For everyone who still thinks Kerry supported Iraq invasion

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/6351964.htm?1c

Virtually every paper ran this same story.


"The president promised to build the international coalition, to do this as a matter of last resort, to go through the United Nations process and respect it," he said. "And in the end, it is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently. And I think in that regard, the American people were let down."



Kerry said he voted for the resolution with the understanding that the administration would build an international coalition before attacking Saddam Hussein's forces.

"It seems quite clear to me that the president circumvented that process, shortchanged it and did not give full meaning to the words 'last resort,'" Kerry said in a 20-minute conference call with reporters.


Okay so now as you can see in this time period before the war took place Kerry simply took the allegations that Iraq was a threat seriously. But he was obviously not in support of rushing off to war.

Okay any good leader or politician will take such threats or alleged information of threats seriously and will act on them.

Kerry's position clearly shows that he authorized military force ONLY if Bush gained UN support and this would only be accomplished if evidence was presented that Iraq posed a clear threat to America and the world.

But as we know Bush LIED and did NOT go through with his promise of building a coalition, therefore Kerry fires back saying "hey dorko you promised you'd only go to war if you built a coalition! I didn't vote for you to do this! you're breaking your promise!"

Bush says "Shuddup boy, I can do what I want, I'm the fuckin president here so what I say goes hey YOU authorized it so live with it!"

(Dialouge purely fictional written by me)

Thus we have right here how Kerry authorized war ONLY AS A LAST RESORT and Bush and his administration breaking their promise to go to war as a last resort.


This better be the last time I have to say this. I am so tired of hearing people repeat the same crap that you can hear spouted on Free Republic.

Kerry acted the way a good concerned leader would've acted. He took the allegations seriously because it's our country's security we are talking about one way or another whether or not it's a true threat, or the president authorizing a war that puts Americans in a bind and open to future threats.

The Bush administration lied and twisted Kerry's vote and others who voted to authorize war on the false principles which were promised by Bush, and went to war anyway.

IF a threat existed... Where's the impeachment for Bush going against congressional/senate permission?

Republicans control the House & Senate. I don't know what it is people don't understand about that.

And no one even tried?
Or perhaps that bill Kerry voted for made what Bush did legal?

If Bush had chosen to drop nuclear bombs on Iraq and destroy the entire country in one fell swoop, would you blame that on Congress too?

Or if Congress approved a resolution that stated something like "by any means necessary", why would I not?
Edit:
Here we go, from post # 23:
"(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --"

Now, Congress and Senators could have asked for that line to be removed or changed, however since they did not, if Bush happened to Nuke Iraq a few dozen times, some blame would lie with Congress and the Senate.

That's the nuttiest logic I've ever heard in my life. No, the United States of America does not expect their President to use nuclear weapons just because he wants to. Just like we don't expect a President to lie about intelligence, circumvent the UN and international community, and wage a war just because he wants to. Congress is not responsible for this mess in Iraq. George W. Bush is, him and his Administration. I know you really, really, really, want to hate Democrats. But using the same kind of mental contortions to justify hating Democrats that the right wing nuts use, doesn't make you any more right than they are.

Ok, first of all, Bush is a politician, and I don't trust politicians to have serving the country as their first priority. Secondly, Bush didn't do all this stuff "just because he wants to", he probably had financial motivations.
Congress is responsible for whatever they sign. Would you sign a contract stating that some not very trustworthy person (like a politician) can take money out of a shared bank account you have with your family, but only if they really needed it? And if your account was emptied, you would then tell the people you share it with that none of what happened is your fault?

Where did you get this interesting idea that I want to hate the Democrats?? I'm merely upset that these last 3 years they've had no spine to stand up for what's right and to try to protect me from dumbo up in the whitehouse.

Don't you read the papers? People constantly have their bank accounts emptied because of unscrupulous people and when it happens, no, it isn't their fault.

Democrats had been trying to get various sections of the Patriot Act passed for years, Republicans blocked their efforts. Sibel Edmunds said that the worst of the 9/11 investigations can be found in following the money. The exact thing Democrats had been trying to get passed, John Kerry in particular. People are so stuck on a couple of provisions that have been abused that they don't see we ought to have the 9/11 security issue in the bag because we're the ones who had the right plans to protect the country all along. But nooooo, the left just can't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to see it. The Patriot Act really could have been implemented without all the abuses, but instead of going after John Ashcroft and this Administration, our beloved left goes after Democrats who were right all along.

