Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then I could accept what he did.

It's not the vote. It's the weaseling.

...it's both!

I could live with it. My take is that is was a politically smart move when he voted. Now that it's become an issue, he's trying to defend his vote. I understand his arguement...I simply don't agree with it.

I, personally, have more respect for a person who can say that they made a wrong call...

where he defended and reiterated his stand.

John Kerry will not get my vote.

He had his chance to act like a Senator and he failed.

I can live with Dean, Graham and Kucinich.

As for Kerry, New Hampshire is gonna give him the Royal Flush he deserves!

It can never be washed away.

It doesn't mean he can't get my vote in a general election, but it does me I will never trust the man.

but, what did he say?

approval and we should now ask for UN troops. I will look for a transcript tomorrow.

My point is - the people in Congress voting for the war were led to believe that we would go ONLY upon UN approval.

My point is - the people in Congress voting for the war were led to believe that we would go ONLY upon UN approval.

If so, then the people in Congress voting for the war were utter morons, since that is precisely what the resolution did not say, as anyone with even half a brain could have realized, had they looked at the wording of the resolution.

I think it far more likely that they realized full well that, with a "yes" vote on the resolution, Bush would have invaded no matter what. However, they figured that a) the only way they could have blocked the resolution would have been a filibuster, b) that filibustering would have exposed them to charges of being "unpatriotic" in the next election (and, God knows, the one thing Congressional Democrats cannot endure is Republicans saying nasty things about them :eyes: ), c) that if they didn't filibuster and voted against it anyway, they would still be called unpatriotic, and d) since we were likely to win easily, making it a popular war for the average voter, they might as well disconnect their consciences (as usual...) climb on the bandwagon and take credit for whatever good came of the war, while half-heartedly blaming the White House for whatever came out badly.

:argh:

They finally got his hair looking normal, and having him infront of Lake Erie brought a nice touch to the interviewing. DK made a few good points on the war on trade and did not crash and burn like he did on Matthews.

I would be very happy to see Kucinich begin to campaign well. Everyone knows he is the most liberal on the issues; Kucinich and his supporters need to do a better job selling *Kucinich* himself.

But if he were to say, "I trusted George Bush, and he lied to me, and I understand now that it is a mistake to trust George Bush" it would help.

But I'm for him anyway.

And call him "LIAR".

He must also make sure Lieberman changes parties (officially, we all know he changed politically when he helped take down Gore)

to understand all the various levels he was dealing with the issue, then I say...too bad. Daily Howler and MWO haven't been able to get through to them, either. They don't WANT to understand.

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

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as

he

determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

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

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



No ambiguity or "various levels" here.

.

Everything else is words. The above section of the IWR is all that I need to read. Speeches won't change the meaning. Op-ed's won't.

It speaks for itself.

if I thought he was the best candidate to knock of Chimp? Hell yeah!

I do not accept his vote for the War.

He was wrong.

The "evidence" and "case" for the war has now been proven to be fraudulent and his vote to be wrong.

The results of the War, chaos and quagmire, have proven his vote to be wrong.

I like John Kerry, but why is it that he has to explain his rotten vote. Kerry--as a victim of the Viet Nam War, a war also fought on a host of falsehoods, a war that he later came to protest--should own up to his lousy vote and admit it was a mistake---if not for the obvious reason that it was, then for the soldiers who are there now who were betrayed by a weak Congress just as the soldiers in the 1960's and early 1970's were.

That's what John Kerry could say.

That's what John Kerry will eventually say. It's only a matter of time. It could save his candidacy.

Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense during Vietnam war, said in a choked voice, promoting his book of memoirs c. 1990s.

Eloriel

Thank you Eloriel for the pertinent posting of McNamara's late mea culpa. I wish John Kerry could just say it now. It's up to him.

This war is a mistake by any calculation.

If he admitted that it was a politically, and not rationally, motivated vote, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he continues to stand by his vote, people won't accept the case to justify it. If he admits he was so easily deceived, people will question his good judgement and integrity when others were not convinced so readily and were willing to risk the political consequences.

I have since found other little things that make me even more convinced he is NOT what we want in a leader, but in answer to your question I'll repeat what I've said all along:

I can forgive him for his vote ONLY if he repudidates it completely, apologizes to America, Iraq and the world, and starts calling relentelessly for Bush's impeachment.

Those are my terms. I absolutely do not see myself voting for him under any other circumstances. And I'll say again also: this is not an intellectual decision, not something anyone (including me) could "change my mind" about. It comes from deep within, a visceral level that touches my deepest core values as a human being. THAT is how personally violated I feel about this war.

