Why do Dems allow media to say Kerry voted for the War?

[edhopper]

Timmy asked Hillary about Kerry "voting for the war". Hillary let the question slide. The authorization vote was not for war. It gave W authority to pursue a policy about Iraq, with the promise of another vote before force was used (any one recall that vote?)
Yet Timmy and the media use the "vote for the War" phrase right from the repuke playbook. Why don't the Dems have talking points and challenge this notion that it was a "vote for war"?
We are losing ground because we are letting the repukes frame the election and not fighting back. Two weeks of the swiftidiots while Iraq crumbles into chaos!

[BootinUp]

1. That is the one big one we keep f'in up

I don't understand it either.

We supported bringing more pressure on the UN to get a new resolution and get the inspectors back in there. We shouldn't have attacked until there was sufficient evidence of an imminent threat or until we had more allies on board.

[NMDemDist2]

2. here is what Kerry actually said--spread it far and wide

snip>Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States.

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

[brainshrub]

7. There is little difference between giving "authority" and"carte blanche"

They mean the same thing.

What Kerry did in this statement was create a classic case of C.Y.O.A. (Cover Your Own Ass)

[HootieMcBoob]

17. the problem is

he said that in the middle of a really long address in the Senate. The people out there who are swing voters don't know that. There's no way they're going to read that address. The surrogates who are going on television need to be able to answer that question in a succinct way that resonates with the voters who are watching television. The same thing with the $87 billion dollars. These are softballs that should be belted out of the park each time but ever time I've seen it asked all I see are three quick whiffs and it's back to the dugout for the Democrat. The voters scratch their heads and don't have a satisfactory answer to the question so it remains an open issue. The answers need to be able to close the book on further thought on this question in the voters minds. Why is this not happening. Get these people all on the same page now!

[NMDemDist2]

19. give me three bullet point answers

flip-flop
87 billion
IRW

[stavka]

29. Bullet Points

Sure does ---

Made a mistake ----

"Isn't that the International Revolutionary Workers?" - I'm against their extreme positions ---

[ContinentalOp]

36. 3 Talking Bullet Point answers...

These are not exactly succinct talking points but I thought I'd give them a shot for fun...

Flip-Flop:
The president's team is good at devising cutesy slogans like "flip flop". Perhaps if the administration put as much effort into planning their military adventures as they did into these buzz-words, our troops might be home by now.

87 Billion:
Yes, Kerry voted against the 87 Billion dollars for Haliburton. This bill was the perfect example of how Bush serves those who support him financially. Kerry on the other hand will financially support the men and women who serve our country by restoring veteran benefits and combat pay to pre-Bush levels, and ultimately bringing the troops home.

Iraq War Resolution:
Kerry did make a mistake here. He voted to trust Bush with the responsibility to do the right thing in Iraq and this trust was broken. Hopefully the American people won't make this same mistake in November.

[sandnsea]

3. Hillary actually voted FOR the war

As did Leiberman and a few other Democrats. Other Democrats saw it as a vote for war and voted against it. Others, like Kerry, voted for what it actually said, war if all other options had failed. The anti-war people insist it was a vote for war and you'll never convince them otherwise. In the meantime, they're framing the debate again because Bush, himself, said it wasn't a vote for war at the time of the vote. He gets away with lying and distorting the whole thing because we can't get everybody on the same page... again. And then people blame Kerry. *sigh*

[emulatorloo]

13. Self deleted - wrong place /t

[Zhade]

34. It was the same resolution. How can two people vote "yes" differently?

Hillary actually voted FOR the war...As did Leiberman and a few other Democrats. Other Democrats saw it as a vote for war and voted against it.

Clearly, then, the IWR was about going to war to most of Congress. If Hillary and Lieberman voted for what they saw as a resolution to take us to war, and others voted against it because they too saw it as a resolution to take us to war, then it was a resolution to take us to war in all their eyes.



Others, like Kerry, voted for what it actually said, war if all other options had failed.

What it essentially said was "Here, b*sh, we trust you to do the right thing. We'll let you rattle America's saber, but you have to promise to follow our exact instructions. Even though we're giving you full authority to - at your sole discretion - decide when to go to war, Congress hopes that you won't decide to go to war."

If Kerry didn't want war, then he trusted b*sh. Big mistake, especially given that b*sh has Middle East advisors like Michael Leeden, a pardoned criminal from Iran-Contra, a case which Kerry helped investigate! Knowing Kerry's past fights against guys like b*sh's crew, why in HELL did Kerry trust this guy?



The anti-war people insist it was a vote for war and you'll never convince them otherwise.

Based on your own words above, it appears the majority of Congress believed it was a vote for war and voted according to that perception.



In the meantime, they're framing the debate again because Bush, himself, said it wasn't a vote for war at the time of the vote.

Let me say this as succinctly as possible:

b*sh is a liar.

He's always been a liar.

We've know he's a liar in office since he STOLE it.

