Helen Thomas: Kerry Deals Away his Ace in the Hole

[DUreader]

It appears American voters have little choice between the presidential candidates in the November election when it comes to the disastrous war against Iraq.

Both President Bush and his rival, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seem to think it was worth the 932 American lives (so far) and thousands of U.S. wounded to get one man behind bars -- Saddam Hussein.

There also are the untold thousands of Iraqis dead and wounded as well. But, as one Pentagon spokesman told me, "They don't count."

Kerry has made a colossal mistake by continuing to defend his October 2002 vote authorizing President Bush's invasion of Iraq.


snip


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0818-03.htm

[Ghetto_Boy]

1. Helen please, please retire. I still have fond memories.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

3. She's not 100% wrong

Kerry may have had reservations, but he did get in line at crunchtime.

The man I supported in the primaries stood his ground from the beginning.

I 100% support John Kerry and want to see him win, but I don't agree with his stance on the war. The invasion of Iraq by the United States was wrong.

President-to-be Kerry, do you want to ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Helen's colossal mistake is continuing to misunderstand his vote

and Helen, you are thereby in good company here at DU.

[against all enemies]

4. If Kerry's vote is misinterpreted here, then it was a stupid vote.

What good is a vote that is so difficult to explain that even your supporters don't get it. The average voter, and this includes most of the swing and undecided voters won't spend the time to "get" it. Stupid vote.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Saddam was a bad man.

How's that for simple?

[searchingforlight]

6. That kind of "simplicity" is the reason GWB is still poised to win.

There a dozens of leaders who are bad including our own. If nations continue to invade soverign nations because they perceive the leader to be a bad man, the world will be in chaos.

The reason has to be better than that.

[Veggie Meathead]

8. How about the man who has now replaced Saddam,Allawi?

Is he an angel?

[gandalf]

9. Because Saddam was bad, thousands of people had to die

and the world had to be lied to?

Naturally it is far better to be tortured by Americans than by Saddams men.

[gandalf]

10. Speaking of bad men, what about Sudan?

In this country, far more people are dying than under Hussein.

Given the fact that the US had a tradition of installing and supporting bad man, the bad-man argument is simply not credible.

If really the fate of foreing people is the concern of Bush, what about Sudan?

[GiovanniC]

22. Speaking of Bad Men

What about America?

Can't wait for the fucking Chinese to start carpet-bombing the shit out of us to "liberate" us from our bad leader.

And when thousands of innocent Americans die, they "won't count".

[JNelson6563]

15. Just like my right wing friend says

Brilliantly said NYFM. :eyes:

I expected better from our side. And you wonder why people say there is little difference between the parties.

I sure hope you keep your brilliant retorts to DU and don't embarrass us all over the place. Such a defense of Kerry's vote is the same shit Rush feeds his ditto-heads.

I am sickened.

Julie

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. You all are forgetting that fact was part of the equation

Saddam needed to be held accountable. If the inspectors had been allowed to finish their job there would have been no war.

[displacedtexan]

42. Bush* promised to secure UN security council consensus.

Instead, he and his minions lied and screwed the pooch.

He promised war was a last resort.

Saddam complied.

Bush lied.

[Cheswick2.0]

60. too bad the IWR didn't require Bush to let the inspectors to finish

[JNelson6563]

71. "Saddam was a bad man" defense sucks

Let's throw a list of "bad men" together so we can decide who else to occupy. Would Kerry trust Jr. again? Let us hope not. After all, he's the BFEE expert right?

Julie

[NewYorkerfromMass]

73. True, but unfortunately it works for too many jugheads

and most voters are jugheads, and Kerry needs some of them along with us to win.
Besides, Clinton was also on board with the "Saddam = bad" philosophy.

[DemBones DemBones]

75. I believe it was said sarcastically but it points up the fact

that Bush* is relying on simple lines and it's working. Even those of us who oppose him know what he thinks. Kerry needs to have a simple line to explain the difference between voting for IWR and voting to go to war. It's not brain surgery, it's just language. We all understand his position and all of us can probably explain it in terms anyone can understand.

