John Kerry, the anti-war, pro-war candidate

I just don't know. I'm watching him on This Week and he said that he absolutely voted the right way on the war for the security of our country. But it was all George Bush's fault for not doing things right after that. And oh, how we warned him (Bush). We warned him about having a plan in place for the peace, etc., etc.

I don't remember all those warnings from the people in Congress who voted FOR the war, does anyone? What I remember most is those who voted NO bringing these arguments up, along with those anti-war columnists and activists.

But in any case, I think this "I voted right, but Bush did it wrong" argument is a little too nuanced for most Americans. Am I the only one who thinks that?

Eloriel

....that he'll have a much better answer next week.

He just has to wait until Howard Dean says something for him to copy first.

Kerry's superior knowledge of foreign policy and he has to wait for HD to copy him? :eyes:
and as if that is what has motivated Kerry in the past. Insulting too.

Led the way on allowing gays to serve openly. Led the way on restoring voting rights for exfelons. Led the way on fair sentencing for minority drug offenders. Led the way on the Kyoto Accord. Led the challenge on Bush's failed military strategy.

Oops...no...that was Kerry.

When Dean gave a speech about foreign policy at the CFR - some Dean supporting idiot said, "Ok, get your pencil and paper out Kerry, so you can copy Dean's speech". It's disgraceful, and IMO clear evidence about just how much the Dean supporters understand about actual policy positions each candidate adheres to.

Ptoooie!

on foreign policy and the environment, can see for themselves that Kerry, who has actively pursued these issues for 30 years, gave his speeches FIRST and in no way, shape or form copied from Dean the Deregulator.

It's absurd. Dean is the one who is new to both issues. His speeches were cribbed from Kerry.

Kerry, Dean, Clark, Gephardt. Kuchinich is the only one who hasn't waffled. It's a tricky issue becasue there's still a bunch of knuckleheads (the majority of people in this country) who think that Saddam is the one who planned 911.

If they "flat out" say that they are against the war - then they get labeled as a "peacenik" who will not protect the country. That's why it really hard to figure out what they REALLY think about it. It's the "third rail" of politics.

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason
New York Observer
>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.
>>>>>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/31/politics/31KERR.html?ex=1066104000&en=b2e055d38dbf9f69&ei=5070

WASHINGTON, July 30 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was cruising through a Senate hearing on arms control, charming his Democratic adversaries and deftly parrying their questions, when Senator John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, took the microphone.

In the aggressive style he honed as a prosecutor two decades ago, Mr. Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism against President Bush's nuclear arms treaty with Russia, saying it "neutered" previous pacts and included a "huge contradiction." Twice, he interrupted a clearly irritated Mr. Powell in midsentence.


For many Democrats, the war on terrorism has made that kind of frontal assault on Bush foreign policy seem risky, if not politically suicidal. But not for Mr. Kerry. A decorated Vietnam veteran and potential presidential candidate, he has lustily attacked the administration on policies like trans-Atlantic relations, Pentagon spending, Middle East negotiations and even Mr. Bush's greatest triumph, Afghanistan.

"I think there were serious errors," Mr. Kerry said in an interview, referring to the American ground campaign in Afghanistan that he contends probably allowed Osama bin Laden to slip into Pakistan. He made the point again on Monday as he joined other potential presidential candidates in speaking to centrist Democrats in New York.

"In some ways, Al Qaeda is more dangerous today because we didn't take advantage of initiative, which is critical in war," he added.

>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>
But Mr. Kerry has been the harshest critic. In an interview addressing a range of issues, he called the Bush Mideast policies "confused," saying Mr. Bush could not expect to achieve peace without maintaining at least low-level contacts with Yasir Arafat. On Iraq, he said Mr. Bush had allowed "his rhetoric to get way ahead of his thinking," talking tough without preparing the country for a potentially bloody conflict. In 1991, Mr. Kerry joined most other Democrats in voting against letting Mr. Bush's father use force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

He has been most scathing, however, on Afghanistan, arguing that the Pentagon's decision to rely on Afghan troops instead of American soldiers in the battle of Tora Bora in March probably allowed Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants to escape.

Asked who should be held accountable for the Tora Bora strategy, Mr. Kerry points to the president. "If you are the skipper of the ship, and the ship runs aground while you are asleep in your stateroom, you are relieved of duty, no excuse," he said.
>>>>>

like another candidate that shall remain nameless.

Kerry would do himself a favor if the dropped his pompous senatorial tone, and start talking like a normal person. Kerry will also do himself a lot of good if he stopped trying to justify his war vote by saying that it was a vote to prevent war. No one believes that shit!