Kerry knew he was a liar, or else Kerry was blind.

It's a problem to get everyone on the same page when the page keeps being rewritten by those wanting to excuse Kerry's vote.

Hey, all he has to say is, "I was wrong to vote for the war. I want us out as soon as possible. I'm sorry I gave that fucker any benefit of the doubt. He lied, and that's unforgivable. Help me correct my mistake by leading this country instead of lying to it."

He'd have my enthusiastic vote in a New York second if he did that.

[edhopper]

4. Yes,

all true. I'm asking something even simpler. Why allow the media to ask the "Vote for War" question. When asked why don't they say "You mean the authorization to go to the UN vote?". Or say "When was there a Declaration of War vote?".

[brainshrub]

5. Ummm... because he did.

Everyone who voted for that resolution knew what * was going to with it.

Kerry did the politically expedient thing by supporting it. If the war in Iraq was going well right now, he would be claiming that he supported it all along.

I'll vote for Kerry b/c he is not a Nazi like * is, but I'm not going to kid myself that he is an anti-war candidate. (Or that he is going to do anything about the strangle-hold the corporate war-machine has on American politics.)

[edhopper]

12. And yet

no Dems mention that * promised many things before going to war, including a UN Security Council vote and re-neg on nearly all his promises. But allow the repukes to say that Kerry's vote was the reason we went to war.

[emulatorloo]

14. Poor George Bush, that mean John Kerry made him invade Iraq

Poor George Bush wanted diplomacy to work, but John Kerry said to hell w that!

Poor George wanted the inspectors to finish their work, but John Kerry told Bush to pull them out!

Poor George Bush wanted to work with our European Allies, but John Kerry told Bush to screw 'em!

[edhopper]

15. Cute, satirical response

why don't I hear this kind of thing from the Dems?

[stavka]

27. The DNC is doing pretty much everything it can....

To both win the election while not giving anything to the bulk of the Democratic Party, and certainly ignoring any progressive positions.

It's Kerry's election to lose, and he's doing a bang up job of it.

For me he, is that ham sandwich that I'd vote for over Bush.

He will be the first candidate I don't like that will get my vote in my life.

[buycitgo]

6. If Kerry loses, THIS is why

As each day passes, our surrogates continue to LOSE bigtime on the most important talking points, ones which are easy to counteract, like the one you mention and the one about the 87 billion (bush threatens to veto his own bill over VETERANS' benefits!)

Also, the missing votes in the Senate

ALL they have to do is mention that Bush spends more than HALF his tme as president either on vacation or speaking at fundraisers

how many times have you heard a dem mention THAT one?

huh?

[childslibrarian]

8. You are so right

Our side needs talking points. As with teaching, repetition is the key with most voters....

[brainshrub]

9. Here's why:

Most politicians spend most of their time on fundraisers.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. I've been wondering about that, too.

Are the leaders of the Democratic party (Senators, Representatives, Govs.) out there speaking, but not getting media attention, or are they just not working it?

And when they do get out there, why aren't they solidly on message? The Repubs. do this well -- sickenly well, I have to say. But damn, you know what's going to come out of their mouths each morning before they even speak! Then you see our guys pfumpfering around...

This is so very serious, and we need to be so very serious about it!

[buycitgo]

33. this has been going on for DECADES

ever since Reagan

the image preceded the talking points

they took it simply, by employing image over words

just read On Bended Knee for the explanation

media went along only too willingly, and it's been ever thus

[Zhade]

35. Hertsgaard's a great storyteller.

Just read The Eagle's Shadow. Really interesting book, being written before, during, and right after 9/11.

Gotta read OBK. Thanks for reminding me!

:D

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Why do Dems allow the media and all the repukes to say he voted against

the $87 billion to help our troops? NO ONE EVER, EVER sets them straight. :grr:

[H2O Man]

16. I agree that he did.

I'm a Kerry supporter, but I think that the vote was a vote for war. I don't think that anyone took it to be anything other than a blank check for Bush to go to war.

The truth is that our federal government stopped going by the constitutionally mandated procedure for our nation going to war after WW2. The single best book on this is Arthur Schlesinger's "The Imperial Presidency." The fault lies with both political parties, and stretches back over 50 years.

By the steady increase in presidential powers not granted or intended by the constitutional balance of powers (which was only temporarily put in check post-Nixon, but which increased with Reagan) -- and it all centers on the ability of a president to control the war powers --we find ourselves with not merely an imperial president, but a revolutionary president.

I support Kerry, and do some work every day to increase his chances of being elected. But I understand that we need to go farther than that. We need to understand exactly what the congress is for. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate need to change, too. It's not enough for any senator --including Kerry or Clinton -- to pretend they did anything other than allow Bush the ability to go to war on entirely his own terms.

