Kerry as Antihero

Q. Why is Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry like T.S. Eliot's antihero J. Alfred Prufrock?

A. Because he saw the moment of his greatness flicker.

Kerry gave up his last chance at the presidency when he foolishly thought Democrats would forgive him for voting to give Bush carte blance to wage war on Iraq. Democrats have not forgiven him, and some Democrats have vowed they'll bolt the party entirely if Kerry is the nominee.

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious and meticulous;
Full of high sentence ...


Edited typo

I opposed the war very much and hes still my 2nd pick. Bush has screwed the country more than the war, I prefer Kucinich's ideas the best then I think Kerry or Gephardt, Dean god bless him for opposing the war but I do prefer Kerry to him. Which is not a bash.

The war isn't just any other issue, it's a defining issue like slavery or child soldiering. It's a question of fundamental values. A politican simply can't get certain things wrong. There are no circumstances in which a "strategic" vote can be cast for slavery, child soldiering, or pre-emptive colonial war.

Kerry got it wrong. This was as clear an opportunity for him to stand up for humane values as he will ever encounter, and he wimped out. He was so afraid of pissing off the right that he forgot about pissing off the left. Too bad, John. You're history.

Christ I dont support the guy but you gotta see my point. I think Kerry is a pretty good all around senator with a good voting record. If we wanna think like this, then why not run Kucinich, I forgot who you support but I think Kerry is better on the issues than many give him credit for. Look I didnt support the IWR or patriot act and I support someone who voted against those.

The war is not just any old issue. One difference between you and John Kerry is that John Kerry has been in a war and knows it first hand. After his Vietnam tour, he was so disgusted that he tossed his medals on the steps of the Capitol. What happened to that John Kerry?

The guy blows in the wind. This is not leadership, it's the self-serving behavior of a career politician. He puts himself together so artfully that I probably wouldn't vote for him even if he hadn't touched the third rail. But I certainly won't vote for him now.

I support Kucinich you know that.

to cut him some slack. I even consider him my second choice at the moment. But with Kucincich still in the race and Clark possibly about to enter, there's one thing Kerry needs to answer if he doesn't want to drop from consideration:

Does Kerry think it was right for us to have invaded Iraq?

A straight answer on that question should not be so hard. It should begin with a "yes" or a "no."

(Forget all the arguments about how he expected more diplomacy from Bush, or how we should have had a better plan for winning "the peace." The only thing that matters now is does he think we did the right thing or not?)

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

That's mnore than Kerry did, anyway.

"Have you donated every last drop of your money to pay for wounded children?"

"Have you gone there and wandered the streets of Baghdad assisting the homeless and hungry?"

"If not, then where is YOUR great stand for "humane values"?"


Pete how does my not giving every penny to Iraq to help save the kids Kerry helped bomb, change the fact that Kerry did what he did?

Are you actually saying that unless someone is in Iraq helping people, they have no right to be upset with kerry for voting for this war?

You do not have to be a human shield to know and to say Kerry was WRONG!


"Impugning the integrity of Kerry's vote is easy from the comfort of your computer,"

As is excusing his war mongering.

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

I refuse to judge any of the candidates based on their position on the war, because this campaign is about the future, and what they would do as president, not about a war that will hopefully be in the past by November 2004 (or at least at a point where our soldiers are no longer getting killed on an almost daily basis). The only question I have is "if this man were president, would he have started this war?" And with Kerry, and probably all of the others except maybe Lieberman, the answer is a definite no.

I admit, though, that I can't help but hold Kerry to a bit of a higher standard than the others, in part because I feel he is waffling a little more than the others, but also because he has a record as an anti-war veteran leading the fight against Vietnam. As a war hero, he could have been a powerful voice against the war had he chosen to speak out against it unequivocally. I don't know why, but when someone posted pics a few weeks ago of Kerry with John Lennon, and of him getting arrested for protesting Vietnam, it made me sad, because I was thinking "what has happened to him?"

But the war really did not play a big part of my decision to support Dean. I think that if Kerry had unequivocally opposed the war and voted against him I might have more respect for him, the way I respect Dean for risking his career to sign the civil unions bill. But it was not like I wrote Kerry or anyone else off the day of the war vote, and I am not one of those who says "I can't support anyone who voted for it." At first I did not even want to support anyone in the primaries, because I wanted to focus on beating Bush. But when I saw Dean speak at an Iowa fundraiser on C-Span back in February, and then I went to NYC in early March to see him (the first of 7 times now, 8 after next Monday!) I decided that I had to get involved, because this is the candidate whom I would be really excited to vote for against Bush. I think enthusiasm is really important, because the side that has more passion and has more people voting FOR someone instead of the lesser of two evils is the side that wins almost every time.

