The last time I posted negative comments about John Kerry the reaction was decidedly mixed. That was back in September when I took issue with John kerry’s championing of “count every vote” on his web site after having failed to fulfill a campaign pledge to demand that very thing before conceding the 2004 presidential election.
I know Kerry has his loyal fans who sometimes bristle when he is criticized by fellow Democrats and progressives, but I feel compelled once again to risk the ire of the Kerry-faithful.
Last Wednesday, November 16th, Wolf Blitzer at CNN aired a lengthy interview with Kerry. In that interview Kerry stopped just short of declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Presidency:
Would I like to be president? Yes, obviously. I ran for the job. I think I would have made a good president for America, a strong president. I would have had us in a very different place than we are today.
“…I’m not running yet… I’ll tell you this: …If I get in that race, having learned what I’ve learned, and the experience I had last year, I think I know how to do what I need to do and I will run to win…
Blitzer asked about 2004 Kerry running-mate John Edwards’ recent declaration that he had make a “mistake” in voting in to empower George W. Bush to take us to war in Iraq. “I said that before Senator Edwards wrote that” responded Kerry, adding “I would not have voted for that resolution given what we know today.”
Kerry: I think anybody worth their salt ought to see the mistakes and incompetence of this administration. How could you possibly say you’re going to vote that you’ll have this incompetent administration go out and be incompetent again? Of course I wouldn’t do that. But we didn’t know that at the time.
Many had reached that same conclusion by last Summer, but back on August 8, 2004 then-candidate John Kerry, speaking to reporters in Grand Canyon National Park, provided a a glaringly different response to a very similar question:
Kerry stands by ‘yes’ vote on Iraq war
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things “very differently” from President Bush.
…The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush “the right authority for the president to have.”
So just exactly what has occured in the intervening months to change John Kerry’s mind? Certainly by August 8, 2004 we knew quite a lot about the “mistakes and incompetence” of the Bush administration? By then we knew there were no WMD, that Iraq had not been involved in 9/11, and that Saddam had not been in league with Al Qaeda in supporting a world-wide terror campaign, despite efforts by the Bush administration to convinvce us otherwise during the lead-up to war. “The president of the United States went before the Congress and used information that the White House had been told three times, verbally and in writing, did not happen,” Kerry told Blitzer last Wednesday. “The president and vice president both, in their speeches, linked Saddam Hussein and Iraq to terrorism and to the war on terror, and put it into the whole basket of 9/11.”
Cynic that I am, I can’t help but wonder if it has more to do with the polls than it has to do with Kerry’s true convictions. Back when Kerry voted for the war. George W. Bush enjoyed a 67% approval rating. When he told reporters he stood by his 2002 vote, a small majority of Americans still thought we had been right to invade Iraq. That certainly has changed.
According to the CNN/USA Today poll, here is how the public responded to the question: “All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?”
Worth Going to War:
7/8-11, 2004: 47%
11/11-13, 2005: 38%
Not Worth It:
7/8-11, 2004: 50%
11/11-13, 2005: 60%
I am delighted that John Kerry has come to regret his October 2002 vote that helped the Bush administration take us to war. I only wish he had done that during the presidential campaign when it might have made a difference.
And he didn’t support Murtha, either. Or Pelosi.
I saw that guy’s rant on Meet the Press. Apparently, he hasn’t met any spin doctors or consultants recently to polish up his hair.
One year and seven million dollars too late. He had his chance.
In fairness, Kerry was outspoken about his anger at the reaction to Murtha … he called it “swift-boating,” etc.
However, he did say he didn’t agree with Murtha’s plan. Still, though, he called Murtha a real hero, and many more very positive things.
Umph. Why haven’t we heard this? Amazing.
Still…I don’t trust Kerry anymore. Murtha is now a believer. He should be supported.
Yes, it is.
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1197
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=54
04757
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1328763
So what if he didn’t agree 100%.
Gentlemen are allowed to disagree.
Do you have a best friend?
Do you have differences?
My God! Everyone acts like ONE suggestion is the end all and be all of existence.
The fact is the discussion is kicking the republican’s a$$es and FORCING them to show what warmongers they are.
The infighting HERE is showing the world how we’d rather shoot down our own players and live beneath the corrupt, warmongers rule rather than EDUCATE ourselves and accept a BIG TENT!
Here’s lots of info for the lurkers and bashers out there–THERE IS NO FLIP FLOP only a lying MEDIA and REPUBLICAN spin.
ONE suggestion I make is for all of you to LEARN what the IWR was and you’ll SEE it was NOT a vote for war and there been no flipping unless you count GWB flipping off Congress by disobeying the context of the IWR and taking us to war against the dictates of the IWR.
Oh..Maybe you don’t know…but GWB said, “The vote for this IWR IS NOT A VOTE FOR WAR IT IS A VOTE FOR PEACE!” http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358×574 (and KERRY”S SPECIFIC DETAILS THAT BUSH FAILED TO DO IS IN THAT SAME LINK: TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002 (read it…educate yourself before you decide to spread right-winged media lies)
YOU said, ” am delighted that John Kerry has come to regret his October 2002 vote that helped the Bush administration take us to war. I only wish he had done that during the presidential campaign when it might have made a difference”
I say to that that HE DID, but he used different words that meant the same thing. Furthermore even as early as 2003 he admitted he was mislead about the war.
Educate yourself:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60588-2004May27.html
–
OH…and flip-flop is Murtha who VOTED FOR THE WAR!
AND also FLIP FLOP is 80% of the general population out here.
So what are you gonna do? Tell all of us to get lost?
More power to you if you want to throw away everyone who believed Bush in 2002. But if you chose to make a tiny tent of 2002 believers then have fun living under Republican dictatorship!
Kerry Responds to Murtha Attacks on the Senate Floor, Debate Rages
John Kerry just delivered a scathing speech on the Senate floor decrying the ‘swift boat’ style attacks on Jack Murtha. The floor speech has facilitated a bit of raging debate between Senator Jon Kyl and John Kerry. The back and forth was quite heated.
The following is the text of Kerry’s floor speech:
Mr. President, yesterday, Jack Murtha, a respected congressman on military matters, and former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. He didn’t come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. I am not going to stand for a swift boat attack strategy against Jack Murtha.
It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a marine who served his country heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since.
No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha’s character and conscience.
Dennis Hastert — the Speaker of the House who never served — called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn’t a coward when he put himself in harm’s way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts — he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha didn’t cut and run when his courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.
Just a day after Dick Cheney, who had 5 deferments from Vietnam, accused Democrats of being unpatriotic — the White House accused Jack Murtha of surrendering. Jack Murtha served 37 years in the Marine Corps. He doesn’t know how to surrender — not to enemy combatants, and not to politicians in Washington who say speaking his conscience is unpatriotic.
Robert Kennedy once said, “The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country.” Chuck Hagel showed he hasn’t forgotten that when he said, “The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.”
But too many in the Republican Party forgot that long ago. They forgot that asking tough questions isn’t pessimism; it’s patriotism.