And I've said this before too. All the war votes are unforgiveable. But for me, that vote from this Vietnam war hero who came home to become a Vietnam anti-war hero is perhaps the bitterest betrayal. Of all people, he has become one of the old men he once protested, one of the old men who send young men to die for the wrong reasons. Or no good reason at all.

Mr. Kerry's political career was not worth ONE of these deaths.

Eloriel

And I feel the deepness, too, about the "war vote" from Kerry and the others.

I felt it at the time; horribly, sinkingly, pervasively and I haven't changed my mind.

Yeah.....he needs to say he was wrong. He is not doing that, and, worse, he sure does seem to ramble in these very general terms about "national security. protecting our country" that I think he must truly believe that AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK, right now.....

Anyone who thinks that is a little cuckoo, IMO.

Granted, any more of our current policies and warmongering, and we will be under attack.

We have breached our social contract with the entire world. This is not good. We need to return to it.

this issue.

There's nothing he could say or do that would convince me at this point. Maybe if he'd stood with Kennedy and Byrd before the war started in trying to take back that terrible resolution. Not now. No way.

That said, yes, I'll reluctantly work for him if he gets the nomination, and I'll work my precinct captains hard to get out the vote in the election. But I cannot back him with any enthusiasm.

i agree with every single word eloriel wrote-- for a man who headed vietnam veterans against the war, this is such a cold, sick betrayal

that he is a member of the skull and bones crap. It's creepy.

that the war was really all about oil & strategic global dominance, that Halliburton & Bechtel et al have profited outrageously from the war simply because they're Bush cronies, that the doctrine of pre-emptive war is immoral & un-American, & that his own vote was due not to being "duped" but because he didn't have the nerve to resist the drive towards war; that US foreign policy is now being dictated not so much by real external threats as by the needs of the M-I complex; & that the jingoism of the US media and the practice of "embedding" journalists with the troops is disgraceful -- then maybe I'd accept his vote.

(I won't hold my breath waiting for these acknowledgements.)

I think Eloriel hit the nail right on the head. With almost any other Democrat who voted for the resolution (Fienstein, Cantwell, even Gephardt), I could understand them saying "we believed George W. Bush, and he lied to us." But Kerry...? He spent his whole youth in a war that was based on lies (the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, the "domino theory," etc., etc.), saw the carnage and suffering that resulted, and came home to oppose that war and denounce the lies that had birthed it. He, of all people, should have long ago learned the lesson to be skeptical when "the best and the brightest" (or, in this case, the worst and the dimmest) present their pretexts to convince us to go to a war they already desire. If he tries to excuse his Iraq vote on the grounds of having trusted Bush "not wisely but too well," one may wonder whether he has any judgement whatsoever. After all, as the Pretender from Texas tried to say, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." And, while I can imagine Kerry, if he "repented" sufficently, doing enough to get me to forgive him, I can't imagine anything he could do that would get me to trust him with the power of the Presidency.

After he's sworn in as president, he de-classifies all the lies told to start the war, works to appoint special counsel to indict all the war criminals in the current administration and sits down with the U.N. to figure out how to put Iraq back together again without continuing the rape and pillage. Of course, what will happen if its not occupied is that it will turn into an islamic fundamentalist state. Tough shit. If that's what they want, that's what we get for tossing out the dictator WE installed 30 years ago.

Would I vote for him against Smirk? Yes.

Would I campaign for him wholeheartedly and recommend him to as many people as I could and send him money? No. I'm doing that for Dean at the moment. But its, early and we will have to see who is going to be beating Smirk in 2004.

He didn't vote for Bush to circumvent the UN. He didn't vote for Bush to make inspectors irrrelevant. He didn't vote for Bush to alienate the international community. He didn't vote for anything Bush did.

He voted to put the pressure of the U.S. military behind Bush's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. That's what he voted for. And while he'd like to hold Bush accountable for all the things he did that made this war happen, the Democratic Party won't let him. One side says 'ssshh', don't talk about it. The other side says 'fuck you', you're a hypocrite.

I swear the Republicans don't need to say anything, we do more damage to ourselves than they ever could.

That isn't what he voted for.

He should've known better.

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

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he

determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

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

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

...and he's therefore responsible for whatever Bush did with the power he gave him.

He doesn't have to say anything.

...and you'd echo my sentiments almost exactly!

:evilgrin:

Or perhaps, "I should have listened to Robert Byrd and Bob Graham."

Bill Clinton?

Then I'd still have to wrestle with the "get over the stolen election" thingy. I very much hope he won't be the candidate.

eom

40 million sounds steep.. only if kerry sold the full package of 85% reduced violent crime in american cities, drugs addiction treatment and open access to safe supplies... a end to hostilities in the drugs war towards making peace in our homes... it would make america whole again... sadly kerry is not man enough to do it.