I never was good at French :eyes:

Not french, but I believe it's referred to in the common tongue as "Bullshit".

I never was good at French

Well then I'll spell it out in English. Kerry had an opportunity to stand up for humane values, and he refused to do so. That's not heroic, it's cowardly. Sorry John. Try again in 2008.

who has devoted his life to the service of his country. Perhaps some flawless messiah will appear on the horizon, but with what "credentials" of service?

Kerry chose poorly. Deal with it.

I'm sure you are wise enough to know that if we allowed every "Joe Sixpack" to have a say in what decisions an elected official, who has an extensive military and intelligence background, should make on national security issues, none of us would be able to "deal with it".

There was no fucking secret intellegence. It was just a myth perpetuated by Bush apologists when the case for war started coming unravelled.

:shrug:

The article I read said that Kerry was asked if there was anything congress knew that wasn't public. Kerry said no.

I'll try and find the article if it makes you happy.

resolution!

You are defending the indefensible!

issues than "we" do. They make their decisions based on the information provided to them by supposed reliable sources. It's not like Kerry could personally stop Bush from he kicking out Hans Blix and started the war.

If Kerry would have only changed *his* vote, somehow that would've yielded a different outcome on what has transpired in Iraq thus far.

about it?

That's the whole arguement? Kerry couldn't do anything to stop Bush so he's excused for supporting him?

Bullshit.

of the president, you know that. He can only set limits by diplomatic means. If a sitting president oversteps those limits, what's a senator to do? Kerry wont take over as Commander and Chief until 2005.

By your estimation, a Kerry vote "against" the Saddam regime equates to "support" for Bush . That makes as much sense as someone on the right calling those who criticize the Iraq war, Saddam supporters.

Pretty much counts as siding with Bush. He agreed with what Bush did, he didn't like how Bush did it. That's not a very big distinction.

Child slavery was an example. I don't think it's okay for someone to support something horrible just because they can't do anything about it. It's nonsense.

... but then that little problem of WHERE THE PHUCK ARE THE WMDs comes along and makes all the brilliant geniuses look pretty stupid. Too bad Kerry threw his lot in with them.

I do not "hate" Kerry, and will vote for him if he should get the nomination. And voting 'for' the war resolution was not a deal breaker for me, nobody is perfect and yes we don't know the whole story.

My problem is things he's said recently. He's just another freaking politician who CANNOT and WILL NOT ADMIT he has made a grave mistake. Simple as that.

Oh and one more thing... I respect Kerry for his Vietnam service. But "service" in the Senate is another thing entirely. It comes with rewards commensurate with the effort and sacrifice involved, quite unlike being a soldier. Exceedingly few people serving in Congress are deserving of the term "public servant", and I don't feel like Kerry has made any particular sacrifice that he has not been adequately compensated for.

Green, Libertarian, or GOP. He has the forms to switch and a nice new pen he will let folks Keep!

when he said Saddam Hussein was a threat and had weapons of mass destruction, but had no plan to deal with it.

since we haven't found one goddamn thing which would justify an invasion.

That's what Dean wanted.

Too bad Kerry's campaign interpereted that as "giving a veto on national security to the UN" and sided with Bush.

Working through the UN? What was going on with the UN between 1998 and 2002? I'm confused, or my memory is really bad. Nothing was going on. Well, except sanctions that were causing the Iraqi people not to have enough food or medicine and causing the rest of the ME to become increasingly pissed off. Outside of that though, nothing. I can't figure out this UN troops and working with the UN stuff Howard Dean keeps talking about. Nothing was happening.

Well, until people like Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and a host of others had enough courage to threaten force which made Saddam cooperate with the UN. THEN there was some working with the UN.

Too bad Bush had to go and fuck it all up. But I know Howard Dean is going to hold him just as accountable with those 16 questions and all.

and gotten sadam out of there! We didn't have to go bomb the shit out of Iraq.

How was that going to happen? We couldn't even get them to address weapons inspections for 4 years.

And what the hell do you think was in that Authorization? Support to use military action to enforce UN resolutions. THAT'S IT! Because Saddam does not, has not, ever, responded to anything else. And he did respond to that, inspectors back in, remember? The fact that Bush failed to continue with UN diplomacy is HIS failure.

And you still haven't told me how St. Howard would have gotten anything accomplished with the UN and Saddam when nobody else could for at least 4 years. He didn't offer any solutions whatsoever.

BECAUSE WE BOMBED THE SHIT OUT IRAQs WEAPONS PROGRAM IN 1998.