We’ve seen the politics of fear and smear too many times. Whenever challenged, Republican leaders engage in the politics of personal destruction rather than debate the issues. It doesn’t matter who you are. When they did it to John McCain, we saw it doesn’t matter what political party you’re in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw it doesn’t matter if your service put you in a wheelchair. And when they did it to Jack Murtha yesterday, perhaps the most respected voice on military matters in all of Congress, we saw that this administration will go to any lengths to crush any dissent.
Once again, they’re engaged in the lowest form of smear and fear politics because they’re afraid of actually debating a senior congressman who has advised presidents of both parties on how to best defend our country. They’re afraid to debate a decorated veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. They’re terrified of actually leveling with the American people about the way they misled America into war, and admitting they have no clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home. Whether you agree with Jack Murtha’s policy or not is irrelevant.
The truth is there is a better course for our troops and for America in Iraq and I am going to keep fighting until we take that course for the good of our country.
American families who have lost, or who fear the loss, of their loved ones deserve to know the truth about what we have asked them to do, what we are doing to complete the mission, and what we are doing to prevent our forces from being trapped in an endless quagmire. Our military families understand that open debate about what’s going on in Iraq doesn’t put our troops at risk; it’s the only way to get it right in Iraq so we can get their sons and daughters home.
I think all of us should be mindful, as the White House yet again engages in character assassination to prevent Americans from listening to the words of military experts, of the consequences we have already endured from the failure to listen.
When the administration could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to.
When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to.
When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the “insurgency was in its last throes.”
And now, after all these mistakes, who is the administration to accuse anyone of wanting to cut and run. We are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense. That is the debate they are afraid to have in our country. Shame on them.
Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It’s time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it’s unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.
And I hope my colleagues will come down to this floor and debate the issue on its merits, instead of attacking the character of a man like Jack Murtha, because believe me — that’s a fight nobody’s going to win in our America.
I like Kerry, but that doesn’t mean I think he shouldn’t be criticized. What makes me a little (OK, a lot) uncomfortable is a tendency I see on our side to separate the worthy from the unworthy, and any mistake tosses a person into the unworthy pile.
I agree that Kerry shouldn’t have given Bush authorization to go to war. And when he had the chance, he should have said that it was a mistake because of what Bush did with the authorization. But I’d just like us to keep in mind that Kerry never would have invaded Iraq, never would have authorized torture, never would have cut taxes for the rich while screwing the poor and middle class. His mistakes are well-intentioned. He is a good person and would be a good president.
Look, we aren’t going to find a perfect candidate for president. There aren’t any, and if there were, the Republicans would dream up something to criticize them with anyway (e.g. Dean scream, swift boating, I invented the inernet). And it isn’t like the Republicans have perfect candidates. Bush was a self-evident incompetant from the beginning. The difference is that Republicans back up their candidates, and we eat our own.
I am critical of Kerry in a public forum only because I think it is clear that he intends to run again, and I think his candidacy would be a disaster. I don’t agree with Bush about much, but I do think Kerry is a hopeless flip-flopper who prefers playing it safe to speaking to the issues. And, yes, I feel betrayed by his early concession last year in the face of evidence of significant voter-suppression and possibly voter fraud.
Most of all, though, I think he is damaged merchandise, and that he has no chance of getting elected. I regret that he fails to realize that he had his shot and ought to leave it at that.
Kerry’s one of my senators. I’ve been watching him for years and he is certainly Senator Play-It-Safe. When I’m looking to my elected officials to take a principled stand on anything, I know I can count on Teddy. Period.
Play it safe?
Have you read what HE did with the BCCI and the terror money laundering scheme?
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html
Playing it safe? NOT!!!
I have followed the career of John Kerry ever since he became a spokesperson for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. His investigations into BCCI, including its connections to the drug trade were indeed commendable and courageous.
There is much about Kerry I admire, but that does not change the fact that he gave Bush and Rove plenty of ammunition to go after him with, and he broke his pledge to make sure every vote would count.
I honor Kerry for his anti-Vietnam War activism and his Iran-Contra investigation. I fault him for what I feel was an inept presidential campaign and a broken promise that not only insured Bush would keep the White House for another four years, but has allowed the media to sweep the whole issue of election fraud conveniently under the carpet. Kerry’s failure in this area has done our democracy untold damage. Instead of speaking out he has even branded others as liars when they reported on his privately stated conviction that the 2004 election was stolen. Even his wife has spoken out about this. So has Jimmy Carter. Why does John Kerry remain silent about this issue that threatens to overshadow every future election?
Iran-Contra was a long time ago. It is time for Kerry to step up to the plate again.
It is also about time for John Kerry’s supporters to realize that he is no saint and that criticizing him is not akin to a Karl Rove dirty trick.
The facts have been posted earlier.
And until you can prove that he doesn’t have people still fighting this issue in the courts of law or elsewhere then the burden is on you.
He didn’t scream at the media, but he’s still fighting.
Additionally, he is working with other Representatives to try to fix the election system.
If you think screaming and making a rukuss works better than all you have to do is look at the circus the media made of Al Gore.
The fact is, that you’re just angry he didn’t do it your way.
Why don’t you run for office and handle fraud in your way, but in the meantime we know MORE about the election problems now than we did in Nov. 3 2004. AND even now, it remains for a court of law to decide if the burden of proof has been met.
Review of Miller’s book by Farhad Manjoo
Nov. 14, 2005 | On Nov. 4, Mark Crispin Miller, the New York University media studies professor and longtime Bush critic, appeared on the lefty radio show “Democracy Now!” to promote his new book, “Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them).” As part of an on-air debate with the investigative reporter Mark Hertsgaard, who recently criticized Miller’s book in Mother Jones magazine, Miller let slip a dramatic piece of news about last year’s Democratic nominee for the presidency. “On Friday, this last Friday night, I arranged to meet Senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book,” Miller said. “He told me he now thinks the election was stolen.”
Now, this was big news. If what Miller said about Kerry was right, it would have signaled a momentous shift in thinking for the senator. For a year now, partisans on the left who say that Bush stole last year’s presidential race have had a hard time making their claim stick precisely because Kerry, the man they allege was the main victim of the fraud, had so quickly conceded the election and so thoroughly ignored any suggestion that it had been rigged. But if Kerry now thought that these people were right — if Kerry now believed Bush didn’t actually win the race — well, that would change everything. Suddenly the year-long online barrage of half-baked theories and misreported election data that some people say proves a massive, successful Republican conspiracy to install Bush in the White House would have found a very prominent, aggrieved backer, someone to finally make the case to the world that Americans had been cheated of their rightful president.
Unfortunately for the partisans, Miller’s Kerry blockbuster quickly fizzled. “I know Mr. Miller is trying to sell his book and he feels passionately about his thesis, but his recent statements about his conversation with Senator Kerry are simply not true,” Jenny Backus, a Kerry spokeswoman, told Raw Story shortly after the “Democracy Now!” broadcast. “The only thing true about his recollection of the conversation is that he gave Senator Kerry a copy of his book.”