Out of ANY politicans mouths? The only one I trust to tell the "flat out" uncensored truth (only about 95% of the time) is Kuchinich. And THAT'S why he's not electable. Sad but true....

like the shrub?

i understand your point, but i'd be glad to have a prez who understands the nuance of syntax.

world leaders would line up at this point to talk to an intelligent president with some style and grace... especially if his initials are JFK.

let's work together and get rid of bush!

Keeping awfully good company these days are we?

It looks much better in print than it does when he says it, because he uses complex sentence structures and LOTS of words - too many. It's the nature of precision in language, but it does put many people off.

He gave an "I've got my eye on you, so you'd better do it right" speech as he cast his vote. I was so numbed by his (and the parade of Democratic senators) vote for the resolution I could hardly bear listening to him. But he did warn him.

I remember that members of congress voted to give bush the power to go to war with the sanction of the United Nations. He never got the go ahead from the UN. He got "sick of waiting". He wanted to go to war and the people in congress took him at his word that he would go in with the UN. It was the right thing to do. They hoped that Saddam would back away if they gave bush the go ahead. Hindsite is 20 20 forsight needs a little faith. I won't complain about Kerry because he didn't suspect that bush was lying to everyone. Presidents usually don't lie thru their teeth about war and putting people in danger of losing their lives. You don't have to like Kerry but don't make accusatiions that are wrong. Just remember that whoever is nominated we have to support or we have 4 more years of hell. People are not perfect and no one is ever pleased with everything their favorite does. Lighten up.

I didn't make any accusations -- wrong or otherwise.

And oh yeah, welcome to DU.

Eloriel

So Kerry (&Co) only voted for Shrub to go to the UN, right? That's what you're saying, correct?

If that's the case, then tell me....

When the UN said NO, what did Kerry (&Co) do about it?

When the world said NO, with peaceful protests in the billions of people, what did Kerry (&Co) do?

When the American people took to the streets to say NO, what did Kerry (&Co) do?

When the American people took to their email clients, their fax machines, their telephones to say NO, what did Kerry (&Co) do?

Nothing. Nothing at all. That's what they did.

They did the equivalent of "I'm telling your father when he gets home" ineffective parent routine.

If you give someone a condition, and they ignore the condition, you don't say "Oh, OK." Kerry (&Co) did EXACTLY that.

Au contraire, mon frere. They usually never tell the truth. Dems and Pugs, alike.

No such "with the sanction of the United Nations" requirement exists. At all:

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

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001152.html

so once was enough. And this citation is more a referendum on Bush than on congress.

Read it. It's very clear on what was being voted on.

sallyseven wrote: "I remember that members of congress voted to give bush the power to go to war with the sanction of the United Nations. He never got the go ahead from the UN. He got "sick of waiting". He wanted to go to war and the people in congress took him at his word that he would go in with the UN. "

There is absolutely no mention of UN approval in the War Resolution. Military action was authorized without any conditions.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Kerry voted to give "The President" the authority that he needed. No one in Congress had the right to expect that the administration and the President were lying. A legitimate President would have used that authority to make the country safer. Bush is not a legitimate President, he is an uncurious little tyrant who depends on others to feed him information, and they fed him what it would take (visions of mushroom clouds) to get him to sanction war.

23 Senators did know. And I'm sick of posting their pre-vote speeches here, but they're easy enough to find. Kerry voted the way he did because he knew he was going to run. Fine. I can accept that. I don't like it. I don't expect him to be honest about it. I sure wish he hadn't done it. Kerry's not naive. Like Senator Byrd or Senator Leahy, or others, he had NO reason to trust this President, and if I believed he did trust him, in my book that would indicate fatally flawed judgement. For God's sakes folks, we're talking about the criminal bush administration. I could go on and on and on about why there's no reason to trust this administration, not today, not a year ago, not ever.

Kerry and Edwards would not listen to Senator Byrd - they trusted Bush more. Gephardt wouldn't listen to Kucinich and Pelossi, he trusted Bush more. Well, now, we cannot trust those who sided with Bush against the better judgements of millions of Americans, tens of millions of people all over the world, and the studied, reasoned, eloquent arguments of Robert Byrd. "They are toast." Next!

He is huge waffler and I am not really keen on his New England blue blood aloofness. Just comes across as arrogant.



John

Read my sig for details.

Great sig

IMO.

I don't like kerry and this is just one of them. Most of them are to do with the way he responded to the bushwar and the others are to do with the lyin' demagoguery campaign he is spewing.

But, you see nothing wrong with his position, while you rail against Kerry for his. Hypocritical?

HOW we were to disarm him. This war wasn't necessary. At all.