If their speaking styles are any indication, Kerry knows far more about language and nuance than Bush* does. But Kerry is not always making himself clear. He is not making a clear distinction between himself and Bush* in regard to this issue.

Remember Clinton's mantra "It's the economy, stupid"? Combine that with the closely related saying "Keep it simple, stupid," add the war, and you get what Kerry needs to do -- in simple terms, communicate how he will do a better job in regards to the economy and the war/ foreign affairs than Bush* has done.

Kerry may be doing this in his campaign speeches but the message is not getting through on television news. That's bad since television news has a lot of influence on a lot of voters.

[bacchant]

26. Ha, let's parrot Bush's bullshit fall-back justification for the invasion.

Yikes.

[latebloomer]

7. And, yet again

What about him saying he would have done the same thing KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW?!?

I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this.

[Kolesar]

12. yeah, I don't get that quote

People know this is Bush's war. Kerry should tag him with that and hammer away.

[greenohio]

18. Kerry has made that pretty easy to do

You're right. There is a huge difference between:

I AUTHORIZE THIS PRESIDENT to distract us from the war on terror, knowing there are no WMDs.

and

I vote for THIS PRESIDENT to distract us from the war on terror, knowing there are no WMDs.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. telling people they misunderstand the vote is not helping

people understand all too well. I'd stop alienating those people if I were you. They are voting for Kerry, there is no need to ask them to check their brains at the door too.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

74. I am in fact asking them to use their brains. eom

[Cocoa]

11. why would he switch now?

I respect the view that Kerry would have been better off not voting for the IWR, and that he would have been better off renouncing his vote after the consequences of the war became known.

But we've known for over a year that Kerry is not going to do it. He didn't do it during the primary, and he hasn't done it since.

I think people are putting too much significance in Bush's asking him to answer "yes or no." Why should Kerry have to do this, just because Bush asks him to? Why let Bush, who has the REAL responsibility for this war, turn it around on Kerry?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Kerry Could Have Handled This Whole IWR Mess Better

But none of us are perfect.....

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Helen NAILS IT right here, in a few sentences:

"Bush has no exit strategy or timetable for a troop withdrawal even under the facade of Iraqi sovereignty."

"Kerry has talked about drawing down American forces and an eventual pullout.
But hecould learn something from two previous wartime Republican presidential candidates who had a better take on the public pulse and won the White House."


"In 1952 during the Korean War, Dwight D. Eisenhower made a campaign promise that he would "go to Korea" and end the bloodshed. He did go to Korea and the war ended with a cease-fire standoff months after his inauguration."


"In 1968, Richard Nixon said he had a "plan" to end the Vietnam War and the voters, wanting peace, bought it. Nixon -- in part forced by Congress -- reduced the U.S. troop commitment to Vietnam, but U.S. forces were still there when Nixon was forced to resign from office in 1974 because of the Watergate scandal. But the war ended the following year."

[Jacobin]

27. EXACTLY

And everyone knew when the IWR was voted on that Bush* was going to invade Iraq. He had absolutely NO plans to negotiate it out or use the threat of invasion to disarm. EVERYONE knew that he was going to invade.

I think its a big mistake for Kerry to continue to support this invasion, but I understand his splitting hairs on it....the coveted 5% of undecideds is all he is playing to right now and he thinks his position will help. I hope so, too, but I have serious doubts

[geek tragedy]

16. Short Kerry response:

"I voted to trust Bush with the authority. And Bush fucked everything up."

[Gyre]

17. Yeah, in your dreams

he said that. Fact is, he hasn't. According to him he would've done the same thing, but he would've "done it right". He's whoring to the middle that still thinks Saddam bombed the WTC. A good reason to dislike him but not the only issue in this election.

Gyre

[DrFunkenstein]

21. When Did He Say He Would Have Done "The Same Thing"?

He wanted to enforce inspections, not invade - stating repeatedly that regime change was not a reason for invasion.

Kerry said in Rolling Stone that WE WOULD NOT BE IN IRAQ IF HE WERE PRESIDENT. (Damn, why the hell can't I find a friggin' link?)