Of course, I don’t know what transpired between the professor and the senator, but Miller’s shaky scoop is all too typical of much of the reporting in his book, in which Miller claims to prove that “hundreds, even thousands” of people on the right, spread across the country, conspired to steal the 2004 presidential election (and many others besides).
I say that Miller claims to prove this because that’s pretty much all he does. In his introduction, Miller promises to prove that Republicans rigged the race, and then at some point in the middle of the book he begins talking like he already has, and the reader is left to leaf through the volume in a daze, wondering if perhaps some kind of typesetting or bookbinding error caused the explosive section of Miller’s tome to be left out of this one copy. But not so; my book is intact, and though I searched the contents, the index and the voluminous endnotes, I found no proof of Miller’s theory. Like his claim that Kerry now believes he was robbed, Miller’s many suggestions of fraud dissolve under close scrutiny. By the end, the only fraud you’re sure of is the one perpetrated upon you, the reader, into bearing with this book. <…>
I think you have wasted valuable cyberspace repeating right winged spin.
Gee..it’s my guess that you only ‘grudgingly’ supported him in o4. My guess is in a few months we’ll see why you really felt the need to beat down one of your own.
By the way…he isn’t a flipper. I doubt you’ll waste any time learning the facts. LIKE reading the specific text of the IWR.
OR maybe you fell for the commercial that showed him attempting to explain how congress works.
There’s proposal one–vote yes or no
Then proposal one plus the changes in it–vote yes or no.
Then there may be 3-4 -5 etc until everyone can agree on how the bill should be read. It’s not flip-flopping it’s how government SHOULD work! By listening to all sides and voting according to the changes made in the bill.
It’s such a shame to have you showing your ‘intrinsic’ feelings out here and wasting everybody’s time.
Or…gee…maybe your just needing a dog to give you unquestioning love and obedience?
I personally can’t wait to see you find the 1 person in Congress who has never changed a vote!
Oh..golly…I guess you’ll be voting for someone who never even served in Congress or office because it’s the only way you’ll ever find someone who hasn’t changed a vote.
Me…personally, I have a big tent. I will accept people who NEGOTIATE and vote according to the changes in the policy as written.
Me…personally, I will vote for the person who has changed his mind and presented plans to end the war (multiple times!) even though maybe I didn’t support the war in 02 or maybe I did. I have a BIG TENT and I want progressives on my side to win.
Me…personally, I’ll vote for Kerry, Hackett, Edwards, etc IF they’ve shown me that they’re fighting for me! Golly gee…taking two years out of your life and almost losing your house isn’t much of a sacrifice. Listening to Republicans who smear you and little minded people on blogs smear you sure doesn’t make anyone want to run for President or Congress.
EVERYONE..GET with the program! BIG tent=BIG wins for dems. Petty little backstabbing bashing threads=great anger driven blogging but BIG LOSSES IN 06 and 08.
read the FAQ if you want to post here. This isn’t Democratic Underground.
I read the faq and the whole lead post goes against the faq you post:
“Therefore, this site is committed to building the Democratic Party, raising money for the Democratic Party and its candidates, finding and promoting promising candidates for state and local offices, helping to shape the Democratic Party’s agenda, and holding Democratic office holders to account for their votes and their ethics.
The site is also committed to doing some of the investigative work that is so desperately needed with the GOP in control of the oversight committees.
If I don’t consider myself a Democrat, am I welcome at the site?
Yes. You are. Everyone is welcome at the site regardless of political self-identification. I don’t care how you are registered to vote, who you have voted for in the past, or who you plan to vote for in the future.
The only restriction on non-Democrats is that they be respectful of the mission of this site, that they don’t post Bill O’Reilly-like talking points, and that they don’t engage in trollish behavior.”
Or perhaps you meant to call me a troll, except that other than one post I linked to facts rather than just “Bill O’Reilly like talking points.”
Calling Kerry a flip-flop without evidence is indeed a Bill O’Reilly talking point.
Regarding the link to D.U.: I listed that link because it showed both the IWR and Kerry’s speech at the time of the both and both are relevant to the proof that Senator John Kerry did not engage in a flip flop.
If your comment was meant to imply that my tone was overharsh, (trollish) then for that I apologize but I have come to Booman where it was an intellengent discussion and a safe alternative to Kos and instead I discovered a continuation of the Right-winged talking points that your site promises to keep out of here.
It’s extremely disappointing after the high quality articles I’ve seen written here.
what a fucking joke.
Kerry had zero balls on his Iraq vote during the campaign. That’s a BooMan talking point. No balls.
Go cry about it somewhere else and stop asking me to tell the other writers what they can and cannot say.
I agree with BooMan ;>
Regarding your sense of betrayal:
Are you aware of Kerry/Edwards lawyers chasing down the criminal intent of election officials, their suppression of voters (particularly black voters and registered Democrats) prior to the election in Florida, Nevado, N.M., Ohio etc…
Are you aware that they had lawyers fighting tooth and nail during the election to try to make sure everybody who wanted to vote could?
Are you aware that the lawyers are still fighting these cases in court to this day and that the cases WILL NOT be tried in cyberspace where freepers are more than happy to spin their attacks?
Are you aware of election reform legislation Kerry and others are working to FIX the problems of the 04 election?
Are you aware that the election problems have continued to this day as well–in the Hackett/Schmidt vote (and he still conceeded) and in the Election Reform Votes this November?
There is no quick fix and blaming Kerry for the coniving corrupt actions of those who vote rig is like blaming the victim who was mugged because they carried a wallet. So I guess all of us who have been mugged should just stay home and not go out to dinner again because some criminal might mug us again.
Kerry and Edwards put up a heck of a fight against “The most corrupt regime to EVER sit in office in the U.S. and the most corrupt MEDIA ever and the most corrupt state election officials AND the most corrupt voting ‘company’ EVER!”
Frankly, knowing what I do about ALL the battles they fought BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the election, I am even more PROUD and THANKFUL to both of them for the shear amount of commitment and inner strength it took to FIGHT each day during 04 and to STILL be there fighting tooth and nail against this evil corrupt administration and their Republican counterparts to this day.
Also, please take the time to learn about the “ploy” the pResident used to take our soldiers right before the election/during/and after to really HEAT up the anxiety about having a pResident in office during the battle in Fallujah. Do you really think Bush wouldn’t have let those soldiers continue to fight in Falluja while the entertainment propaganda networks portrayed Kerry/Edwards as a sore Looser. Did it help US or Al Gore when they did that to them?
No..it didn’t. Just because Kerry went “Behind the scenes” to try to find the truth does not mean that he didn’t fight.
AND additionally, ask any lawyer…the concension meant nothing! IF the vote count would have made Kerry the winner, then HE’S the winner.
Hackett had the same corrupt election in Ohio. He lost after an “unfortunate problem with humidity!” and he immediately conceeded. BUT had he won, his concention would have meant nothing as well.
The reason why both Hacket and Kerry are screwed is because the Ohio vote riggers were smart enough to start YEARS before the election and to HIDE their evidence FAST!