And NCLB. Dennis Kucinich voted for the damned thing too. Funny how he never mentions that. Guess he wasn't any better at figuring out dumbo than anybody else was. And another thing, Dennis called for getting inspectors back into Iraq too, he just never had a plan on how to do it. Just like his UN in plan; there's no troops to PUT IN.

No, I'm just a little fed up with rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric and no basis in fact and no reason behind it.

I don't care who the President is. A responsible Senator can't vote no on national security because the President is from the opposing party. Republicans did that all through the 90's and I would think anybody could see the results of it. 9/11.

If you knowingly give access to an account you share with other people to someone who you know has a decent chance of intentionally emptying it and dissapearing, none of the blame should fall on you.

Do you expect the people you shared that account with to trust you with money in the future?
Please answer this question.

And I really had nothing more than speculation to base my opinion on, yes, I'd give access to my account to someone. And if THEY robbed me, THEY are responsible. That's the way it works.

How would the people you shared that account with feel? How would you feel if someone you shared this bank account with did this instead of you? Would you trust this person's financial judgement in the future and keep sharing bank accounts with them?

People make judgment calls all the time. Once in a while somebody slips by you and it costs alot of pain and agony. I'm 46 years old, I've had to live with the consequences of other people's bad judgment calls on numerous occasions. That is just the way it is. Most people do the best they can.

The fact is, nobody knew what Saddam did or didn't have in 2002. Saddam was connected with a variety of terrorist groups, although not al qaeda. The whole situation was creating alot of problems in the ME, all kinds of problems. Changing the situation, correctly, could have been very helpful over all. Putting inspectors back in to find out what was going on, peacekeepers in the north and south after we found no WMD, pressuring change from there. It could have been a completely different result. And again, even Dennis Kucinich supported getting inspectors back into Iraq.

Bush wanted a war. We now know he was making secret plans for this war in Nov, 2001. It's his war. He wanted it. He's a monster. Americans do not expect their President to be a monster. Look at the number of people who still won't believe it. I don't hold any particular Republican responsible for voting for him, I don't hold Nader people responsible for not voting for Gore. HE is responsible for himself. Look at how he gets away with it, he's got the whole country divided into tiny factions. And the people who would still rather hold Congress more responsible than Bush are doing exactly what he wants them to do. Put the focus ANYWHERE except on him. Hope you're enjoying helping him win again.

Some however should be.
Anyway, back to my hypothetical situation, so this friend knew there was a decent chance that the money could be stolen, gives access to the account anyway, the money actually is stolen, and you trust this friend with more money?
I'm not talking about a tiny chance here... The friend you shared the account with knew there was a 50-50 chance the money would be stolen, yet gave access anyway. You do not hold this friend responsible for making a very bad decision, and trust him with more money later?

If it was 50/50 that it was trust whatever choice or die, I really couldn't argue with them. They made the choice they thought was right. And it wasn't 50/50, I'd say it was 65/35, because we just do not expect American Presidents to act the way George Bush has. Not when it comes down to war.

to limit the power of the executive branch of US government? Wasn't that the basic idea of the Constitution? Checks and balances?

He had a responsibility to check all sources of information before deciding there was actually a threat, seeing how lives depended on the decision to go to war, and he should have found out what Bush was saying was all crap, not actual evidence, as many people knew before the war.

Dennis wanted inspectors back in Iraq because he didn't know what was there and what wasn't. So I don't know how people who had no access to intelligence can say they knew something that the most active anti-war Congressman didn't say he knew. Because it's about the lives of people all over the world, not one individual Senator or Congressman's life. It's about having to consider the consequences, either way, of one's vote. Now if you want to talk about what we do and don't know, we absolutely DO know what George Bush will do for the next four years. So every person who wants to talk about Congress being responsible for unknowns, they better look in the mirror and take responsibilty for the known. Anything they do that helps get George Bush (re)elected, and the consequences, is on their head for certain.

He made a decision, knowing it had risks, and he is not responsible for his own action?
He made a choice which increased the possibility of today's situation actually happening. Who is responsible for this choice?

Which is why he has said that, based on the information he had, voting the way he voted was the correct thing to do.

That vote does not give a President of the United States the right to conduct a war in an illegal fashion. It doesn't give those contractors or the CIA or the MI or any of those soldiers over there the right to torture prisoners. It wouldn't give Bush the right to drop a nuclear bomb, just because he wanted to. And it didn't give him the right to lie us into this war. Put the blame where it belongs, right square on the head of George W. Bush.