We also knew he was no threat to the US, did not have nuclear capability, and wasn't working with Al Qaeda.

Here's a few links for you.

Information on various proposals for a New UN Iraq Monitoring Body in 1999.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/uncim/

The 1999 UNSCOM report
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

A paranoid dictator tries to disrupt efforts to make him weak! Stop the presses!

But, seriously, without evidence that he's up to something bad, the war was unjustified.

Did you read the reports? For years there was evidence presented that Saddam was 'up to something bad'. I've been over this so many times. There was enough evidence to support a vote on threatening military action in order to enforce UN resolutions to disarm Iraq by getting inspectors back in there. That's what happened. Too bad Bush wanted war more than he wanted the UN to do their work. Again, that is on HIM.

Turns out it wasn't much of anything, and the CIA and defense officials had many doubts that were ignored by Bush and most of congress. To bad the rest of the world that wasn't on our payroll saw through the bullshit.

That's not a good enough excuse to authorize Bush to invade whenever he wants. Or be silent while Bush builds an army on Iraq's border even while Saddam is grudgingly complying, or to support the invasion after Bush prematurely abandoned working through the UN and cut short inspections under authority you granted him.

There was not enough evidence. There was no evidence. It was just innuendo and suspicion. Turns out that suspicion was wrong.

Now our soldiers are stuck dying in a hostile country for who knows how long, with no way to pay for it, and there was no threat to justify invading. Whoops!

that's not rational.

Was that before or after we bombed every suspected forbidden weapons site in Desert Fox?

Oh that's right, after.

Sanctions, like you mentioned, which prohibited Saddam from getting anything which could be used as a threat to other nations.

Obviously we didnt' feel he was a threat, and not knowing what he is up to is not a good case for war. YOU DON'T WAGE WARS ON A FUCKING HUNCH THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS UP TO NO GOOD. It's wrong and immoral.

If you have evidence that Saddam is violating UN resolutions, you can work with the UN to enforce them. NO ONE WANTS A WMD CAPABLE SADDAM.

The fact is there was no evidence that Saddam was doing something which was a threat to the US. We did not need to build up an invading army to get Saddam. Once again, WE HAVE FOUND NOTHING. We never had any solid evidence, we just had unfounded assertions and innuendo.

"If you have evidence that Saddam is violating UN resolutions, you can work with the UN to enforce them. NO ONE WANTS A WMD CAPABLE SADDAM."

Well if that's the damn case, then what is your problem with Congress voting to give Bush the muscle to force the issue.

"We did not need to build up an invading army to get Saddam."

And again, if that's the case, why didn't Saddam just disarm completely back in 1991. He responds to force.

The problem is and was BUSH. Put the blame where the blame lies, not on the people who were trying to help resolve a 12 year dilemma for the security of the region and the Iraqi people.

Not just threaten force. Bush made it clear he was going in with or without the UN, and made that clearer by the day after the vote. If someone who voted for the IWR was under the mistaken impression that they only voted to threaten force against Iraq (who was, by the time we invaded, pretty much complying and invasion wasn't warrented) they should have been pretty alarmed when Bush decided to not go back for a final vote in the UNSC and cut short inspections, or the Niger docuements were exposed by inspectors, or the UAV death drone that wasn't very deadly was exposed, or the fact that Powell used a bombed out bakery as evidence of a poison lab came out, or Powell using OBL condemning Saddam as proof they are working together, etc... right?

...right?

Bush cooked the intelligence and made up a whole bunch of claims he couldn't back up. Before 9-11 he was looking into smart sanctions, but then Rummy and pals found an opening and pushed their PNAC agenda, and viola! Iraq is a threat and only 45 minutes away from destroying the Earth!

It authorized him to enforce UN resolutions OR protect US security. That's all that vote did. In order to enforce UN resolutions, the UN has to agree. That's what the whole problem is with the UN today. How can they get involved with something that never had their approval? That's why they call it an occupation. It's their subtle way of stating this is a war against the UN charter. A new resolution would probably be carefully worded, but it will imply that fact.

And John Kerry, in particular, was alarmed at what Bush was doing to push for this war. He said so in January. He said so on MTP yesterday. And while Saddam was complying, Hans Blix said the cooperation could be better. That's also why Kerry encouraged the inspections process to continue, to allow time for that cooperation to happen.

But still, I've seen nothing that says what Howard Dean or even Dennis Kucinich planned to do with the situation in Iraq. Leave the Iraqi people under sanctions and all the suffering that caused? Lift the sanctions and let Saddam do whatever he wanted? The solution, in September 2002. What was it?

Seems like sanctions are better than having bombs fall on you and a guerilla war going on.