You can not stand in front of the media holding an empty wallet and say, “BUT my money was stolen” without PROOOF that the MONEY was there to begin with and that SOMEBODY (usually this is a witness or byestander or a accomplis who ‘flips’ and tells) IS THERE AS EVIDENCE.
All you have 1 year later is MORE than you had last year at this time: you have an empty wallet with a claim but no hard evidence.
The difference is that the Republicans manage to cough up candidates who are appealing to their base, while the Democrats produce candidates designed to appeal to the opposition, safely — or so they think — ignoring a base that can be counted upon to hold their nose and vote for vague, shadowy non-persons like John Kerry.
I knew where all of the Democratic candidates stood last time around: Dean, Kucinich, Braun, even Gephardt. I did not know, and still do not know, where John Kerry stands, with one notable exception: he’d like to be president.
Simple desire to wield power is not enough, and the Republican president we ended up with is proof of that. A successful presidential candidate, much less a successful president, needs a vision for the future. Kerry doesn’t seem to have a vision for much of anything.
Um…those people ran in 04 and LOST!
Guess people just like to pretend differently.
But Bush does a lot of pretending too and it doesn’t make it real.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/C00408088
As he said on abc..He’s not thinking about 08 when there is the Iraq war to end NOW before 06 elections come up.
Also Keeping America’s Promise PAC is Kerry’s:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/2005_C00409508
There is a huge list of donations to other campaigns there. Most are relatively small ($1000 – $2500) but those amounts early on can be very helpful to local campaigns.
KAP is where most of Kerry’s fund-raising for other candidates is happening now.
Yes, Kerry does help democrats get elected.
He’s also stood up against Bolton, The Bankruptcy Bill, Drilling in the Anwar, Refused to vote for Condiliar or Roberts, and voted against torture too.
These are the same values of the progressives and the progressive party.
AND in response to jbol these are immediate concerns our country has faced.
He’s been pushing for an investigation into the DSM and calling for real accountablity.
What makes me a little (OK, a lot) uncomfortable is a tendency I see on our side to separate the worthy from the unworthy, and any mistake tosses a person into the unworthy pile.
I agree with you here. I will go farther and make my own opinion (feel free to put distance between us at this point grins) that any healthy political group is comprised of allies, not members.
I usually vote democratic since my values have generally coincided with the democrats (ridiculously left, libertarian) but i have never identified with either party because I have good friends from all sides of the isles and because I believe that if the political party I’m allied with ever goes off the ranch I want to be able to DUMP them in favor of people more in line with what I believe.
Right now the dems are the lesser of two evils and even though Kerry was obviously the lesser of two evils and i voted for him, I was NOT overly thrilled with him… but i thought and still think he’d make an OK president. So, Emma is right..and if we want better than OK we need to get that that grass moving.
Dems DO have a tendency to eat their own don’t they :p
PS. great names.. both Emma and Anne are heroinnes in Jane Austin novels, of which I’m a rabid fan.
both Emma and Anne are heroinnes in Jane Austin novels, of which I’m a rabid fan.
That is not a coincidence. 🙂
I feel compelled once again to risk the ire of the Kerry-faithful.
You get no argument from me. I was quite disturbed at the rapid concession and at best, lukewarm support for Ohio recount given his intense fundraising for GELAC.
I do believe that his public statements on this and other matters do correlate strongly to public opinion polls. Unfortunately, this is probably true for many of the Democratic standard bearers. I guess I’m old-fashioned, but part of what makes one a leader is the ability to shape public opinion by compelling argument.
Yeah… I understand everyone who doesn’t want to spend more time attacking Kerry than attacking Republicans, but seriously, he was a major dissapointment, and completely lacked vision or campaigning ability. His inability to come out against the war was a disgrace to the party, his campaign, and common sense. Democrats are working against America’s core beliefs (city on the hill, terrer, etc.) on some issues; but since those core beliefs are on the level of kindergarteners, Dems have a responsibility to say what is considered heresy in order to convince Americans that it is not, in fact, heresy to speak against a war.
Even Kerry’s statement quoted about, that “I said it first, before Edwards” points to his sycophantic self-consciousness before the public. I read language like that, and it’s just like, “John, just shut the fuck up already; you’re embarrasing yourself. You’ve completely destroyed any credibility you might have had on the war, and while I’m glad you’re finally seeing reason now that the polls are on our side, you are no standard bearer and have already sold us out on this issue. So stop acting like we should worship you for stating the obvious and go back to doing what you do to best: boring people to death in senate commitees for the good of the republic.”
Are you aware of Kerry/Edwards lawyers chasing down the criminal intent of election officials, their suppression of voters (particularly black voters and registered Democrats) prior to the election in Florida, Nevado, N.M., Ohio etc…
Are you aware that they had lawyers fighting tooth and nail during the election to try to make sure everybody who wanted to vote could?
Are you aware that the lawyers are still fighting these cases in court to this day and that the cases WILL NOT be tried in cyberspace where freepers are more than happy to spin their attacks?
Are you aware of election reform legislation Kerry and others are working to FIX the problems of the 04 election?
Are you aware that the election problems have continued to this day as well–in the Hackett/Schmidt vote (and he still conceeded) and in the Election Reform Votes this November?
There is no quick fix and blaming Kerry for the coniving corrupt actions of those who vote rig is like blaming the victim who was mugged because they carried a wallet. So I guess all of us who have been mugged should just stay home and not go out to dinner again because some criminal might mug us again.
Kerry and Edwards put up a heck of a fight against “The most corrupt regime to EVER sit in office in the U.S. and the most corrupt MEDIA ever and the most corrupt state election officials AND the most corrupt voting ‘company’ EVER!”
Frankly, knowing what I do about ALL the battles they fought BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the election, I am even more PROUD and THANKFUL to both of them for the shear amount of commitment and inner strength it took to FIGHT each day during 04 and to STILL be there fighting tooth and nail against this evil corrupt administration and their Republican counterparts to this day.
Kerry struck out on his 2008 primary run on 2 November and soon after he clearly showed that he is NOT a leader but just a politician.
To me Kerry has three strikes against him from running again
The only way that I could take Kerry seriously is if he spent his ill saved 15 million dollars and campaigned a full force war against voting fraud… particularly that of African Americans… instead of cowardly “being out of the country” when this import matter was brought up in Congress.
This comment is precisely why posts like this are not helpful. Inflaming political disagreements to the point of calling someone a coward–twice–for not doing what you would like them to do, is counterproductive at best and at worst dangerous. But it certainly demeans the dialogue here.
I don’t know you except through this post, but even though I agree with you completely on the need for election reform and the failure of Democrats to fully confront this issue—and the vital importance of this issue to African Americans in particular–I would still rather have John Kerry watching my back.
I disagree with any one who suggests that criticism is dangerous. Sure, it isn’t always well-reasoned or well-researched, but woe to those who censor themselves in the public debate for fear that they willbe misunderstood.