The key is getting the League of Women Voters to put snacks in the voting booth.

a candidate who does not endorse the war in Iraq."

I'm not holding my breath, but I will be withholding my vote from the sellout in November should he be nominated.

I never took side in the whole pro/anti-war debate, so I'm open to each candidate.

Kerry's on a few committees. Now, the only one that would deal mostly with international issues relating to national security and stuff like that is the Foreign Relations committee. As far as I understand, that committee does not gather intelligence or assess its validity. So he made his decision to go to war on the basis of what was presented to him. And if what was presented to him was false or exaggerated, can we really blame him?

And I remember someone saying that he's in a position to know if information was exaggerated or made up. Is that true, or does that contradict what I said before? Maybe this person who said that was referring to his military past.

He had one opportuntiy for greatness and he whimped out.

so we can either support him when (if) that happens, or sit out the election. He will be the only chance we have to get rid of the bush regime. ......What was your question???????

If he came out and said: "Look, I'm so full of shit it's disgusting. Like you, I've known forever that Iraq couldn't threaten a fucking fly. I knew Shrub was full of shit but I was too much of a pussy to stand up and speak my mind. I knew that tens of thousands of Iraqis would loose their lives for an unjustifiable war but think of it from my perspective – my popularity was on the line. I knew Shrub would use our vote to bypass coming back for a real vote of war but I couldn't help it - it wouldn't have been the popular thing to do. Anyway I'm sorry that I'm such an ass but if you could hold your nose and vote for me I promise to speak my mind and the truth every now and then - or at least when it's popular. Vote for me because although I represent everything that turns people away from politics I do vote the party line and therefore have a good clean Liberal-looking report card."

I am not one to let emotional considerations get in the way of making a pragmatic,hard choice, so I'll vote for Kerry over bush* if it comes to that.
But I am wholeheartedly supporting Howard Dean in the hope that it doesn't come to that.
And frankly, as long as Kerry acts like a weak-willed, spineless, DLC shoe-shiner, it won't ever come to that.

Kerry's Iraq vote was WRONG, but Kerry can still be rehabilitated if he were to become the sort of man he once was when he opposed the war in Vietnam, and endorse Kucinich's call for UN administration of Iraq coupled with an immediate withdrawal of US troops and civilian administrators.

If Kerry is going to invoke the Kerry of 1970s as one of his credentials for the Presidency, he might as well act like that young man that opposed a powerful and popular President against all odds.

There's a lot of us who'd like to see that John Kerry again. His vote, more than anyone else's in the Senate, killed me. I hope he'll address it honestly and call for our troops to come home. He can make that case better than any Democrat. The question is: Will he?

Kucinich's dramatic call for the UN In and the US Out needs more exposure. It blew me away. :hi:

But as I said above, can you really blame him? He's not an intelligence executive, and as far as I know, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn't deal directly with intelligence. In other words, the decision he cast on whether to go to war was based on the intelligence he was being given by the administration. So if that was bad information, is it really his fault?

I listened to his speech on October 10, 2002. His whole friggen speech up until the end, was complete w/reasons why we should not invade Iraq.

I do not want a man serving the highest office in the land, that voted for a pre-emptive slaughter because he was either too stupid or too afraid of losing his political office.

You're damn straight he can be blamed!

There's a lot of us who'd like to see that John Kerry again.

...and that one John Kerry is the one who voted to give Bush the blank check.

What you are really saying (although I'm sure you don't realize it) is that you'd like to see that facade to John Kerry again.

Me, I don't vote for facades. How do you know, if and when he gets elected, that the facade won't change to this year's model?

:shrug:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry called for an end to the US occupation of Iraq and criticized the administration's use of now discredited intelligence as a basis for launching the war.
>>>>>>
"We need to get the sense of American occupation over with. We need to protect our troops. And that means that pride should not prevent this administration from going to the United Nations and doing what they should have done in the first place," he declared Wednesday.
Kerry also criticized US President George W. Bush's use in his January 28 State of the Union address of the erroneous claim that Iraq sought to buy nuclear material from Africa.
>>>>>
"Remember the old saying, Harry Truman's saying, 'The buck stops here'? Right now, apparently, the buck stops at Langley (CIA headquarters). And there are a lot of questions about the political input to this intelligence," Kerry told NBC's "Today" show.
"We have to see what happened."
The US senator for Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, also criticized the administration's efforts leading up to the war in Iraq, launched on March 20.
"I made it very clear that their diplomacy leading up to the war was inadequate," Kerry said.
"I said I thought the president should have even done more diplomacy before he went to war. I said to the president, 'Mr. President, don't rush to war. You need to build the large coalition necessary in order to win the peace.'
"And I said very clearly, winning the war was not what was difficult, it's winning the peace," Kerry said. "And I don't think the president put a plan together to do that."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030716/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_weapons_politics_1

Why can't you get cojones like Bob Graham and say that 4-letter word that we all know applies here: Bush LIED! People DIED!