Truth of the matter was, as has already been noted, he was already disarmed.

Eloriel

and it was BUSH who didn't allow them to complete their duty, not those who voted for the IWR.

(My thoughts are that the typical voter has scant idea of all of these tricky details of the leadup to the conquest.)

Tricky details that even many here at DU seem to miss.

Kerry supported it. He supported Bush invading bypassing the UN, cutting short inspections, rushing to war, and invading Iraq with a small multinational force, mainly of bribed insifnificant nations, and without any plan put forth about how we will govern after the fighting stops or with any exit strategy.

Dean didn't.

It's not hypocritical at all.

Kerry authorized the use of force. He did not "support" any of the things you suggest. In fact, I could provide you several quotes from any point in time where he pointedly opposed them. You have the right to legitimately criticize the authorization, but why do you feel the need to tell lies on top of that?

Kerry very clearly did not "support" the conditions, despite your nice little cherry picked tag line (Kerry, Kerry, Kerry). Kerry was not saying anything that Dean did not say. In fact, Dean went farther than Kerry to suggest a 30-60 day deadline. Dean was the one who "tends to believe the President."

Are you so unsure about your candidate that you have to spin against his opponents?

But when it came down to it, he supported the invasion. That's not spin, it's the truth. See my sig for details.

Kerry is the one who spoke out FIRST against Bush's lack of a plan for post war Iraq.

One that would have actually required Bush prove that Iraq was an imminent threat? Heavens! That almost sounds reasonable.

but alas... it is not working out to his advantage because of a lack of reasoning abilities.

EVERYONE with a working brain knew this war was unnecessary murder. EVERYONE with a working brain knew it would be chaos, at best, after the firing of the military 'toys'. Dean and many others tried to explain but still Kerry states he voted 'right'. Deny...Deny...Deny, the lawyers creed, is not always the best answer.

Suggested Kerry response for today: 'I made a terrible mistake by not vehemently opposing the war. I should have camped outside the White House, screamed and marched, to prevent this atrocity from occurring. I am sorry and apologize to all Americans. Kucinich is one of the real heros.'

Howard Dean '04....America's New Leader...The World's Best Hope.

Pro-killing Kerry my ass.

Dean '04 The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

In fact he co-led the charge with Nancy Pelosi in the house. I tell you guys this, I opposed the war not only because of its legal wrong but because I thought of those people there many of them not much older than me that is the troops, and I thought about the pain and suffering they would go through, I did the same for the civilians, they all have a story, a life, a family, and something that made them unique. Kucinich when Ive heard him speak has talked about the human realities of war, "war doesnt discriminate" DK said at Imagine America. Allow me to use a quote from what I consider a masterpiece in literature, All Quiet on the Western Front, it tells how bad war is and how you lose friends.

"Do I walk? Have I feet still? I raise my eyes, I let them move round, and turn myself with them, one circle, one circle, and I stand in the midst. All is as usual. Only the Militiaman Stanislaus Katczinsky has died. Then I know nothing more."
:cry: that always makes me wanna cry.

fools. Hr responded like a true statesman without apology and had others rallied around him many would be alive today.

Sorry for poetic ways, but I have my reasons for supporting him.

My heroes were Jeffords, Leahy, McDermott, Inslee, Kucinich, among the others who voted NO in Congress! And I had many heroes who voted "NO" outside of Congress, too!

Feb 15, 2003 was the day we All took to the streets to vote our NO!

George Will tried to pen Kerry into agreeing or disagreeing with Kennedy's "fraud made in Texas" remarks from a few weeks ago. Kerry tried asserting in various ways that the war was launched on dubious or invalid grounds - but he refused to just say "Yes, I agree with Sen. Kennedy's remarks."

I would have rather seen him just say, "Yes." I know Will was trying to box him into saying this, & that it is always tempting not to give Will what he wants. But in this case, I would have much preferred to hear a solid clear "Yes."

Waffle, hedge, hog, sonic, waffle, hedge, and pass the butter.

Barf. Kerry looked and sounded like a true fuckwittage.

...so am I , and so are a lot of Americans- they just need somone to articulate these facts. Great5 candidates like Kerry, Dean and Clark have been doing this...

There was much protest about the vote before they cast it. He did not listen to the people. The decision is a difficult one to explain away. As to the fact that they were being told "untruths" by this corrupt and inept commander and chief is also not an excuse IMO.

If those millions of people in the streets Knew that this administration was out for blood (there was no reason to believe the wmd bullshit as the UN inspectors had found nothing to back these claims up) then why should those who gave them permission to attack Iraq not have had a clue ? Iraq was already a war torn country from the previous bombings and sanctions. The chances of them being a world threat is .. well ... enough said. :eyes:

Once Kerry gets to the general election, he can claim he was "misled," which is how most Americans feel.

