my dilemna with Kerry.

[emulatorloo]

65. I do understand your position

on the other hand I do not believe that Kerry would have gone to war w Iraq if he had been pres. He was consistent about inspectors UN allies, etc. He has been consistent in advocating alternative energy sources and saying that soldiers should never be called to go for war for oil. So I disagree with you there.

You are right, JK *is* in a tough spot. I also believe that he is seriously committed to non-proliferation in principle, so I just don't see him renouncing the IWR vote because that's the priniple that underlies it. However, I think he is saving his harshest criticism of this fiasco for GE.

But he won't say the F word on the senate floor!

[WitchWay]

70. I can't trust Kerry as much as you...

When I knew who was running, I knew that KErry would win. He wasn't even polling high, but I KNEW he would get it at some poitn. I don't have much trust in him, and I can't know who is real allies are. He has the luxury of a mediocre voting record, I know (and it is more liberal than Edwards)...but, you have to understand that Kerry comes from a world which is in a direct conflict with mine. I cannot be expected to trust him.
Lastly, you say that he is saving his harshest criticism of this fiasco for the GE? But what about the soldiers and Iraqis dying NOW? There isn't time. Lives are ending and that's not worth Mr. John Forbes Kerry's startegy, and so that's NOT okay and thats not principled. is he going to let the war escalate even further? Plus, he still doesn't have a pull out plan, anyways.

[emulatorloo]

71. I have no real idea of his GE strategy

I'm just another nut posting on the internet. I can only speculate

Again I do understand what you are saying and respect it. I only ask you to try to keep an open mind, JK is not as bad as you think. Like any one of us, I do beleive he is trying to do the right thing, and I believe a great deal of what motivates him in the race is payback for the crap this admin has put us through - iraq and all of it.

As to where he comes from I understand that too . . . .it seems like he has always tried to be on the right side of things, to be better than his birth, and fight against the dark forces. . .this nation article is worth reading as it puts a few things in one place. Stuff youve heard before no doubt, but nice to see it pulled together.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040315&s=corn

Maybe most will seem like old hat/distant past to you. But I still remember it, and I see this fight in him still.

Anyway, best regards and see you in the DU trenches

[WitchWay]

73. Thanks.

Thanks for the article which I have read. I have a bunch of reasons -- both political and personally poltical (he is a hunter, his wealth, secret society ties, privelege, Plan Columbia, corporate-supporter, etc.) that he really crosses a line for me. I feel Kerry's personal lifestyle is in contradiction to his voting record. This is where I have instintual reactions not to trust him.

I think that I have very liberal opinions on many matters, and some conservative opinions too. So, I will want to vote for Kucinich and if not I will vote Nader.

Kerry does come from a strangely compromised position, in strange ways he can and cannot help. My only hope is that pressure helps him to be less compromised. Although I will not be supporting him, I encourage his supporters to encourage him. I would hope he could commit to oppose imperialism and war, and avoid situations.

Best regards to you as well.

[yowzayowzayowza]

54. I believe President Kerry's ultimate military response to Iraq,

...were he forced into such a situation, would have been more along the lines of a multinational pacification rather than an imperialist unilateral invasion. Having learned from our Yugoslavia campaigns, the plan would likely have included measures to assure the Iraqi people that they will be part of a process to reclaim their sovereignty and a well-defined exit strategy for our forces. A HUGE difference from the quagmire we are experiencing now.

Precisely 2 cents, IMHO.

[shance]

66. I believe John Kerry would truly be presidential, by naming the truth

on Iraq.

To me it would show a courage that so far, in my opinion lacks.

Its what I have said before, that candidates Edwards and Kerry seem to consistently play it safe and that is why they were not the front runners to begin with, and then they jumped into the lead for no concrete reason, real justification or action on their part. I didnt watch last night, but from what Im gathering, it was more like a commercial that a debate.

And I dont think anything will change the fact that, if they cannot take stands now, they will not take tough stands needed for Americans then. Hopefully I will be wrong.

However, thats why I am concerned.

[quaker bill]

76. You see, if we had formed the International Coalition

The French and the Germans would have dropped their bombs more politely. That would have been much better.

Here is the conundrum:

We inspected Iraq from the end of Desert Storm until 1998. We stopped finding weapons and programs well before 1998. Our failure to find weapons lead to the conclusion that Saddam was very good at hiding them. We chose this answer over the more obvious and apparently correct conclusion that we had found and destroyed everything.

So we sent inspectors back in in 2002-2003. They found nothing. We again concluded that Saddam is just hiding things very well. We chose this answer over the more obvious and apparently correct conclusion that there was nothing to be found. More inspections would have yeilded the exact same result, no weapons. Anyone can be very good at hiding something that does not exist.

The only way out of the logical trap was for Saddam to surrender a weapons program he did not have. If Saddam was a strategic thinker, he would have made a weapons program up and surrendered it just to make us happy. But he wasn't, so instead, he just relied on telling the truth, this was never going to be good enough.

More inspections would never have halted the drive to war. As you can never inspect all possible hiding places at once, there would always have been the possibility that he was hiding them somewhere.

Senator Kerry's line on this is just as full of holes as Bush's. The only difference between the final result under the Kerry plan and that realized under the Bush plan would have been a few less dead American soldiers and a few more dead European soldiers with a few more partners to fund reconstruction. The number of wrongly dead Iraqi's would probably have been about the same either way.

Of course, there is the speculation that Saddam did not think we would launch an all out war without the international partners. So if we had taken the time to develop the coalition further, Saddam might have better prepared his defenses in the belief that we were actually coming. If true, this could have meant more dead on both sides, but we will never know. There were an awful lot of deadly conventional weapons in storage that Saddam never deployed. (massive anti-tank mines for instance)

Here is the problem:

There was copious evidence that Saddam had given up ambitions in regard to WMD in the 90's. None of it was ever deemed credible. Even in 1998 the CIA reported that the conclusion for the continued presence of weapons programs in Iraq was utter speculation with no factual evidence to back it up.

There was sufficient evidence to conclude that the threat no longer existed, were we so inclined. We were not. Further evidence would not have changed our conclusion.