[HootieMcBoob]

18. You're right waterman

and that's an extremely important point that needs to be taken up once Kerry is elected President and we have a more friendly congress. The problem facing us now though is getting Democrats on the same page when answering questions put to them by the media that frame the debate in favor of our candidate. Kerry's long address to congress put the responsibility on handling the issue squarely in Bush's hands. Bush blew it in a major way. That is what needs to be pounded relentlessly by Democrats when asked the question on television. We are not being "politically" savvy and if we don't get our act together soon we may not be able to make the fixes we need to make in the future.

[sandnsea]

21. Well Bush didn't call it a vote for war

Democrats have a perfect opportunity to hold Bush accountable for what he actually SAID in October 2002. But oh hell no, that would undermine the left's rant that Bush always planned war and we can't have that. No matter that by reminding people that Bush said it wasn't a vote for war then, and says now that it was, that we can expose the lying little sack of shit. But nooooo, the left's self-indulgent posturing is more important than holding the little fuck accountable. I've been pissed about this since Howard Dean started this shit last year, I knew this was how it was going to end up, Bush was going to get away with his war lies because the left is more interested in beating up Democrats than beating up Bush.

BTW, *I* never thought it was a vote for war and most people I know never thought it was a vote for war. We thought it was exactly what Bush said it was, a vote to pressure the UN to get inspectors back into Iraq, find any WMD, and expose any and all of Iraq's weapons programs. Bush circumventing the entire process AFTER the vote is what we should be screaming about. The fact that we're arguing the vote instead means THEY framed the debate.. ONE MORE TIME.

[Darranar]

20. Because he did...

the bill gave "President" Bush the power to invade Iraq without re-consulting Congress. Without that futher consultation, the rest of the bill was worthless and ineffective - as it turned out to be.

[stavka]

22. Kerry voted for the war......

Every Senator knew that was the war vote - and Kerry chickenshitted out on doing the right thing....

Unlike my Senators... and quite a few more.

[EST]

23. Question-

Is there any cogent argument, at this point, that would soften your stance on this issue?

[stavka]

25. My stance? It's a yes or no question - and he voted yes.

Had we found WMD and an Alqeda connection it wouldn't even be an issue for him - but we didn't and it is.

It's a fact - unless Kerry can dig up a group "Shrimpboat Fishermen for Truth" to say he really didn't vote the way he did...in fact he was in the Air Guard at the time or something....

I'm still voting for Kerry - he is by far the lesser of two evils.

[BillZBubb]

24. Because he DID vote for the war.

This is a case where both sides are right. Kerry voted for the authorization that allowed the war. That is a fact. There then was a war. That is a fact. Therefore, a not illogical deduction is that Kerry voted for the war.

Now, we know that technically that may be true, but what Kerry meant by his vote was not an endorsement of the war, but just to give Bush* leverage. Kerry fucked up. He should have known exactly what Bush* would do when given a green light.

Kerry fucked up hugely again when he said he would still vote the same way knowing what we know now. He shot the legs out of any possible defense. There is no recovery on this issue. NONE.

Fighting this is a loser for Kerry. He's made himself an uncomfortably bed and he'll have to sleep in it. You cannot refute the RW claim with a few sentences, it is too nuanced; therefore, Kerry and the Democrats need to spend their valuable airtime on other winning issues.

[stavka]

26. Well put.

[greatauntoftriplets]

28. Extremely well stated.

DU can talk itself blue in the face about how Kerry's responses are "nuanced", but that means diddly squat to the Joe and Jane Sixpacks out there who constitute the vast majority of the American electorate -- when they bother to vote, that is.

[Nicholas_J]

30. That is pretty much correct

If you read the act itself. THe act did not authorize war, It was an act granting the authority for the president to use military force only after all other methods of dealing with Saddam Hussein failed.

Unfortunately at the time of the vote, Howard Dean was the media's darling, and considered defacto, the eventual nominee. It was Dean who labeled the vote a "blank check for War" which the media picked up on, and then made a reality, because no matter what anyone points out about the act now, the beleif has been inserted into the minds of the general public that the vote was a vote for the war, and the Name, Iraq War Resolution, or the acronym IWR has ben applied to an act that in no way shape or form an authorization of War by congress.That is to say, it aint a declaration of War. What was essentially a piece of legislation that authorized the eventual use of military force only after peaceful and diplomatic measures were proven to be useless and failures, has been unfortunately turned into a means for Repubicans to accuse Kerry of Flip Flopping on the issue, while nothing is further from the truth.

[Zhade]

31. Something else to consider, as well...

Either everyone who voted for the IWR voted for war, or no one who voted for the IWR voted for war.

Yet I see a few people here blaming the Republicans for voting for war, while vehemently denying Kerry or any Dem voted for the war in the same breath.

Can't have it both ways, folks. That's called hypocrisy.

Either hold all accountable who voted for war, or give them all a pass on voting for the IWR. You don't get to pick and choose who to blame and who to absolve without losing all credibility in your arguments.

[nagbacalan]

32. This truly cries out for clarification by Kerry and his surrogates!