What about repeating republican talking points and smears, against someone who is on our side? Or is it your position that John Kerry is not on our side, i.e. he is not on the side of the Democratic Party? (or are you not a Democrat yourself?)
I respond to this only to be courteous. These are not Republican talking points but rather legitimate criticisms. Your comments remind me of Republican talking points that anyone who criticizes Bush hates America.
I like Kerry as a person. He has done some great things.
That does not mean he was a good presidential candiadate or should be one again. please tell me how I have done anything here but lay out the facts.
“Flip-flop” is a republican talking point.
As pointed out by other posters on this thread:
Also this post does a good job of addressing your points:
http://www.boomantribune.com/user/uid:2481/diary
(I’m too tired to re-enter what someone else has so nicely done).
As to your comment about Kerry’s remark concerning Edwards, and that he made his statement before Edwards: I saw plenty of op-eds and news stories that apparently missed Kerry’s 10/26 speech where he made his statement (weeks before Edwards), because they were all saying, “now when are other Dems, like Clinton and Kerry going to come out and admit they were wrong like John Edwards has done”? Kerry’s comment was merely addressing this erroneous information being spread not only in the M$M, but the so-called “liberal” blogosphere (SCLB?) as well.
So…let me get this straight. Not defending yourself personally against an attack one day is weak (never mind that other Dems should have stood up for Kerry against the swifties, as he has stood up for Murtha) – but on another day, defending yourself against untruths being spread in the media, is “gratuitous”? Riiiight.
Thank you for your link back.
You accurately stated the comments Kerry made and how he was saying things in self-defence.
YET, the Republican Corporate media nit-picked what to sparse out to the American public in order to maintain the attack on his words.
Also, they were doing that as a distraction from the key point Kerry (and others) have been making.
THE issue on the table is Kerry, Murtha, Edwards, Cindy and the American public is shouting to the Republicans to get us OUT of Iraq and at least 60% believe NOW that Bush took us to war on a lie and should be impeached if the evidence supports that.
These are incredible facts for all of us.
Kerry is one of many who are building the momentum to take back the country and for the poster who feels he’s running in 08…so what?
He said it himself. “I’m not running in 08 NOW! I’m trying to get the troops OUT of Iraq now and I’m trying to get them out BEFORE the end of 06!”
So…Kerry is working with Murtha on this same issue. AND technically two heads are indeed better than one.
To set the record straight, I did not say that criticism is dangerous. I object to inflammatory language about an ally and an honorable person. I said at worst such rhetoric could be dangerous. Specifically to the Democratic party and the process of coming together to support a candidate, for one instance. (This is the beauty of comments; my words are still here.)
I object to it for the same reason that I object to the disrespect shown to John Murtha, who represents a district near where I grew up, and with whom I’ve disagreed more often than not. It’s not right to call these people cowards, and it serves only the interests of the rabid right Republicans.
As for your supposed facts, I see they have been dealt with in other comments here. I along with others take issue with your assertions and your interpretations. But above all, I object to your contemptuous rhetoric, and the damage it does to the process, and your defense of it as a political tool. You can oppose and criticize anyone you want. But a man who has put in as much time and effort on behalf of the Democratic party and this country deserves more respect than to have a cynical label repeated a year later with so dubious a justification.
Actually, all your points were right on target!
Great point!
Election reform is the key!
AND there are 3 count them..1, 2, 3 cases STILL going on in Ohio AND one case in New Mexico.
I suppose Kerry could sit there even now and refuse to conceed because more than 365 days later we have MORE facts but as of yet no decisive proof of fraud.
Plus, if people would remember, Bush started sending the troops into Fallujah right before the elections. THIS action put the soldier’s lives in even more danger. Now…let’s say that Kerry protests and the circus continues as it did for Al Gore (and Gore still lost too because of election shinanigins) what would happen to those troops in the field?
Well, if you google the facts, you’ll see their ‘foray’ into Fallujah was short. BUT had Kerry protested, Bush “The war time pResident” would have MADE those soldiers continue to attack in fallujah until everyone of them was dead or until the election was ‘called’.
Facts people, Facts…
AND thanks for you’re great post about election reform being the problem and not the person.
Kerry struck out on his 2008 primary run on 2 November and soon after he clearly showed that he is NOT a leader but just a politician.
Parker, I agree with your statements but in all honesty there have been precious few who are leaders. At this point, “mere” competence would be refreshing.
I humbly disagree… the Democrats CAN have courageous leaders and bold leadership… it is just that Republican funded so called “Democratic” organizations like the DLC and NDN “weed” them out before they can even make to the primaries… on the pretense of electablity.
Cool! You can predictictions.
So what is next weeks winning lotto numbers?
OH..and by the way…
I don’t suppose you read the article that the only person (Democrat or otherwise) who would have come CLOSE to doing what kerry did and who still may or may not have won the election was Bill CLinton had he been able to run.
And I wouldn’t let the facts that Kerry had MORE voters than ANY Democrat running.
Sure…there’s the election fraud out there.
But Hackett got screwed in Ohio in 05 and he didn’t contest the loss and he didn’t cry foul even though the evidence of fraud is suspiciously similar to Kerry’s.
So…hmmm…guess Hackett ain’t gonna win either.
Yes…and there is the Nov 05 Election reform votes in Ohio a few weeks ago. AND even then, that looks ofly suspicicious–like perhaps the votes were rigged. BUT still no solid evidence and no whistle blower has come forward.
So maybe instead of putting your efforts into smearing a guy who got Swiftied by the republican smear machine, cheated by the election system, and STILL has the class to stand up for Democrats ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY, you might consider that Hackett-did the same thing as Kerry.
And you might consider that the election problem is so HUGE in Ohio that anything Kerry or ANYBODY has done is NOT going to work UNLESS the criminals are found and put behind bars with SOLID evidence.
AND this is not going to happen in front of the media, but MAY happen with the skill, determination, and perseverence of Kerry and all of us fighting TOGETHER instead of wasting time focusing on side issues.
Kerry’s position was carefully drafted to separate the authorization from the prosecution of the conflict. At the time of the vote, and definitely not alone, Kerry seemed to think that the administration would act as GW 1 had. King George would build a coalition and global support for a new U.N. resolution, and force Iraq to accept what amounted to a complete standdown to allow inspectors to complete their work. Congress would be advised in advance of any overt military action.
Those that voted for the authorization were fairly united in their opinion that the President needed that “tool” as leverage in what most (I think) assumed would be a slow build to force regime change without going to war. (Keep in mind that the vote took place on Oct 11, 2002).
Two years later Kerry still believed the President – any President – needed that authorization. And while “we” and the entire Country knew about the lies, there was still a vast difference of opinion on how best to clean up the mess.
I see no flip-flop here.
That stated, for a whole raft of other reasons, he is definitely “unqualified for the position”. Next candidate please.
In order for the merely an “authorization to back the President” to be plausible, we would have to ignore too much history.
First, the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Pure regime change, had nothing to do with WMD or terrorism, democracy or liberation.