And if you do get cojones like Bob Graham, how about joining Graham in saying "IMPEACHMENT"?

Then and only then will I support him.

I'm supporting Dean, but if Kerry wins, then he's my guy, 100%.

Anyone but bush*

NOT

And, unlike Senator Waffle, Lieberman wanted Saddam toppled no matter what. At least with Lieberman we know what we are getting. Can we say what Senator Waffle's stand is going to be on an issue on any given day?

A vote for Kerry is like playing roulette in Vegas. You will lose!

I suggest one considers Bob Graham as the Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards alternative.

I will not vote for him in the primaries; I will not vote for him if he is the Democratic nominee.

HUGE STAIN #1

Walking down the steps after the vote of the electoral college following election 2000, a CNN reporter asked John Kerry if he had been asked by the Congressional Black Caucus to sign its petition challenging the slate of electors from Florida. No, he replied, I wasn't asked to sign the petition, and I wouldn't have signed if I had been asked.

At that precise point, I knew Kerry would run in 2004. Given a choice between standing up for the good of the Country and challenging that illegal slate, Kerry chose to protect his own best interests. Thank you John Kerry for the damage you and others like you have allowed Bush* to do to this Country in the last three years...but at least you covered your own political flank.

At the very least, Kerry should have exercised more political sensitivity than to make such a crass remark at a raw time in our history. Following the Bush* so-called inauguration, it was reported 80 percent of the African-American community did not recognize Bush.* Do you truly think Kerry will command the vote of our African-American voters. I do not.

STAIN #2

His vote on the Iraq resolution. There were posters here who said many of us did not realize how Kerry and Hillary had boxed Bush* in on this resolution and he couldn't act without the approval of the UN. Kerry said he had a private talk with Bush* and Bush* gave him his word he would not attack Iraq without certain conditions having been met. At that time, I posted here if Kerry and Hillary truly believed Bush* could be taken at his word, they should not be in the jobs they have. If I know Bush* cannot be trusted, certainly the people in the Senate should know more than I on the subject.

Kerry should have known better. I will not vote for him under any circumstances.

Kerry has my vote. In my opinion, he has the best chance to beat Bush.

It looked like he and the other Democrats who voted yes, either...

A) Bought GW*'s lies and mistruths without proper assurance of the factual basis for engaging Iraq

OR

B) Were so cowed by public opinion polls that they sacrificed their own good judgement to pander to the will of the masses

If it's on an important enough issue, yes, a single vote can make or break a candidate, a politician, or a human being.

By the standard you apparently espouse, you could say that the SCOTUS 5's one vote to stop the recount should not be enough to tarnish any of the (In)Justices.

:eyes:

was lying. He did it for political reasons and it is not acceptable...especially after protesting against Vietnam. He should have demanded answers and not budged. I saw his statements before the vote...very weak, rolls over too easily.

nt

He should come out forcefully against the war.
He should layout how Bush's PNAC cabal planned this
war years ago.
He should say PNAC had planned the Iraq war, AND that the
PNAC wished for a "Pearl Harbor" type attack on America
so they could execute their plan of occupation of Iraq.

Then he should lead the criminal invesigation into the
PNAC, AND the IMPEACHMENT of George W. Bush.

.....thats a start

for voting for the Iraq resolution, including those posted by his supporters on DU. I sense that his vote was determined largely by his plans to run for president and imo it was a serious miscalculation on his part.

That said, I will vote for him if he gets the nomination.

I'm sorry. I was wrong.

That would do nicely.

You're saying that all someone has to do to satisfy you is show up, say Hi, & pronounce his own name -- and that's good enough?

Do you really think that makes up for Kerry's voting for a criminal war, for the PATRIOT Act, & for his silence on most of the outrages Bush has perpetrated? :eyes:

But at least with a Democrat, he would be more susceptible to lobbying by Democrats. There is no way that any of the dem candidates is going to renew the Patriot Act- Lieberman included.

Besides, if a person can show up and pronounce his/her name (or any words for that matter) and has fought in an actual war, he/she already has more Presidential credentials than Bush.

A permanant blood stain on his treasonous hands

how about "I inhaled".

I will vote for him.

I will NOT vote for him in the primary because of it.

Every step of the way he could have done a different deed and yet to this day he continues on the same path and many lives have been will be the consequence.