That he accepts partial responsibility for the beginning of the war, and therefore the US military deaths and Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the war, and all the other side effects like Osama still being free because military resources were diverted into Iraq.

Also the paper Kerry signed permits the president to basically use nukes, if he determines it's the best course of action. Maybe the bill could've been more specifically written. Like instead of saying the president could go in alone only as a last resort, it should've said he can't go in without UN support period. It was up to Kerry and others to demand those lines be added, and not to vote for the bill if they weren't.

impeachment coming from this corrupted Republican Party. They are the rubber stamping cowards who ought to be checking this idiot savant. Or maybe they approve the agenda of this pResident and will do anything to keep it intact.

An attempt could have been made. At least some media attention could have been attracted.

Have you seen or heard mention of impeachment in any corporate news story? I haven't.

I listened to Paula Zahn on CNN twice tonight try to twist Joe Wilson's interview away from the idea that someone in the WH committed treason to:

(1) You are working for John Kerry...isn't that coloring your perspective?
(2) Don't you have an axe to grind with this administration?

Our fight is just not with the Republicans in power, it's with the corporate media who has a vested interest in maintaining the political status quo.

I'd like to know too. I think your question can be answered the same way the question as to why Disney won't distribute Moore's new movie Farenheigt 9/11

They are scared of Bush because of his influence and power.

the Republicans in charge of the House.

Please work for your local candidates this year.

Be a poll watcher, carry a camera, speak up.

Don't let them steal this one!

the House?

If you said Republicans you got a price

Who controls what reaches the floor for discusion?

Delay and Hastert, last time I checked they are Republicans.

The chances of Articles of Impeachmment being introlduced are anywhere from none to zero.

Moreover, last time I checked Kerry is a U.S. Senator, not a Representative. The Senate convicts, but does not indict, that is the job of the House.

Now that does not mean you should not pressure your rep to Introduce the Articles, but don't hold your breath, it will not happen.

Republican majority = no impeachment

increasingly pissed people who are getting insulted and assaulted from a very nonchalant and seemingly uncaring group of ........ well you get the picture. I hope the republicans are secure with the choice of Humpty Dumpty for their candidate

...our next president. Bush shall be crushed by his own corruption. Democrats need to get out and vote for Kerry. We can beat the republicans.

This better be the last time I have to say this.

You look so good with the whip...:D

Look I don't mean to disrespect anyone here I love most of you knuckleheads on here, but it just drives me nuts that people keep up with the whole "oh well we can't support Kerry cause he supported the Iraq war dammit"

Why would Kerry believe bush* when it was obvious to almost everyone what was going to happen was already scripted out. What other dumb fuck is Kerry gonna believe???

If he trusted Bush he would've just let him do what he wanted.

Because Kerry did NOT trust Bush, he insisted that Bush go to the UN and build a coalition and to do that he would have to produce evidence that Saddam had WMD and was a potential threat.

So on THAT principle Kerry says "yea if the UN finds weapons, if they find evidence that there's a threat and if we can convince the world that Saddam is a threat through evidence of inspector's findings, THEN yea let's oust the bastard"

You really can't get anymore fair than that. I mean from his position he really did all a good leader would do, he takes a serious accusation seriously, but doesn't give up all his cards and demands that action be taken only if it is 110% right.

a country that was a mess after 9/11. elections up. may not mean a whole lot to you, and may feel that all should have had balls and said no, but they were fed info that the weapons and possibly nuclear there at the time, there was a whole other feel to the world then. the democrats did not have the power. you dont have the power, hey, you hold on til you can get it. you know i knew bush was a liar, adn as i listened to powell (he is the one i watched and said he wouldnt lie, there must be something) and then listening to bush and the nuclear, i said, he must know something we dont know. cant lie about this and get away with it.

well when you are a liar like bush, as i have learned since, you get away with it by getting what you want, not whether you are caught in the lie. i am not that type of liar so i dont get it. i would never what anyone to knowi lied

How infantile. It was not only Kerry's job but his responsibility to provide a check to the power of the executive branch. He choked. Promises schmomises.

Not saying I won't vote for him. But it was very poor judgement.

think the vote hamstrings Kerry's criticism on Iraqi quagire. While I suspect that Kerry's reasoning for voting for the Resolution may be for more nefarious reasons, I think he opted to support the Institution of the President. Bush claimed that Hussein had WMD and was intent on immnent use. He also said he would use the mandate to continue the UN inspections. He lied on both accounts.