He said on Meet The Press during the primaries:

"Democrats are listening very carefully, Tim, and they understand that my vote and the vote of Tom Harkin, for instance, and the vote of Hillary Clinton and the vote of Joe Biden, was not a vote specifically to go to war; it was a vote to do what President Bush said he would do, which is hold Saddam Hussein accountable by going to the U.N., working to build a legitimate global coalition, working to have an inspection process that was legitimate and that we were patient about, and finally, the president said he would go to war as a matter of last resort.

The president broke every single one of those promises. He broke them to us as senators. He broke them to the Congress. Most importantly, he broke them to the American people."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3916793

[Nightjock]

37. Here, here!

Good answer. And that's what Kerry is saying. I was upset too he did not denounce his vote. But I realize now why he did it and your response ssums it up perfectly.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. Kerry Voted To Hold Saddam Accountable, Not For Bush's Incompetence

This is all the sound bite they will ever need, because it is Kerry's true rationale boiled down to the core (plus a slam of Bush).

Even with ZERO existing WMDs, Saddam's history of miscalculation and atrocity made continuing inspections - with FULL cooperation - a necessity.

[sandnsea]

20. Helen, why don't you talk to Bush

*sigh* Why don't people on the left ever HELP? Where's Helen's article about Bush saying the resolution was not a signal that war was imminent or unavoidable, that it was merely the US speaking with one voice? Why doesn't she ask Bush whether he had actually planned on going to war in Oct 2002, like he is saying now? Or was he lying then? Why oh why doesn't the left ever hold Bush accountable for his own messes. *sigh*

[GiovanniC]

25. Hey, You're Talking About Helen 'Effin Thomas

She HAS asked. She has asked REPEATEDLY. She has been a beacon of journalism in a sea of fuckin' media WHORES.

That woman has more integrity in the tip of her pinkie finger than the ENTIRE rest of White House Press Corps. And she has been berated, snubbed, and ignored for it. She has TRIED to hold Bush accountable.

She's been trying, and she'll continue to try. That's Helen Thomas.

[sandnsea]

30. Hey, get me the quote

I don't give a shit that it's Helen Thomas. She HAS NOT asked Bush why he's saying the Oct 2002 vote was a vote for war when that is NOT what he said at the time. She CAN'T ask because if she did she couldn't continue ranting at Democrats for something Bush did.

[GiovanniC]

31. What I'm Telling You

Is that out of all of ALL of the media whores, shills, etc., you're taking aim at the ONE person who has consistently and faithful upheld journalistic principles by continuing to ask tough questions while no one else did.

I don't know the exact quote you're looking for, but check this out and tell me if ANY other major reporter comes anywhere CLOSE to Helen Thomas vis a vis the Iraq War or Bush's presidency:

================================================================

HELEN THOMAS: At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the president deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.

ARI FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.

HT: My follow-up is why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?

AF: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends.

HT: They’re not attacking you. Have they {the Iraqis} laid the glove on you or on the United States in 11 years?

AF: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein’s aggression then.

HT: Is this revenge? Eleven years of revenge?

AF: Helen, I think you know very well that the President's position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.

HT: Would the president attack innocent Iraqi lives?

AF: The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.

HT: And he thinks they are a threat to us?

AF: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

HT: The Iraqi people?

AF: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi --

HT: So they will be vulnerable?

AF: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That's why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq --

HT: That's a decision for them to make, isn't it? It's their country.

AF: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown.

HT: I think many countries don't have -- people don't have the decision -- including us.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030106-1.html

[sandnsea]

33. I'm telling you

I don't care. If she doesn't ask the tough question and the right question when it really matters, then everything else was rather pointless. Now's the time to pin Bush down on this war and she isn't doing it. Everything she's done for the last 2 years and she lets it all slip away by doing what Dems always do, eat their own. It's just sad.

[GiovanniC]

35. She's Not Eating Her Own

She's fucking right about Kerry.

She's been asking the right questions, the good questions, the important questions. Kerry isn't immune from criticism just because he wears a "D" after his name.

You cannot tell me for a minute that anyone with a fucking brain rattling in their heads would have read that resolution and thought, "Gee, since Bush has been so level-headed and reasonable about everything thus far, I'm sure that he only wants to work through inspections and such. Just because I'm voting YEA on a resolution that specifically allows the President to use the Armed Forces against Iraq if he deems it necessary and appropriate doesn't mean I'm voting for war. Only silly people would think so."