If any evidence turns up about Saddam being a danger to the region or the US, go to the UN with that evidence. Simple really. Saying that we either vote for an invasion on Iraq at Bush's discretion, or else let Saddam run willy nilly is a false dillema.

John Kerry was concerned, but ultimatly sided with what Bush did. He just had a "strong personal preference" that Bush do it a better way.

out to lie about him!

very weak

but that's just one problem with your highfalutin literary analogy.

The Kerry hatred really can be disabling.

that's just one problem with your highfalutin literary analogy

OK, that's a valid point. I'll try not to be so highfalutin in the future. Here's a new one for you, see if you like it better: Kerry's a conniving piece of shit and I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.

Howzat? Right to the point! I like it.

resolution helped wrought is facing facts! We pleaded with him not to give bush the vote!

There was no reason to go in and bomb the shit out of Iraq!

The fallout is said to be dangerously high levels of radiation.
All those "armour-piercing shells" made of DU coming home to roost!

All hail CoffeePlease1947! He has come up with the perfect formula for dispelling all these negative campaign threads! All you Dean-bashers, Kerry-bashers, any-Democrat-bashers, please repeat after me: “MY CANDIDATE SUCKS SO BAD THAT I HAVE TO ATTACK YOURS.”

If I were a Bush supporter, I would be ROFLMAO to see all these Democrats ripping each other to pieces. My candidate in the general election is Anybody But Bush. As for the primaries, I haven’t decided yet. Amazing, ain’t it? Considering that the primaries are only six months away.

Come on, ladies and gentlemen! Unity, please! Eyes on the prize! BUCK FUSH!

You've posted this on at least 4 posts that I know of and your just spamming up our Board!

Why is it I always find you and certain other "usual suspects" on every single anti-Kerry thread? And you make the exact same statements and the exact same arguments over and over again. I guess the difference between you and me is that you have more time to spend typing.

now just started? Do they fear the spotlight for two seconds on someone else? Otherwise, why have we had 17 billion bash Kerry posts since he spoke this a.m.???? And now Clark is gargling and warming up in the wings.....................should be interesting. Me thinks the spotlight is going to start whirling round and round and round and where it stops, nobody knows.

Good for Kerry and his launch! And whoever else is out there!

Everytime he does that, it pisses people off, because his defense is dishonest and an insult to people who know about the issues.

Once Kerry swallows his false pride and admits his support for the war was a mistake, then I'll lay off.

all they can "see" is that some former governor of Vermont is pickin' a fight with the bully from Texas. Never mind all his non-liberal positions. And never mind the senator from Massachusetts who's been a liberal Democrat his whole g'damn life.

and not blown it with People's lives at stake!

and the ones that are not liberal are centrist... I like that.


I see just fine... and I note yet another person saying that Dean supporters must be blind or stupid or duped etc. I guess we're all just too stupid to agree with your choice, right?

he takes the LIBERTY to change them all the time. I think many Dean supporters are just too young and naive to do the research or believe the research when it is presented to them. If, after, you investigate the facts and you still love the man - more power to you. This isn't a rock concert - this is the future of millions of people - including any children of the future.

good post. This isn't a rock concert - well maybe for some it is :-(

since he gave his speech, so yeah people who know he is full of shit and once again trying to play both sides of an issue, are calling him out on this war that he helped to start.

When it was politically advantageous, Kerry was all for the war and supporting Bush and going after Saddam.

Now he wants to change his tune and claim he was never for the war he voted for and we need to vote for him so he can fix the mess that he helped to make.

The man has spent the last 3 years bending over for Bush and voting for Bush's agenda... now he wants me to buy that he is the guy to kick Bush out?

Sorry, I’m not voting for anybody in the primary who voted for this war… let alone the patriot act, no child left behind, the fucking defense of marriage act, or sat out the PBA vote.

Of those left, Dean is the only one with a shot at beating bush.

maybe he seriously believed his cooked intelligence briefings (I think he probably did), maybe he was just being cowarldly, but people should cut him some slack. He's well to the left of Dean on everything accept that toothless use-of-force resolution that W never needed in the first place.

History! And so many People died and are still dying!

Yep, it was all politics. Kerry didn't take the bait. Rove is furious.

He's just digging himself a deeper hole.

The use of force resolution was so toothless he should have had no trouble voting against it. That is, if he truly thought rushing a unilateral war agaisnt country which poses no threat to the US and while there are still options left to be exhausted is not okay.

Personally I can't tell, because he's come down on both sides of the issue.

and Bush would have used it against him that's for sure.

Whether he voted for the war or not, the question is who is the best able to get us out.