Bush chose to break that trust for his narrow personal economic/political interests....and he has damaged the Office by destroying the trust between the Executive and Legislative beanches. Future Presidents will be hamstrung in protecting our national interests because of Bush's precedent in violating the spirit of that Resolution.

like the Coulter forum. You are going to have to do better than that to prove it to extremists on that side, considering Kerry also said:

"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Careful ;)

them how to vote.

I retract my statement and apologize because I do not wish to start the flames against a n00b like me. I will go back and edit.

I'm voting for Kerry because I live in the swingstate of Az and because I do not want Bush to serve another 4 years.

I could see voting for Nadar if you're in an obvious Dem state like Cali or NY so you can feel good about your "conscience"

For me voting for Kerry is voting for my own conscience.

:thumbsup:

Dean was also my choice of a candidate. But there is no way I will vote for Nader.

Bush absolutely has to go.

It is your vote, but wouldn't it be horrible to experience another four years of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rice, etc. would it not?

go ahead. I happen to think a man should stand by his principles despite the consequences. I may be throwing my vote away according to you, but I will at least be able to look myself in the mirror for the next four years.

If you are a Senator and POTUS presents evidence (ie Government intelligence) of an imminent threat that "the enemey" was going to drop WMD on the US do you:

(1) Call the President a liar and hope your constituents understand if you were wrong (assuming it was not your constituents that were incinerated).

Or:

(2) Assume a President would not use the Office to lie to the US Senate and take the country to war for personal reasons (petty/economic/political).

I think most would opt for (2). I know I wouldn't have trusted Bush, but then again, I'm not a US Senator.

thrust to maybe hit Israel, let alone America, one might think that dropping WMD on the US might be called into question.

These other facts might call into question the threat that Iraq posed:

2. Effectively cut into 3 partitions by no-fly zones.
3. Surrounded by militarily superior neighbors.
4. Crippling sanctions were in effect.
5. It's military(?) infrastructure was bombed continuosly for 10 years.
6. Such an attack would turn Iraq into glass.
7. Said constituents bombarded said Senator with "Vote NO" correspondence.

I mean this is what he voted for:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in order to --

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq.

If this were true, then at presenty, he is opposed to the war. He'd be for it, if it were done properly and legally. But since it wasn't done properly and legally, he's against it.

Well that's my position too! But John Kerry has never said anything like this. This is a fence-straddling revision. And a poor one at that.

All he's doing now is making me have a harder time holding my nose in November.

that much but all this spinning really makes me want to puke and tell Kerry to go to hell.

Kerry staffers reading this- he voted for the war, he stood behind his vote, he REFUSED to meet with Military Families Speak Out last summer and sent aides out to get us off his front door- tell your boy to STFU and be grateful for any antiwar vote he gets.

You have 2 choices. He either voted for IWR because he believe in the war he helped build up for 14 years or he voted for it because he was outsmarted by that idiot chimp. Take your pick. Neither is good. I would personally advise you to STFU about this issue.

want to ignore the context of his "pro-war" vote.

I guess it's like talking to a wall here. Either peopel want to ignore the context of the vote or they want to assume Bush outsmarted him.

Bush didn't outsmart Kerry. Bush LIED and ILLEGALLY used Kerry's vote to propel the war.

What could have been done about this? nothing because the repubs control everything therefore impeachment and a reckoning are out of the question.

Oh also I'LL be the one to decide as to when I STFU about the issue.

You and everyone else can play the whole "I hate Bush therefore everything he or his people say is a lie and I will be blind to everyone of his words"

Politicians cannot do that. Politicians cannot afford to take anything especially such a serious charge with a grain of salt. Kerry was distrusting of Bush's people to go to war, but because such a serious charge cannot be ignored he set the groundrules for his vote which I already laid out.

Then Bush took the vote, lied, got us into war end of story.

Bush LIED and ILLEGALLY used Kerry's vote to propel the war.

In other words, he outsmarted Kerry.

Amazingly enough, he outsmarted no one here and there is enough evidence from people like Scott Ritter to prove that Kerry was NOT outsmarted, that he deliberately voted for IWR. There are thousands of DU threads from that time to attest to that.

Like I said, Kerry campaign take your pick. I advise shutting up. No one is in the mood for Kerry's 'nuances' right now. His "nuances" have gotten thousands of people killed from Columbia to Palestine to Yugoslavia to Iraq.