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
<snip>The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[sandnsea]

40. And you join her

Thanks alot and take a big bite. That's not the entire resolution and I'm not about to argue the damned thing again. I would just like to slap people who are more interested in that goddamned war resolution than getting Bush the hell out of office. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

You do make my point though. The reason Helen won't go after Bush is because she won't be able to whine about Democrats if she does.

[GiovanniC]

44. No One Is More Interested In Getting Bush Out of Office Than Me

But I'm not going to close my eyes to reality, either. The fact of the matter is that Kerry voted for a resolution that gave Bush the authority to do what he was going to do, and either:

(A) Kerry knew Bush would use the authority to go to war (i.e., Kerry was voting for war); OR
(B) Kerry had NO IDEA that Bush would use the authority to go to war (i.e., Kerry's an idiot)

I don't buy "B", because I believe Kerry's a smart guy. I plan to vote for him. I've been volunteering for his campaign. This doesn't change my opinion about Kerry -- he's the best choice we've got. But when it comes to Iraq, he's WRONG, and Helen's RIGHT.

By the way, for the sake of parity:



for the "take a big bite" comment. Whether you agree with me or not, we're on the same side here, so how about a little courtesy, huh?

[sandnsea]

61. We're on the same side?

Could have fooled me. Those who refuse to hold Bush accountable for what he said he was going to do as opposed to what he did do aren't on my side. Go ahead and beat the hell out of the Democrats, let Bush slide, that's why he gets away with it. Been listening to this crap for a year now. Where's it gotten us? The Democrats are under fire for a goddamned war that Bush started, that's where. Dumbest thing ever.

[GiovanniC]

63. Yes, We Are

We're on the same side because we're both Democrats, we both want Kerry elected and we both want Bush retired -- or even better, on trial. We only disagree because you apparently think that it's a mortal sin to admit that Kerry's vote was a mistake, or at the very least that telling the country that Bush was right to go over and torture, rape, and pillage Iraq even "knowing what he knows now" was bullshit.

Does that mean that I'm helping Bush, or that I'm not a good Democrat... just because I agree with Helen that Kerry shouldn't have flushed his advantage with all the people who realize that the Iraq war was bullshit from the beginning -- not just "the way it was carried out"?

NO! And fuck you if you think so.

[sandnsea]

66. Having same discussion with a right winger

Same argument. Kerry said the war was right.

Well, he didn't say that, you don't care that he didn't say that, you're not correcting the media's spin, so NO you're not on any side I'm on.

[GiovanniC]

70. All Right...

I've never done this before, so I gotta make sure I get it right.

CHECKLIST
{X} Poster insists anything disagreeing with his/her position is incorrect
{X} Poster uses "you're either with me or against me" argument
{X} Poster is offensive
{X} Poster demands blind loyalty to his/her candidate
{X} Poster implies disagreement = disloyalty
{X} Poster suggests disagreement = "You're a right-winger/Freeper/Republican"

Well, you certainly fit all the criteria on the checklist. Therefore, it's with a heavy heart after all the time I've spent on DU, I finally add the VERY FIRST PERSON EVER to my "ignore" list.

[sandnsea]

72. Aw

:nopity: I imagine LOTS of people have me on ignore. You're little list is funny. Loyalty to "my" candidate?? When did I call you a freeper? Never did. And *I* was offensive, after you told me to fuck off twice?? Sheesh.

[Larkspur]

69. I'm against Republican AND Democratic totalitarianism

I oppose blind obedience to a human being and posts like this just confirm my philosophy. Totalitarianism is wrong, no matter who does it.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. Can Anyone Find The Rolling Stone Interview? The "F- Word" One?

In the interview, he says specifically that he would not have invaded, that there is no reason why inspections couldn't be going on right now. Unfortunately, I can't find a working link to any of this except in my brain.

[paulk]

39. excerpt -

"I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything'? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f - - - it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did," Kerry told the youth-oriented magazine.

