John Kerry the War Supporter

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

"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. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack."


This is part of the speech in October 2002. I think he has been very sound in his criticizm. I think many DU'ers give him a bum rap.

As clear as that is, I'm sure some will misconstrue it

how the language stands up to the vote? If he did not believe that Iraq yet met that threat... why, save political expedience, did he vote to give that level of authority (not quite blank check - but to an admin that has already demonstrated a likely hood to use it as a blank check)?

It seems quite contradictory.

Not sure in the end how I will vote - and it will not be the final determinate of my primary vote - but it does play a role.

misleading him and the rest of the House and Senate. If he was pouding his fists on the table on Russerts show or making a special announcement for CNN to cover. I just might forgive him........

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3002820.stm>

Human intelligence

"He misled every one of us," Senator John Kerry said, claiming this was one reason he was running for the presidency.

"I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally," Mr Kerry said, speaking in new Hampshire."

Because my guy, Howard Dean, may not make it, and I want a good alternative.

Can you honestly tell me -- and this is a question, not a taunt -- that Kerry is willing to say now that the war was a mistake and we should never have done it? I'm willing to believe he was lied to. We were all lied to.

So, if you can show me a quote where he says something like that, I have no problem with him. I'm still for Dean, though. :)

""He misled every one of us," Senator John Kerry said, claiming this was one reason he was running for the presidency.

"I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally," Mr Kerry said, speaking in new Hampshire."

Does that sound like an endorsement of Bush*'s invasion?

We have had the media on the side of this administration so the case not to go to war was not presented except for those who were depicted as lunatics and unpatriotic for not supporting Bush. The climate in this country was maddening. Even amongst all the protesting, they were going to go to war whether we liked it or not. I think now, since the situation has exploded in their faces and the lies are finally being exposed... "Bush and crew" look like the fools and misleaders. Sometimes you have to give people enough room to hang themselves.

a repudation of Bush's lies, but not a repudation of the war.

Why did he vote for a bill which allowed the President to invade whenever he felt like it?

Why did he support the war that Bush waged despite Bush cutting short inspections?

Why did he support Bush "disarming" Saddam through invasion when it was not a last resort?

*crickets*

People continuously post exactly what Kerry's position is. What did he ever say that gave you the idea that he supported Bush going to war whenever he wanted without inspections or only as a last resort? Full quotes, in context.

This statement proves what an unreformable politician Kerry is.

'I am supporting this resolution authorizing war even though there is no truth to the acusations as best we can tell.' IS THIS WHAT FUCKING DEMOCRATS CALL STANDING UP TO BUSH?!?!?!? NO FUCKING WONDER WE LOSE ELECTIONS.

Standing up to Bush means saying NO and questioning him, not testing polls and writing speeches that come down ON BOTH FUCKING SIDES OF THE ISSUE. Read carefully, he says he is against the resolution and is voting for it, but doesn't mean that he supports the president and his intentions. Oh really, than what the fuck does it mean?


Look, I am sure he means well and seems like a nice enough guy, and might even make a good ambassador or Secretary of something. But look, we are in a fucking CRISIS in this country, and this is what you point to when showing your candidate has balls?! That he said 'I don't agree but ok.' THAT IS NOT STANDING UP. THAT IS SHEEPISH, WEAK SHIT. THIS IS WHAT GOT US HERE.

FUCK BUSH. FUCK KERRY. Unite behind our only choice. Howard Dean.

though maybe not your choice of words. ;-)

It does seem to me that Kerry shoulda known that the Simain couldn't be trusted, knowing what he must about the way the BFEE operates.

Ok, so none of the standards for war with Iraq were met but Kerry trusted the Bush Cartel and voted yes. Hard to believe someone as smart as Kerry would be foolish enough to trust any of those thugs.....but.....he can point to his "yes" vote for the swing voters in the general......that's the feeling I get on this.

Would I vote for him if he got the nom? Probably. I do like his record from back in the day but I've not been too impressed during the reign of the boy king. To say the least.

Julie

said that Bush* was lying BEFORE the resolution vote? If Kerry should have known, then isn't the same true of Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, and the others who didn't vote for the resolution?

Not one of them said what they "shoulda known" BEFORE the vote.

that Kerry trusted Bush. Does that mean he suspected Bush was lying? Kerry claims he trusted Bush, doesn't he? Isn't that the premise of what he says? The evidence wasn't there at the time but he trusted Bush would act responsibly?