If you are a Senator and POTUS presents evidence (ie Government intelligence) of an imminent threat that "the enemey" was going to drop WMD on the US do you:

(1) Call the President a liar and hope your constituents understand if you were wrong (assuming it was not your constituents that were incinerated).

Or:

(2) Assume a President would not use the Office to lie to the US Senate and take the country to war for personal reasons (petty/economic/political).

I think most would opt for (2). I know I wouldn't have trusted Bush, but then again, I'm not a US Senator.


You can sit there and complain like a teeny bopper and tell me to shut up all you want, it's not that simple in the world of politics as to say "He should've just just known it was a lie and told Bush to fuck off! but nooooo he was outsmarted!"

As I recall, I said 'Kerry campaign shut up'; if you are an official shill, please let me know know so I can ignore your posts- I HATE shills.

I said "Kerry campaign STFU". That would only apply to you if you are part of the campaign. Your choice.

Take your pick. Neither is good. I would personally advise you to STFU about this issue.

No I'm not a shill. I barely have time to do anything but study for this damn Microecon test. In fact that's what I'm gonna do now.

Look we're virtually on the same side here I imagine. Save your energy for someone who wants to see Bush re-elected not someone who when it all comes down to it wants to see Bush go down in flames come Nov.

I posted what I posted in the beginning because I got tired of the constant kerry bashing and the fact that the right LOVES the fact that we seem divided and unsupportive of Kerry. They are eating it up and all look like suckers to them.

I think Nadar is a good guy with good intentions over all but now is not his time, he has no chance, I have said from the beginning start with getting rid of Bush getting rid of the radical right, and eventually hopefully someday we can work our way towards the fight being between a guy like Kerry and a guy like Nadar with no Bush like figure to worry about.

But you gotta start small it doesn't happen overnight.

except that I can't overlook, can't excuse Kerry's support of imperialism.

Nader, by the way, is not my hero. He's not the reason I dislike Kerry.

I dislike Kerry because he vote for every single PNAC plank of the last 12 years. He went from hero to zero with me.

I am already resigned to the fact that I may die from asphyxiation just to make it to the polls in time to vote for him but I can't tolerate the apologetics about his IWR vote. He spent 14 years building up the WMD argument with the neo-cons and then several years of Clinton's presidency trying to push Clinton towards a war with Iraq.

It's time for Kerry to realize he is not dealing with a bloc of freeper votes. When he stands in the middle of the road, all people like me see is someone who's about to get run over. Not exactly inspiring.

Really hope you, and any lurking Kerry staffer, can understand. We're really, really pissed.

====

You're right. That's what I said to you. Sorry. It wasnt' directed at you. I'm just so tired of the shills here. But honestly, take out the TF and the advice is the same. I think Kerry supporters have NO idea of the harm that's being done with the spin on the IWR vote. We really, really are angry over it.

Thanks for being so polite.

Sorry about the teenie bopper crack, there's just only so much I can take before my NY sarcasm kicks in :)

Well you've got a beef and it's your opinion and you're obviously entitled to it. Maybe when I get some time I'll look into what you're talking about.

As it stands though right now I just want Bush out and obviously this race is going to be between Kerry and Bush. I just don't believe that Kerry could possibly be worse than Bush.

It's a dirty world politics and when we think we know a little about what's really going on, we find out that as Uncle Junior from the Sopranos says "we're so far behind in the race that we actually believe we're leading"

We'll see how things turn out though.

Take it easy now, relax watch a movie, hang out a with a bud or a loved one and talk about something else other than politics.

because Bush is so low-from-the-barrell. Don't think it doesn't hurt me. No politician has ever disappointed me as much as Kerry but I will most probably vote for him- I hae no choice- my back is against the wall. But he knowingly voted for IWR. My intelligence takes offense to being told that it's not his fault that his votes was misused. We all knew what Bush was.

Thanks. Hang out more. In less than one year from tracking these guys closely, your heart will probably be as broken as mine.

Too much information is a bad thing.

who voted against it? A reckless crew calling the prez a liar? Unconcerned with the possible incineration of their constituents? Devoid of the instincts of a "good concerned leader"?

Excellent work Tinoire!

something like this

"You've got brains in your head/feet in your shoes/you can steer yourself/anyway you choose".

Is Kerry a man or a mouse?

Bush has violated the American Constitution, and that he should really be impeached?

No...not YET he hasn't.....if you look closely he's saving his nukes (such as that one) I believe for closer to election time.