[WI_DEM]

24. I read many of the above comments

some which bash one of the few reporters left who actually asks the tough questions. If she is wrong in interpeting Kerry's vote--she is not alone. Voters see things in shades of black and white. If you are strongly against the war and think it was immoral, the nuances of Kerry's vote really don't matter. He still voted to give authorization to a madman like Bush. That is how many people see it. Yes I know all the reasons Kerry gives as to why Bush misused the authorization congress gave him, but voters by and large don't look at it that way. Helen is speaking for many people and it is the reason why, despite everything Bush has done, Kerry has not yet sealed the deal on the presidency. I think he will, ultimately. At least I hope so.

[G_j]

29. and not everyone is as talented at conveying those "nuances"

when attempting to campaign for Kerry.
It is real pain in the butt trying to answer people's questions.
Most people I know say they can't actively campaign for Kerry because they hate the convolutions they must go through trying to explain his Iraq policy.

[no name no slogan]

62. That's me, and many others I know who are ABB

Trying to figure out (much less explain) Kerry's vote on IWR is enough to give most people a headache. What makes it harder is that his vote was the same as those cast by the likes of Rick Santorum and Orrin Hatch, who also voted "Yes" on the IWR.

This is further aggrivated by his lack of committment to a withdrawal from Iraq, other than vague promises to "internationalize" the war effort, and to reduce US presence there at some future date. Neither of these provides much encouragement for those who want an end to this war as soon as possible.

This is the one issue that keeps me from actively supporting Kerry with anything other than my vote. Even if Kerry were to admit that he was wrong on the IWR vote (like most of us think, regardless of whether or not we believe his explanations), he could easily get many of us on board, working our butts off for his campaign.

In a tight race like this one, that could very well make the difference between winning and losing.

[sandnsea]

34. She could call Bush a liar

That would pretty well explain Kerry's vote now wouldn't it? BUSH said it wasn't a vote for war, so either he was lying then or he's lying now.

The problem is people who just refuse to accept the authorization for what it was and refuse to report all the qualifications it actually DID contain. AND refuse to acknowledge that disarmament is more than a quick trip through the Iraqi desert. Kerry said he'd still vote to hold Saddam accountable to the UN resolutions and the disarmament process and there's no reason for him not to say that. If Helen doesn't understand, it's because she doesn't want to.

[madfloridian]

32. Helen Thomas has always been loved here. Don't do this.

Don't make it wrong to post things by her. Good grief.

[jonnyblitz]

36. this is bad

bottomfeeding at its worst. Helen Thomas has more class in her baby finger then any of these slimy politicians that their followers idolize and diefy..

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[madfloridian]

41. What is going on here? Helen Thomas is a courageous lady.

I never thought I would see the day she is put down at this site.

[enigmatic]

43. You know what? I love Helen Thomas..

and I have the upmost respect for her. But she's wrong on this; dead wrong. And I'm sorry you're offended that people are calling her take wrong. Oh well.

[madfloridian]

45. She is an American with a right to her opinion.

Read some of the posts....there is a difference between differing with her and putting her down. People are getting very good at putting people down who disagree with anything Kerry does or says.

You simply can NOT expect full bowing down loyalty from everyone.

This was in our local paper last Sunday. It made quite an impression because many here are anti-Iraq war now. Before they were not, but knowing what we know now....they are against it.

I know just what she means.

[enigmatic]

46. And I and others have a right to ours...

That's how a democracy works. Helen Thomas is not the last word on how Kerry should run his campaign anymore than you or I, and there is nobody on this forum stopping you from posting your opinion on Helen Thomas.

[GiovanniC]

49. Yes, But It Has Been Implied on This Thread

That Helen Thomas doesn't "HELP" and that she doesn't "hold Bush accountable for his actions". That's pure, 100% Grade A unadulterated BULLSHIT.

[enigmatic]

50. That's your opinion. Fine with me...

Nobody is stopping you from posting it.

[GiovanniC]

52. Actually, That's Not My Opinion

It is a FACT that Helen Thomas has consistently helped the left by holding Bush accountable.

And she has done so when it would have been FAR easier to take the easy road like basically every single one of her colleagues.