I should think that Kerry supporters who are (rightfully) very proud of his BCCI investigations might think it odd he would consider trusting anyone from the BFEE to do the right thing. Ever.

I believe in fact that Senator Kerry's distinguished work in the past and the vast knowledge he no doubt has puts him in a unique position to know very well that trusting the Bush Cartel to make the right/responsible call where great wealth/much oil is concerned is a bad idea.

Perhaps I give him too much credit? Should I have had lower expectations?

Julie

Dean also said he trusted Bush* on Iraq's WMD's.

I believe in fact that Senator Kerry's distinguished work in the past and the vast knowledge he no doubt has puts him in a unique position to know very well that trusting the Bush Cartel to make the right/responsible call where great wealth/much oil is concerned is a bad idea

For many years, Kerry has been giving speeches expressing his opinion that Saddam was trying to acquire WMD's and that he should be dealt with. His opinion concerning Saddam was formed before Bush* ever became pResident.

some in the Bush cartel were against war with Iraq while Clinton was President. I wonder if Kerry ever asked them why they changed their minds. Quotes like this one from Wolfie come to mind:

In his statement of September 16, 1998, Wolfowitz ridiculed Clinton’s policies toward Iraq and said, “Administration officials continue to claim, as Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk did in testimony to the Senate last week, that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. This is wrong.”

Wolfowitz then articulated how, with patience and diplomacy, a critical mass could be reached by supporting dissidents in their eventual overthrow of the Ba’athist regime. “he key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam,” he said.

He detailed the patient commitment that such a policy would require however, such an action would deliver much stronger international support than American militarism. He said, “Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different American policy, one that can rid them of the danger that Saddam poses. And Saddam's supporters in the Security Council–in particular France and Russia–would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.”

http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=717

Also, are you saying Dean was for the resolution the Senate passed, giving Bush power to declare war? I thought he said something about Congress abdicating its responsibilities in that regard. Am I mistaken?

Julie

Dean was opposed to the resolution. However, it wasn't because he thought Bush* was lying. Dean said he would be surprised if Saddam did NOT have WMD's. Dean opposed it because he didn't think Saddam having WMD's was enough to justify an invasion.

Both Kerry and Dean thought Saddam had WMD's. Kerry thought that was a threat that justified the use of military action, thouhg only as a alst resort. Dean thought the threat did not justify military force.

And IMO, Dean was being opportunistic in saying that Congress "abdicated it's responsibilities" in that regard. Congress doesn't have any "responsibilities". A careful reading of the Constitution shows that Congress has only "powers" which were delegated to it by "the People" in order that Congress could protect people's rights and promote the general welfare.

We would all be having a different discussion now.

big difference.

FUCK DEAN.

This is the silliest post ive ever read. Howard Dean IS A POLITICIAN. He is no better and no worse than Kerry. He didnt have to make the decision Kerry had to make. He has chosen, as a politician for this campaign, to come out strongly against the war. And it seems to have paid off. If this nation was 100% for the war you can be damn sure that Howard Dean would be at the very least in the Kerry line of moderation.

If you dont like politicians, fine, but you have to recognize that anyone you put in washington is going to act like a washington politician. Some congressman are more progressive, they can be this because it works for them and thier constituancy. But if the democratic party didnt have people who played in the middle, and played politics, the democratic party would have less worth than it is now. Until you can show me that John Kerry is likely to go to war if made president, you dont have a point. He isnt pro-war. He wouldnt have sent us to war if he was president, that should be clear to even the most ardent Kerry hater. Lets keep our eye on the ball. making the world a better place.

Please post the words that you interpret as no truth at all.

I refuse to vote for Lapdog Democrats.

calling them lapdogs. Right now they are running to try and defeat the republicans. Believing that anyone who isnt an ardent idealogue who deosnt put our morality above all ese is a dog is rather anti-democratic, dont you think? Those of us who are more aware should be working to make others aware, not cursing them for not being so. Meanwhile we need to recognize that politicians have to have power to do anything. So blaming them for thinking about and getting power is counterproductive. If we put Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, or even Leiberman in power we will probably actually be saving lives. Id rather make that my goal than excluding the most productive choice for our country because he wasnt the perfect idealogue.

But I have to ask, based on what he says here, why did he vote for the war? :shrug:

<http://www.nhprimary.com/stories/08-2003/080903-kerrydefends.htm>

Pretty much what DiFi said -- Bush told me he'd only use force as a last resort. I can't believe that any bright person didn't know what Bush was planning to do. Bush was telling us every night he was going to invade. I'm afraid Kerry's going to have to do better than that.