Second, PNAC. Kind of hard to miss that these same folks who drafted this “vision” and foisted the Iraq Liberation Act on Clinton’s WH were suddenly in power.
Third, Powell and Rice both said in 2001 that Saddam was not a threat. So when the super-hype “smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud” hit the world stage in the summer of 02, serious questions on credibility should have been raised. And by October 02, the NIE should have raised serious questions on credibility. By January 03, when the President used the “sixteen words”, Congress had already been briefed that the claim of Niger uranium was highly suspicious.
Had Senator Kerry believed that BushCo. would build multi-lateral support and use war as a last resort in October 2002, by January 2003, that was clearly not the case. We were going to war regardless – based on lies. Did he stand up and object? Nope. And he – who had asked Congress who should be “the last man to die for a mistake” knew there was no post-invasion plan. Greeted as liberators? Candy and flowers?
Fourth, the Patriot Act was as blatant a grab for power and erosion of liberty. It was also the clue of all clues on just as far as this administration would take the abuse of power. That’s to say if Florida 2000 wasn’t enough already.
So, in order to believe that any member of Congress, let alone a member who had served in conflict and four terms in the US Senate, voted for the Iraq War Resolution thinking that it was a “back the Pres” play, we would have to believe that Senator Kerry is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. He is neither.
“Merely” is hardly the word I’d use to describe the Senate granting any President authority to proceed under the War Powers Act. Further, shoulda, woulda, coulda does not alter the fact that more people supported the war, the “War On Terror”, and the Patriot Act, than opposed them.
Kerry in the debate on the Resolution:
A very long discussion, and worth reading.
I’m not getting the point.
I think you are taking a question about PNAC, the patriot act, and the evidence used by anybody who supported the war in 2002 and making the assumption that they had ACCESS to all these facts.
*don’t know how to create a table–SPECIFICATION of the IWR**
“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
*
**PROOF in Kerry’s IWR vote officially on the record that HE believed that Sadam had WMD based on the evidence Bush presented to them.***
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America’s judgments about his miscalculations.
All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world’s determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems… unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.
Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. 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.
The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to “take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program.” That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.
Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration’s decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.
By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war–that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America’s credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.
Against this disarray, it is not surprising that tough questions began to be asked and critics began to emerge. Indeed over the course of the last 6 weeks some of the strongest and most thoughtful questioning of our Nation’s Iraq policy has come from what some observers would say are unlikely sources: Senators like CHUCK HAGEL and DICK LUGAR, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before–and not after–you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism–they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.
It is love of country, and it is defined by defense of those policies that protect and defend our country. Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq–seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.
Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms–and there are many in this body and beyond–can take heart in the fact that those questions and those criticisms have had an impact on the debate. They have changed how we may or may not deal with Iraq. The Bush administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism. Today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein’s failure to return Kuwaiti property. Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.
The administration began discussion of Iraq by almost belittling the importance of arms inspections. Today the administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world’s many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction. That is why arms inspections–and I believe ultimately Saddam’s unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections–is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. That is the way in which you make it clear to the world that we are contemplating war not for war’s sake, and not to accomplish goals that don’t meet international standards or muster with respect to national security, but because weapons inspections may be the ultimate enforcement mechanism, and that may be the way in which we ultimately protect ourselves.
I am pleased that the Bush administration has recognized the wisdom of shifting its approach on Iraq. That shift has made it possible, in my judgment, for the Senate to move forward with greater unity, having asked and begun to answer the questions that best defend our troops and protect our national security. The Senate can now make a determination about this resolution and, in this historic vote, help put our country and the world on a course to begin to answer one fundamental question–not whether to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but how.
I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein’s record bears this out.
I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.
He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf the Iraqi regime provide credible proof war to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. during the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM–Special Commission–inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.
It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq’s chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program–R&D, production and weaponization–are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq’s neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq’s efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq’s nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein’s regime.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.
Absent a foreign supplier, it might be longer. There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I have heard even my colleagues who oppose the President’s resolution say we have to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. They also say we have to force the inspections. And to force the inspections, you have to be prepared to use force. So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.
The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.
Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war–particularly unilaterally–unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.
As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater–a nuclear weapon–then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?
And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?
(snip)
The President has challenged the United Nations, as he should, and as all of us in the Senate should, to enforce its own resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq. And his administration is now working aggressively with the Perm 5 members on the Security Council to reach a consensus. As he told the American people Monday night: “America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm.”
And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they–all of them–will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.
If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action–without good cause or reason–the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world’s case against Saddam Hussein.
As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
***END of portion that says He believed there were WMD based on GWB’s evidence before Congress**
(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.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.”
*
*end first definition*
Bush LIED to them, he cherry picked facts, and he sold the war. BUT NOBODY outside of his administration had this knowledge prior to 9 months ago with the release of the DSM and the information from Fitzgerald’s investigation.
NEXT…The following are the expectations that Kerry had that he layed out for Bush and they also represent the same IDEAS that 80% of the public had IF Bush were to take us to war. This is where Bush gave Kerry and all of us the middle finger and Cheney’d it his own way:
*
*EXPECTATIONS**
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days–to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent–and I emphasize “imminent”–threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. 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.
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community’s demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President’s new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.
The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.
Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces–and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that–then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.
American success in the Persian Gulf war was enhanced by the creation of an international coalition. Our coalition partners picked up the overwhelming burden of the cost of that war. It is imperative that the administration continue to work to multilateralize the current effort against Iraq. If the administration’s initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to invest, to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense program of inspection, or if necessary, through the use of force. That is the best way to proceed.
The United States, without question, has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally. But we do need friends. We need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, overflight rights from allies in the region. And most importantly, we need to be able to successfully wage the war on terror simultaneously. That war on terror depends more than anything else on the sharing of intelligence. That sharing of intelligence depends more than anything else on the cooperation of countries in the region. If we disrupt that, we could disrupt the possibilities of the capacity of that war to be most effectively waged.
I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people’s alone.
If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.
The challenge is great: An administration which made nation building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan, if it will meet the challenge. The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort.
The international community’s support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq singlehandedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity. It is clear the Senate is about to give the President the authority he has requested sometime in the next days. Whether the President will have to use that authority depends ultimately on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a choice: He can continue to defy the international community, or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to this brink of confrontation.
He is the dictator who can end the stalemate simply by following the terms of the agreement which left him in power.
By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President’s right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.
I believe the work we have begun in this Senate, by offering questions, and not blind acquiescence, has helped put our Nation on a responsible course. It has succeeded, certainly, in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this.
It is through constant questioning we will stay the course, and that is a course that will ultimately defend our troops and protect our national security.
President Kennedy faced a similar difficult challenge in the days of the Cuban missile crisis. He decided not to proceed, I might add, preemptively. He decided to show the evidence and proceeded through the international institutions. He said at the time:
“The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are… The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”
So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations–an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create–to simply be ignored by this dictator.
I yield the floor.