However, the Democratic voters who protested in the bitter cold against the invasion are a bit confused by his stance.

campaigns...

edit~ to add "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." - John Kerry - May 4, 2003

What Disarm? you blithering hedgesqueek!

Dean is the slime master! You can't name a single candidate that Dean hasn't gone negative on! Since the very beginning, he has stepped on the necks of the other candidates to make his short ass look taller. And he continues to do so by telling outright lies about Wes Clark.

<>

Does he ever look not-psychotic?

alleged 'presidential look' does little for the carnage that his amibitions have contributed to.

There is no doubt that a Dean presidency would have meant no deaths in Iraq from an illegal war but as Kerry contends, today, his unbridled vote for bombing was 'correct'.

What you appear to want, Dr. Funky, is a free pass for your candidate and that won't happen. Hence the posting aggression.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party

Your are perfectly welcome to believe dean wouldn't have voted for the Resolution...

But this is PURE CONJECTURE:

"There is no doubt that a Dean presidency would have meant no deaths in Iraq from an illegal war"

Deans record as Governor shows an opportunist who is NOT a straightshooter.

Dean's opposition was a purely political calculation to attract the disaffected Progressive vote.

Since his record as Vermont's Govenor has nothing in it to attract the Progressive, Internet Savvy vote.

Bombing Adventure stance is a matter of record. Imagining Kerry as a qualified leader..now that's imagination!!

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

That IS plural, btw.

by his stance on October 10, 2002 and I am not confused now. I listened to his speech that day. I heard him list why the invasion was wrong, then fucking voted YES!

Kerry voted YES, when 10-1 emails, faxes and phone calls to his offices begged him to vote no. And he's still saying it was the right thing to do.

the Kerry campaign isn't on fire more than it is - IMO, he is running a primary campaign designed more for the general election. In some ways it is way more honest, but it does account for why he is getting beat in the polls by the guy who is running hard for the leftist/activists.

He din't say one day he was against it, then the next day for it, then the day after he was against it again.

Kerry supporters gave out waffles to the wrong supporters. Maybe they couldn't find THOSE supporters?

The "I voted to defend this country, with force if necessary" is a legitimate vote, even if I would have preferred that he vote differently.

I honestly believe that most Americans are very conflicted about this war that Bush waged. It was up to the President, with access to the NSC, the CIA, the DIA, the State Department and all those other things that he had access to, to act appropriately. We absolutely needed the clout of a military threat in order to get inspections going again. It COULD have stopped there, and we could have given the inspectors the time they asked for, just as the US inspectors are asking for more time now. We didn't need to go to war when we did. That timing was the Bushistas, period.

a position more comlicated than a bumper sticker slogan.

Vote for former Senator John Dean Clark, Governor-General of Vermachusetts. He is for everything you are for and against everything you are against.

He will follow your lead unless you want a leader then he will lead you where you want to go.

Dean did NOT vote No on the Resolution like Kucinich cause he wasn't IN CONGRESS.

Although, at one point he claimed he did.

Dean- "I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted No on the Iraq Resolution."

Furthermore, the Resolution is ANCIENT HISTORY.

ALL the candidates have similar view about what to do now, about Iraq.
ALL the candidates are calling Junior on his lies.

And Dean supporters are looking ridiculous saying "but Dean said it FIRST".

It is a weak campaign strategy and if you pursue it Dean will go down in flames.

That Dean took a chance in the early stages of his campaign is obvious... but it is now crystal clear that while he started this hand of poker with two aces showing... he HAS NOTHING ELSE UNDER THE DECK.

Dean is a Business-Friendly Centrist who worked to deregulate Energy in Vermont, called himself a fiscal conservative, got lionized at the Cato Institute and who has a history of dissrespecting Liberals.

Dean: "You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING HIM ELORIEL. HE IS THE ESTABLISHMENT AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER CANIDATE.

And winning a hand of poker takes alot more than having 2 aces showing in the first round of betting.

Kerry, who is not my first choice, is a SOLID Liberal who is slugging away in Congress to get money to the states right now so Govenors like Dean used to be can make ends meet.

ancient history! :wtf: Are you out of your mind?