If you really believe that they all should have known "what Bush was planning to do", then how come none of them, including Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, etc, said that BEFORE the resolution vote?

Kerry has come out strongly against the war. Sweetpea's post #6 documented that. So we're going to hold it against him forever that he didn't come out soon enough, that he wasn't openly antiwar back in the days when the name "DemocraticUnderground" was a grim reference to an even grimmer political reality?

Did we learn nothing from the Great Green Debacle of 2000? In case some of us have forgotten, about 100,000 people voted for Nader in Florida. If 5% of them had voted for Gore instead, JebnKathy couldn't have stolen the election for Bush.

We hurt only ourselves when we reject compromise and demand ideological purity. If the only acceptable nominee is the leftiest of the left, what are we going to do AFTER the primaries?

The party in power has the luxury of pushing ideological purity, of insisting on "real" (Republicans, Democrats, whatever). The party out of power, especially when it's as far out of power as we are, had better concentrate on getting what it can and liking what it gets. As I said in a post on another thread, is there still anyone out there who could say with a straight face that Al Gore would have been no better as President than George W. Bush?

As I also said in that post, support the guy/gal you like, but don't take up the meataxe against all the other candidates, one of whom is most likely going to be the nominee (by sheer law of averages). We only hurt ourselves that way. Eyes on the prize - defeat Bush!

There would have been no debacle of 2000 had Democrats refused to reward Lapdog Democrats with their votes. There would have been no worries about Green votes had Lapdog Democrats not been allowed to prevail over the party for decades.

The Right learned how to reform their party towards the ideals of the Right. It took them decades to accomplish it.

Byu refusing to reward Lapdog Democrats with my vote, I am taking the lon haul approach to reform.

So your reasoning, if I may call it that, is that the Democrats could have defeated GWB in 2000 by nominating Nader or someone just like him. What color is the sky in your world?

Dividing the left into the moderate left and the hard left isn't the long haul (or even the lon haul) approach to reform. It is the long haul approach to permanent domination of American politics by conservative Republicans who have enough sense to unite.

And you're putting words into my mouth.

No, you're assumption fails. That is not what I am saying. 2000 was the result of decades of rewarding Lapdog Democrats by electing them.

We reap what we sew, and the Democrats have been sewing mediocrity for decades.

Bush is the resultant whirlwind.

I will no longer reward Lapdog Democrats with my vote.

I voted for Clinton twice. I admit it, I helped to foster the reality of Lapdog Democrats for two decades.

For me, the mediocrity ended when the votes were counted in 2002. I will no longer go the Lapdog Democrat route.

There is no question in my mind that Clinton was capable of compromise without end, even on matters of principle. There is also no question in my mind that Clinton's policies have benefited millions of poor people, children, minorities, and workers.

Unfortunately, according to the unquestionable (in his own mind) "principles", to support such a person is immoral.

:toast: You're invited to Philly to have some cold ones @ the now famous "DOOBIES BAR" where we can all SHhhhhhhhhhhhh! Talk O' Wee Bit O' Treason agin Prince Georgie Porgie:mad: :beer:

but my car isn't up to the 1,800 mile trip just now, and I'm not willing to strip to my undies to get on an airplane. Yes, sad to say, I'm a Texan. But at least I'm in Laredo, where the Democratic 11 are suing Governor Perry's a** for abuse of power and voter discrimination against minorities in the redistricting flap.

Really?

John Kerry:

1. Voted to give bush the authority to attack Iraq.

2. Believes in pre emptive attacks, if one's nation is in imminent danger.

3. Did not believe the US was in imminent danger of attack.

4. Voted to give bush the authority to attack Iraq. (But didn't think he'd really do it...)

with the lives of american soldiers. This is a fact.

And I don't lie down with dogs.

Taking the long haul approach to reforming the Democratic Party by refusing to reward Lapdog Democrats with his vote.

and look up the definition of the word "fact."

Edit: intended to respond to posts 23 and 24 here, not the original message.

Criticize Kerry and others as warhawks for giving Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. Basically they were giving Bush a demand to go to the UN and request a multilateral threat of force against Iraq. Kerry clearly didn't intend for Bush to unliterally rush into war.