*
**END expectations***
PLUS the media WAS COMPLICIT in intentionally HIDING these fact because they wanted Bush to win. (As reported in TIME or Newsweek magazine on why they did not tell us about the Plame national security leak prior to 04 elections. I saw it at afterdowningstreet but can not find the link now.)
Downing street Memos: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
First Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 it was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth behind how the Iraq war began. (WAAY past the 2002 vote!)
Patrick Fitzgerald–specifically addressed that his investigation was obstructed (and that investigation also began waaaay after the 02 vote)
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/
and links are handy.
NEO-CONSERVATIVES: On January 27, 1998–three and a half years before the 9/11 attacks–the Project for the New American Century published an open letter in The Washington Times urging President Clinton to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Among the eighteen signatories to this letter were ten people who would later join the Bush Administration. They are:
Among the other founders of the Project for the New American Century were Dick Cheney, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Jeb Bush and Dan Quayle.
Flip-flop is such a smarmy criticism; the ability to change one’s mind should usually be a sign that it still functions. Murtha is a great example today. Difficult though to read Bush’s policy switch from his pre-election thoughts on “nation-building” as evidence of his mental acumen unless you’re an enthusiast ala Harriet Miers. Do we really want politicians whose minds, in the words of the poet William Carlos Williams, “are made up/like beds”?
Still, the Dems do need to be challenged & criticized, and the confines of their discourse can certainly stand a little reframing as well. Lost in all the outrage over manipulated intelligence is any debate over the propriety of engaging in an aggressive war of pre-emption. Anyone who believed that diplomacy was anything but a smokescreen is seriously delusional. Back in the Clinton days, Madeline Albright declared that the sanctions would not be lifted even if the Iraqi’s were to comply with all UN demands.
Jeremy Scahill published a piece the other day that highlights in a non-partisan fashion the hypocrisy of the Democrats in all this:
During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what intelligence he based that allegation. “Talks with people who were knowledgeable,” Dean told me. “Including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.”
and:
and finally:
Herein lies the real political crisis in this country: the Democrats are not an opposition party, nor are they an antiwar party-never were. At best, they are a loyal opposition. The Democrats ran a pro-war campaign in 2004 with Kerry struggling to convince people that Dems do occupation and war better. The current head of the DNC, Howard Dean, never met a war he didn’t adore until he realized he could exploit the energy and sincere hopes of millions of peace-loving Americans. Dean wasn’t ever antiwar. In fact, during the 2004 campaign he attacked Kerry for opposing the Gulf War while laying out his own pro-war record.
“In 1991, I supported Gulf War. I supported the first President Bush,” declared Dean. “Senator Kerry who criticizes my foreign policy, he voted against that war. I supported the Afghanistan war, because I felt it was about our national defense– 3,000 of our people were killed. I supported President Clinton going into Bosnia and Kosovo.”
How can Howard Dean look people in the eye today and pretend to speak with any credibility as an antiwar voice?
If one’s only interest is to remove American troops from harm’s way, this history is probably unimportant. If you’re interested in the use & abuse of American power abroad, the whole piece is worth a read.
“A wise man changes his mind, a fool never.” The term “flip flop” refers not to a change of heart or mind, it’s a political calculation. While it can be difficult to spot the difference, courage should be factored in. Political expediency should be factored out. Put the change in context and see where it comes out.
AND in this case has no meaning to the actions of John Kerry.
It’s pretty easy to sit here and question someone elses sincerity. Perhaps that’s WHY the Rovian machine loves to use the smear machine.
Cynacism is the both the friend and enemy of democracy. Yes, a little cynicism can keep us alert to guard against those who intend to abuse our system of government. BUT it’s also the enemy when it’s used to attack people who just do something different from what we may have done given the same situation.
It’s awfully easy to be an armchair critic (blog critic) instead of getting up, running for Congress, and taking the risks and making the hard choices yourself.
I respected the Kerry who fought in Vietnam as well as the one who, having become more sophisticated about the war, campaigned against it. His inability to explain the change in perception was damning.
I don’t know what happened to the post-Vietnam Kerry – if, indeed, he ever existed. In retrospect, he may have been following the political winds (with a lot of coaching) even then. His congressional testimony certainly elevated his profile as little else would. I wonder how people can say with such assurance what he would do as president. I doubt that anyone knows who this man is or what he represents.
His corporate support and DLC backing certainly suggest he is establishment rather than liberal. His inability to take a firm stand in opposition to his “managers” during the campaign betrays to me a lack of character. During the primaries, he appeared to me to be a weak candidate and I was stunned that he was so widely thought to be “electable.” He may be a politician and he may look “Lincolnesque” but I’ve seen little evidence to suggest he has the courage of his convictions or the ability to take risks that are required for true leadership.
is so ironic.
This critique of Kerry is more than a year out of date, and it’s really counterproductive to bring this up now, and resurrect the flip-flopping image. John Kerry is a flip-flopper like Robert Kennedy was ruthless. It’s nonsense based on partial evidence, and it’s time for it to stop.
What Kerry said in that windswept interview had more to do with not hearing the question properly than with changing his mind. And by hearing I mean physically and in the sense of what the question meant, because he answered it badly on other occasions at that time.
But he has long since corrected it. He said in his campaign the same things he is saying now about the war. He felt that if what the Bush people were saying about Saddam was true, the President ought to have the authority to act, and especially to threaten to attack. But it wasn’t true, and he didn’t know how incompetent the Bush administration would be, diplomatically as well as militarily.
Yes, I fault him for not realizing what liars the Bush people are, and how they were selling a war they’d decided to wage, or that they are a bunch of greedy crooks. But he was hardly alone among prominent Democratic officeholders in that.
John Kerry’s problem was that he was positioning himself to be an effective President while campaigning. That used to be possible. Sadly it doesn’t seem to be anymore.
Some of the comments here seem to me evidence of simple projection, not the facts. And someone feels they have to apologize for pointing this out. Kerry sent out emails and made statements defending Murtha, and he did so effectively because of his own military record and the swift boating of him. That’s a fact.
Of course everyone is disappointed in losing, and there are always things that could have been done better. At this point in the process people are looking for the perfect candidate, and that usually means one who hasn’t really been tested yet. Until we stop projecting our fantasies and our gripes on our leaders, we’re left with nothing but temporary heroes and scapegoats. Let’s get a grip. Criticize Kerry all you want for something real. But feeding the flip flop is dangerously close to swift boating, in my view. What’s next, a post slamming Al Gore because he didn’t really invent the Internet?
I am really getting tired of all of these comparisons to swift-boating and Karl Rove (there is a lot of that going at at Kos — much less here). These are legitimate fact-based criticisms. Karl Rove did not invent the word “flip-flop.” In fact Kerry would have been wise to turn the tables and use it on Bush who flip-flopped more than any one.
Kerry clearly understood the question because he clarified his answer even when he gave it by saying it was important to give the president the power he was requesting. Moreover, this exchange was widely quoted, and I don’t believe Kerry ever sought to isssue a clarification, at least during the campaign.
