Reply #17: To a degree you are right about being skeptical about information [View All]

One always has to be skeptical to the information you are given.

But do you remember the French President (de Gaulle I think) who believed the US that there were missiles in Cuba? When asked whether he wanted to see proof he replied that he doesn't need prove because he believed them. He had trust in them that they wouldn't lie about an important issue like that.
I see Kerry's decision in a similar light.

I repeat myself, but the political system can only work when there are certain crucial topics where all parties can work together.
A topic like that is national security. A Senator needs to have some trust in the Admin when it's about securing the country. And a Senator also needs to have trust that they don't get presented fake intelligence.
You know, we can sit at home, pretty safe, because there are people who do make the decisions for us concerning our security. They have a far greater responsibility than you and me. When we are wrong, we can say oops and it most likely it didn't affect anyone else.
When the lawmakers screw up (well like Iraq), it can affect millions.
We are all smarter now, but politicians had to make a decision back then and many relied on the information they were given. They believed in a grave threat and they were concerned about the well being of the American people, the Bush gang excluded of course.
What they didn't consider was, that the Bush Admin would lie in such an irresponsible way.

As much as I was against that war, I can forgive Kerry that vote.
Kerry cared about the American people, the Bush gang didn't.
Kerry cared about the servicemen, the Bush gang didn't.