I think it's pretty stupid to listen to anti-war speeches from unemployed politicans who never had to vote for a war or national security situation.

he was trying to cover his arse while staying with the program. And when Bush went ahead and rushed headlong into warm Byrd and Kennedy tried to encourage Kerry to sign on to a second resolution to rectify the disasterous vote and Kerry refused. What a jackass.

hoping that WMD's would not be found. There was a part of me that was concerned in the few weeks after the war that something would be found. Based on all the reports we were given in the press, there was room for doubt. I am glad that they proved false because I was one of those anti war protesters in the streets of NY.

Kerry truly thought a threat of force was necessary to get Iraq's compliance with UN mandates.

.

Please, don't mention that he voted to support the invasion. He was misled by that noted truthteller, the glorious fratboy and his peaceloving supporters, Perle, Wolfowitz and Poindexter. After all, a hardworking senator can't check everything. He was very busy at the time, learning the words to "God Bless America", watching the polls, being fitted for a flag to drape himself in, reassuring the DLC that he isn't "too liberal", avoiding the anti-war demonstrations, ignoring the letters from his constituents that opposed the aggression, and attempting to look presidential.

A real humanitarian. So, a few thousand Iraqis got slaughtered, a small price to pay for so he could avoid not appearing patriotic enough.

Just heard that he is going to appear on an aircraft carrier. Maybe his pal Bush will lend him his flight suit.

The man is a disgrace.

There is no avoiding that he wanted to have it both ways and now he has painted himself in to the corner and is unable to make a strong and persuasive stand. There is no way to spin it--he knew better but he was a coward.

to the dishonesty & criminality of the entire enterprise. His remarks were designed mainly to be careful; to let him move either way afterwards, depending on how it all worked out.

A courageous & principled senator would have denounced the whole thing in the strongest possible terms. Kerry came NOWHERE NEAR doing that.

Americans are afraid of terrorist. This administration played on that fear. I remember Kerry speaking out against the war right before it started but it got very little press.

weakly give in to the idea that now we all have to be terrified of terrorists all the time.

Rather, it's to stand up courageously and say, "The Administration is just trying to play on fear, here. Here is how they are doing it.... They are trying to manipulate us." Then you proceed to denounce the criminal administration for trying to frighten people for political gain.

The Kerry Way (and it's the same for all the cowards that form the majority of the Democratic Party) is to CONCEDE the main premise of the administration -- ie, to give in to the idea that we all have to be VERY VERY SCARED, now, all the time. Once you've conceded that, you've already lost, because now you're playing on the turf invented by the liars & criminals.

to any war conflict even with a terror threat now.

who supported the war resolution, was to FIRST make sure that Bush's evidence was solid. It never was.

23 senators opposed the war resolution, 1 of whom is now running for Dem Prez nominee (Sen. Graham) and another was the lone Republican dissenting (Sen. Chaffee of RI)

2/3's of the House Democrats opposed the war resolution, 1 of whom is running for Dem Prez nominee (Rep. Kucinich)

1 former VP (Al Gore) opposed the war resolution

1 former governor and current Dem Presidential candidate (Howard Dean) opposed the war resolution

Kerry's excuses are hogwash and I won't buy them!

Dean ONLY opposed the war resolution when he decided it would bring more support and more money. I remember that MTP interview and I must admit I was embarrassed for him.

that the others opposed it -- there was no clear evidence to support war against Saddam. There was enough to support continued sanctions, but not war.

Dean even said that he thought Saddam did have WMD's

That's one of the reasons Kerry voted for moving forward on Saddam, to be able to lift the sanctions that were hurting the Iraqi people. That doesn't mean he supported an unjustifieid invasion, only the threat of military action to back up the intentions that Saddam comply with inspections and full disarmament.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

A few posters have argued that Kerry should have known, before the vote, that Bush* was lying. If that's so, then Dean and the other candidates should also have known, and yet, there isn't one statement from any of them to the effect that "Bush* is lying"

If Dean can see the future, how come he couldn't predict the past?

That is what wasn't solid and he said so.

That Iraq hadn't cooperated with the UN resolutions calling for disarmament and that the potential for Saddam to produce weapons in the future was real and he also said so. Howard Dean said so.

Kerry voted to authorize the President of the United States to have the necessary tools to force Saddam to comply with inspections. That's what he voted for.

That Bush spit on that resolution, the UN, the inspections process and the world is not something the Senate should expect from the President of the United States. It's just not. But people around here would rather promote their candidate than allow a cohesive effort to hold Bush accountable for what HE chose to do, not what anybody authorized him to do.

"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."

"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.

"Mr. President, do not rush to war,"