As for now not being the time to be critical, now is exactly the time. Kerry is almost certainly going after the Democratic nomination for the presidency. If we oppose his candidacy and fail to criticize him now we have only ourselves to blame if he is once again our standard-bearer next year. A piece like this is only “counter-productive” if you want Kerry to be the Democratic nominee in 2008.
I have resolved not to vote for Kerry ever again after he broke his campaign pledge to make sure “every vote would be counted.” Selfishly I do not want him to be the nominee because I would very much like to cast a meaningful vote against the Republicans. If Kerry is the candidate I will have to vote independent in 2008.
That you don’t want Kerry to be the nominee is your right. The reason you give that he conceded too soon, insofar as it questions his judgment and not his veracity, is a legitimate reason not to support him.
But not wanting him to be the nominee does not justify saying just anything about him. Resurrecting a statement from well over a year ago that he may or may not have specifically corrected (I’m sure he did but I don’t have a citation, so let’s say he didn’t) but it clearly needs to be judged in the context of his opposition to the Bush rush to war and the Bush conduct of the war in the campaign. Your interpretation of this as Kerry flip-flopping again is a distortion, and I don’t consider it valid. I especially note it because itis the kind of distortion that Republicans routinely use, and I don’t want to go there. This is not the kind of politics I’m interested in.
When you accuse Kerry of tailoring his views to poll numbers of today, it is simply untrue in this instance. It is a serious matter to question someone’s integrity, although once again this is becoming routine thanks to Republican-driven character assassination politics.
His position today is consistent with his position during the campaign, although like a lot of others, he has seen the situation in Iraq deteroriate to the point where measures that might have had a chance to work a year ago are now going to be futile. Adapting to new conditions isn’t flip flopping, it’s leadership. It’s true that the poll numbers give political cover to EVERYONE now opposing the Bush war. But no one who saw the campaign debates could doubt that Kerry has been against it.Nobody is saying anyone in politics is as pure as the driven snow, and it’s simply reality to be aware of what people are going to hear and what they won’t.
The reason to insist on valid statements and criticisms of Kerry is not the decision to support his nomination, but the decision to come to fair and useful conclusions, and stop distorting and demonizing allies we might want to oppose.
I am not distorting, and I am not demonizing. Kerry said what he said, and he did not correct the record as far as I know.
I’ll go further. His claim that he said the same thing Edwards wrote before Edwards wrote it is gratuitous and totally unnecessary. Why does Kerry feel the need to prop himself up this way?
Stop calling names and deal with the facts.
Actually there was no name calling in that post.
Though ironically for a person who doesn’t like the namecalling you certainly throw yours around.
I personally have lurked at this site for quite a while.
Seeing your posts and your thread has made me believe this place is part of the Republican spin machine. Particularly your posts.
brilliant.
Please read this quote from John Kerry made to a very highly respected journalist William Rivers Pitt in 2003!
“The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. ?Senator,? he said, ?the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you?re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.?
Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.” And then he was gone.
In the end, that is perhaps the greatest obstacle for Kerry to overcome. Liberal base voters never trusted George W. Bush from the beginning, and believed in their hearts that he was approaching the Iraq situation with bad intentions. The fact that Kerry trusted him, and trusted him enough to ignore Senator Robert Byrd?s dire warnings of constitutional abrogation of Congressional responsibilities which was inherent in the resolution, makes it hard for those voters to trust Kerry.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml
Kerry still has three lawsuits going on in Ohio.
That’s lots of attorneys STILL fighting for you in Ohio.
Also, I recall seeing posted in Kos that Kerry has people working EVEN now on this very issue. There were a lot of things going on behind the scenes but that until I find a link I’m not going to talk about.
So…compare the way he’s fighting to the way he had to fight through the obstruction in the BCCI and Iran-contra.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html
It took a lot of work BEHIND THE SCENES and a lot of guts and determination to get to the bottom of it. Yet he quietly and determinedly succeeded DESPITE the efforts of then CIA head GWB and other staunch Republicans who didn’t want it to happen.
It didn’t just “appear” magically solved as those who think the 04 election will be magically solved. There are ALOT of things going on BEHIND the scenes which is EXACTLY where they belong!
My GOD! Do you catch a bank robber by going in front of the media crying, “I was robbed, I was robbed, I was robbed! (waaaaahhhhhh)” OR does a prosecutor and the police and the investigators FIND the culprits by being every bit as quiet and determined as the thieves were to begin with.
I gaurentee you…read BCCI and talk to local police departments and you’ll see…HE’s being quite SMART to do this quietly!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci
Hey guys the bashing really sucks.
You show disrespect for the 80% of Americans who LIKE JK and MURTHA and others in Congress BELIEVED the pResident since we HAD just been attacked.
I personally find these attacks against Kerry to be self-serving by those who prefer to knock people down instead of lift all of us UP.
This smear tactic is the trick of the fundies and the lying republican spin machine and I find it sadly reprehensible that Lefty’s are just as happy to smear their own team player with the same old right winged LIES that cost all of us the election.
‘
“Flip-flop” huh?
Gosh..gee…I’m one of those 80% of those who have changed their mind about the war since 02, but I’m also one of the 80% who are out here day and night working to get progressives elected in every state–JUST LIKE KERRY THE MAN YOU BASHED.
So…other than spread more lies, and other than perpetuate the myths the fake media spread…WHAT have you done to get progressives elected lately?
Maybe Kerry and I and at least the other people I know who have changed our minds should just separate ourselves from YOU so we can watch you sit on a blog and whine and beat down every person who disagrees with you and then we’ll see IF you can get a concensous progressive gov’t elected. Or perhaps you’re happy to allow all progressives to be shot by their own side so the Rethugs can continue to bankrupt our nation.
Me thinks that your self-righteous attacks against Kerry are only said to lift the chances of the one you love.
Oh..and btw..the hero Murtha also voted for the IWR.
ONE suggestion I make is for all of you to LEARN what the IWR was and you’ll SEE it was NOT a vote for war and there been no flipping unless you count GWB flipping off Congress by disobeying the context of the IWR and taking us to war against the dictates of the IWR.
Oh..Maybe you don’t know…but GWB said, “The vote for this IWR IS NOT A VOTE FOR WAR IT IS A VOTE FOR PEACE!” http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358×574 (and KERRY”S SPECIFIC DETAILS THAT BUSH FAILED TO DO IS IN THAT SAME LINK: TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002 (read it…educate yourself before you decide to spread right-winged media lies)
YOU said, ” am delighted that John Kerry has come to regret his October 2002 vote that helped the Bush administration take us to war. I only wish he had done that during the presidential campaign when it might have made a difference”
I say to that that HE DID, but he used different words that meant the same thing. Furthermore even as early as 2003 he admitted he was mislead about the war.
Educate yourself:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60588-2004May27.html
–
Also. There is no evidence that if Kerry said what the poster apparently wanted him to say in the presidential campaign, that it would have helped. It would more likely have hurt, because it would have reinforced the “flip-flop” meme (which Dems have been so unwilling to fight against even though it is untrue, and stupid to just roll over for it anyway).