Kerry is being smart right now just jabbing away and letting Bush do all the hardcore ripping, Pretty soon Bush is going to run out of ammo and I'd say by July or August you're going to see a very different Kerry.

One that will go for the throat and surprise everyone just before election time..

This is what he voted for:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in order to --

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq.


* just did what the authorization to use force empowered him to do.

Glad to see you still here Tin keeping these spin maniacs from completely rewriting history!

Kerry absolutely has no excuse for his vote in fact i would respect him more if he stood up for it instead he tries over and over to weasel out of it. Lucky for him most of the american public wasnt really paying attention when this stuff went down so a great majority of them will buy this crap.

Unfortunately like you I was paying attention and his continued weaseling on this only make it that much harder for me to hold my nose and vote for him in november. I will vote for him because bush is just that bad but...

What really keeps me up at night is the idea that in 2008 if he is president I will be forced from the democratic party because I absolutely will not vote for him again.

and apparently Colin Powell looked people on the hill in the eye and promised them that EVERYTHING POSSIBLE would be done to avoid going to war.

Seriously. the only thing he would have done differently is go to the UN. We'd still have insurgents and stuff. nothing would be different.

I've been saying the same thing for awhile.

I had no idea that we had so many single-issue voters on the left. I thought that was reserved for the idiots on the right. I suspect that it is an artifact of the vicious primary we had. I think a lot of Dean supporters are still bitter about losing and secretly (or not so secretly) want Kerry to lose to prove that he isn't more 'electable' than Dean.

I've got more than one problem with Kerry.

He voted YES...ergo he supported it. Kerry supported the illegitimate assholes war and should have fucking known this piece of shit is a liar. Every Democrat on the Hill should have voted against it but....

And I don't buy it now. Here's why.

First off, if Kerry was actually buying into Bush's spin, then quite frankly he is too stupid to be president. Millions in the US and around the world saw through the pretention of coalition building, and were smart enough to realize that Bushboy was going to go to war, coalition or no. If we, without the benefit of a staff or Congressional reports, could figure out what the real deal was, why couldn't Kerry? Is he truly that foolish, or as is more likely the case, did he cast his vote out of political expediency with one eye on his upcoming presidential run?

Secondly, by casting his vote as he did, he failed in his primary job as a Senator, and that is to represent his constituents. At the time of the vote, messages to Congress were running 280 to 1 against going to war. The majority of people polled were against the war and in favor of letting the inspectors complete their job. And yet Kerry chose to ignore this massive outcry against the pending war, and instead voted for the IWR. How can we trust a man has demonstrably proven that he will not fullfil the basic requirements of his job, which is to represent his constituents?

The third choice is that Kerry is simply a political animal, one who will base his vote on the political expediency of the moment. In other words, his moral compass changes according to his political needs of the moment. If this is the case, then Kerry is an amoral political animal with so little grounding in ethics and personal morality that he is willing to sacrifice anything on the alter of political ambition and expediancy. Personally, I think that this is the true face of Kerry, and an ugly one at that. We have had too many people like this holding office, which is what has gotten America into the ugly position that we are in. What is truly needed is a person with the guts to say to hell with whether or not I'm elected again, I'm going to do what is RIGHT! Sad to say, it appears Kerry is not this person.

You can try and spin this issue however you want, but it still boils down to three issues, that either Kerry is too stupid for office, that he fails to perform the basic duties of his job, or that he is an amoral political animal who is willing to sacrifice anything, just so long as he gets the votes. Stupid, lazy, or amoral, no wonder Kerry supporters feel the need to spin and obfuscate on this issue.

I will vote for Kerry because he is not the total abysmal failure that George Bush is. How's that for a high standard?

And I was for the war in the same sense that Kerry was.

I was lied to, I guess the "purists" don't want our votes, because we are too stupid, manipulated and or weak to have believed what everyone was telling us about WMD.

I still think Scott Ritter is scummy, even if he was right about WMD.

I admitted I was wrong about the war, extremely, stupidly wrong. I have no problem admitting it. I think we should withdraw immediately.

I saw Hillary Clinton defending her vote the other day. Saddam Hussein could have been a threat to us, it just turns out he wasn't. I am not a pacifist and I think rotten tryants should be brought down.

As my husband said, it could have been a win-win. Saddam is gone and Bush is fucked. But now we are creating nothing worhthwhile but death and terrorism. We need to withdraw. If Kerry doesn't get that, I'll be out protesting this war until we are out.