[G_j]

65. Bush: "Worst President Ever"

I believe Helen said that

[dansolo]

47. Helen Thomas is completely correct

Even if you agree completely with Kerry's position, you have to admit that for the general population, by stating that he wouldn't change his vote, he is essentially endorsing Bush's war. The point that Helen was making was that Kerry has discarded an issue that Kerry could have taken advantage of. He is now on shaky ground whenever he wants to criticize the war.

[enigmatic]

48. In my opinion she's not...

And you know what? That's ok. I can handle Helen Thomas having a different opinon on this then me. What my problem is with those who think we shouldn't critisize Helen Thomas on her take because she's Helen Thomas. That's insane to me.

[GiovanniC]

51. I'm Not Saying She's Beyond Criticism

But I will ferociously defend her against anyone who says or implies that she isn't asking the tough questions, or that she isn't a good journalist, or that she's some sort of Bush apologist.

[enigmatic]

53. Go for it; that's your right...

And nobody here is denying that right to you, so I don't understand where this is going..

[GiovanniC]

55. You Were Saying...

People were being criticized simply for criticizing Helen Thomas. And I'm telling you that's NOT why a lot of people here are irritated -- the real reason is that some people are acting as if she's some kind of right-wing shill just because she disagreed with Kerry on one point.

[enigmatic]

56. We're going to have to agree to disagree about this..

I need to hook up my coffee IV;)

Peace:)

[GiovanniC]

54. Exactly.

Since when do we have to agree with EVERY SINGLE THING that Kerry says or does in order to support him? I disagree with Kerry on a lot of things, not just the war. For example, I disgree with him that life begins at conception. That doesn't mean I don't support him.

[Larkspur]

67. That's exactly my point!!

The problem on this board with kerry supporters is that they can't distinguish between supporting Kerry over Bush and blindly worshiping him.

I dislike Kerry a lot but I'm voting for him because the alternative is a disaster.

What kerry supporters fear is that on Nov. 3, the ABB coalition expires and Kerry will live down to our expectations of him and he will be the new emperor without clothes on.

[madfloridian]

57. Question: Knowing what we knew of Bush in 2002 and now....

why did our congress trust him so much? Enough to give up the power to go to war?

Isn't that a lot of what she is saying? Knowing what we knew of Bush even in 2002, why did so many feel comfortable giving up that power to him?

That is not an unreasonable question.

[gauguin57]

58. Helen is the freaking queen

of journalists. The queen. I'll cry my eyes out when she retires.

I am working for Kerry, supporting Kerry, telling everyone I can get my hands on to vote for Kerry.

But he blew the Iraq War vote question. He blew it. He needs to have more confidence in himself -- to say "I was lied to, and I voted on that basis." At the time I felt I was right; knowing what I know now, I see I was WRONG!

To embrace both his Vietnam service AND his Vietnam protest. Kerry is a great guy -- voters will accept him for who he is, what he stands for and how he has voted. But he has to embrace it when he needs to and explain it when he needs to.

Helen's right.

[Fleshdancer]

64. I think she's absolutely right.

Of course, I wish Kerry hadn't voted for IWR in the first place. I would rather have Congress keep their powers and declare war AFTER the President PROOVES he has exhausted all other means of resolving the conflict. Assuming Bush would have exhausted all other means before going to war was a copout for Congress in my opinion.

But that's just me.

Besides, knowing what he knows now, why would Kerry give Bush the same authority knowing Bush would abuse it?

[Caution]

68. Helen fails to realize that those who are against the war

are already going to vote against Bush (whether for Kerry or Nadir).

Ask yourself this. Does Kerry stand to gain more votes from the few people who are so rabidly anti-Iraq war that they are intending to vote against Kerry because of his stance or will he gain more votes from those who are unsure about the war or for the war but are leaning away from Bush on other issues (credibility, deficit spending, proscuting the war improperly, jobs, overall economy, etc).

While we, the better informed, are heavily against the war, most of us will vote Kerry just to get Bush out, Kerry's strategy isn't to get our vote, he already has it. And anyone who decides to vote Nadir or some other third candidate or not vote because of Kerry's IWR vote is just helping Bush win.