Have you forgotten what the fuck is happening in Iraq this very moment?

but damnit I support Kucinich because of his more dovish views, theres been many wars in my life, Kucinich has shown an ability to say no to war if he feel it wrong no matter what party the president is, a man with a Gandhi award, a man with heart, thats Dennis Kucinich. I am idealistic you bet and I love how Kucinich has talked about the human costs of war. He has some great other ideas too as well. I feel honestly that the war is an important factor but isn't the only one, Bush has fucked up our nation in other ways as well. I know its gonna be a hard road to Washington for DK but damnit a day doesnt fly by where I feel the road is the right one, I will not let fear conquer me and the "electablity" nonsense get to me, I will fellow my heart and dreams, and support this man who is one of the most superb people I have ever met. Long live peace and compassion. I will not give up. Ok sorry for being poetic or whatever but thats why I support Kucinich plus I think he has a terrific vision, heres a man who actually marches with the laborers, a man who lives modest just like you and me, and here is a man who knows the horribleness that is poverty. Thank you. One last thing, I think him and the Reverend Al are the only ones who wanna bring the troops home, god bless em for that, many of these guys are only a little older than me, and thats a shame, so many lives and so many stories. I hope for peace. :) man arent weird.

And Dean is emailing out a celebration of the first anniversary of the Iraq Resolution.

No wonder he's celebrating that anniversary cause it's all he's got.... his NON-EXISISTANT vote on the Iraq War.

Do you really think the American People are going to say:

"I'll vote for Dean cause he CLAIMS he wouldn't vote for the Iraq Resolution"?

Most people don't even know what the Resolution is for heaven's sake.

And we are In Iraq NOW and the Bush Cabal is moving full steam ahead.

But Dean and his supporters obsess over the Resolution which happened MONTHS and an Iraqi Invasion ago.

In the end, Dean has NOTHING ELSE but his NON-EXISTANT Vote.

And I have NO reason to believe him when he CLAIMS he'd have voted No.

and barely by those who voted no.

Kerry had never been 100% behind Bush's stupid manuever at that was clear by him not stooping to the Rose Garden level *shudders* but I still disagree with his vote.

Most Americans would agree with Kerry as of now. Many feel it was right to go to war, but are mad at the way Bush is handling it.

Kerry's yes vote on the war resolution didn't mean Yes, silly. You have to start looking at these things in greater depth!

With your new appreciation of "nuanced" voting, show John Kerry that it isn't limited to politicians; ordinary voters can do it, too. In the primary, vote for one of Kerry's opponents. Should anyone ask why you voted for Dean or Sharpton or Clark, etc., say that you really believe Kerry is the best candidate running, but you threw a vote to his opponent just to keep him on his toes. It's not a contradiction, it's nuance.

People like you have totally turned me off to Dean. Well along with the fact, Dean miscontrued Geppy's Gingrich comment and overreacted with false grandstanding, not a characteristic I would like to see in a future president.

People like you have totally turned me off to Dean

Are you telling us that your vote is based on what a DUer has to say about a particular candidate? Are you that impressionable? If a DUer were to tell you that a certain product was good, would you rush to buy it?

I don't buyt it!

this website has turned me away from being a Democrat

Indiana Democrats are very nice people that don't go around berating others because of the way they voted, or failed to vote. They treat voters with respect, even when they disagree.

You wouldn't find Democrats like our Governor Joe Kernan, or gubernatorial candidate Vi Simpson, or Rep Julia Carson making assholes out of themselves by berating people about Nader's alleged role in the outcome of the 2000 election. They would not be insulting Greens and independents, but would be seeking their votes and support against idiots such as Bush's former budget director, and gubernatorial candidate, Mitch Daniels.

But then, Indiana Democrats are not like the Beltway bandits that live in a world of their own making without a clue as to what is going on in the rest of the country.

the content. Yes, in part, the seemingly fanaticism from Dean supporters turns me off. Geppy's gingrich comment is a good example. The morning after the debate, Dean supporters were attacking Geppy for supposedly comparing Dean to Gingrich, that is not what took place and if even the slighted bit of unbiased logic had been applied to the exchange, the truth should have been evident.

and have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on his past votes--but I can't stand his phony, self-impressed proclamations, his glorification of war, his ignorant remarks about election 2000, his hawkish views on Israel or his underhanded attack strategies. This is in addition to his lack of political talent and his pathetic attempts to justify his position on voting to back the incompetent moron.

Further, a technocratic critique of so obvious an ethical question is both intellectual and moral cowardice.

Imagine someone in the Politburo saying that the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia was the right idea, just executed in the wrong way. We'd give that apologia the ridicule it deserved. Here, it gets said with a straight face by a presidential hopeful.

men like kerry will keep trying to backpeddle, to equivocate, because they can't admit how badly they fucked this one up.

meanwhile, their equivocation will continue to make the criminal deception that was (is) this iraq war appear to be more of a parlor guessing game. and that is inexcusable.