Senator Kerry... I Trumad opposed the Iraq Invasion. Was I wrong?

It's becoming clearer everyday that you think invading a foreign country and disposing of it's leader was the right thing to do. You keep saying over and over that Saddam was a bad man and had to go. OK...I'll give you that one...Saddam was a bad man..BUT..can you give me other reasons of why we invaded? Why are my fellow Americans dying in Iraq on a daily basis? (Because Saddam was a er...bad man?) :wtf: Is that it?

OK...So we got the "Bad Man" part out of the way..Come on Senator...what else? :shrug: WMD? what else? :shrug:

Nah...you can't answer that now can you?...

Now Senator...I like you and I always have. As a Vet myself I consider you one tough bastard for what you went through in Nam. AND I consider you even tougher for coming home and marching along side John Lennon and others and speaking out against that horrible war. It took alot of guts to do that and you were 100 percent right.

SO..that's why I'm a bit confused about your stance regarding Iraq... You obviously know the horrors of war and you seem to be from your past actions, anti-war. SO...what happened with Iraq?

Again...you voted for the removal of a foreign leader because he was BAD?! Senator...I opposed the invasion of Iraq because there was never a threat from Saddam towards the U.S and we shouldn't be putting Amercian soldiers in harms way just because a dude is BAD! We have to be threatened and our National Security has to be at risk. Mr. Kerry...that didn't happen!

So Senator.... Why am I wrong and why are you right?

When did Kerry ever say we should invade Iraq?

Kerry did say "Saddam, bad". He did say Saddam should be removed from power. However, AFAIK, he has never said "We should invade"

is that he thinks certain folks are wrong for opposing the war. If so...then why?

so why avoid answering it?

And in order to avoid being a non-responsive as you just were, I'll answer your question

he thinks certain folks are wrong for opposing the war. If so...then why?

There's a difference between opposing an invasion, and opposing one person's opinion of that invasion. IOW, there are "bad" reasons for opposing this invasion.

Now could you answer my question?:

When did Kerry ever say that we should invade Iraq?

I guess I see it black and white.... Kerry thinks that certain folks are wrong about the war. I only want to know why he thinks that and why he thinks he's right... Is it solely because Saddam was a bad guy?

On edit... He never said that we should invade Iraq but now that we have he says that is was a good thing. Why?

IMO, there has been a clear propogandistic effort to portray the resolution vote as being one of "either you're for the war, or against it" which has a familiarity to it that makes me uncomfortable.

The truth is, there are many reasons to vote for it, and there are many reasons to vote against it. Just because someone voted for it, that doesn't mean that they are "for war". That's just what the propogandists want you thing.

In propoganda terms, it's called "framing the debate" and it limits the arguments. In this case, there are only to allowable positions: "for war" and "against war"

Kerry thinks that certain folks are wrong about the war

Kerry is right. There are people on both sides of this issue who are wrong. The invasion's opponents who say that Saddam was not any kind of threat are just as wrong as those who said Saddam was threat that justified an invasion.

I only want to know why he thinks that and why he thinks he's right... Is it solely because Saddam was a bad guy?

If you're talking about the resolution vote, then Kerry is right because something did need to be done about Saddam (as Kerry has been advocating for years) and in order to do something about Saddam, the President needs to have the threat of military action to back them up. That (backing up the President in order to strengthen his negotiating position) is what Kerry voted for, not war, and there is nothing wrong about that vote.

He never said that we should invade Iraq but now that we have he says that is was a good thing. Why?

I'd like to see a quote. I dont know that Kerry said that the invasion was "a good thing", and people around here tend to see things in black and white, and any statement and action they disagree with is misportrayed as evidence that they "support the war"

I suspect Kerry said the removal of Saddam was a good thing, and not the invasion.

"There's a difference between opposing an invasion, and opposing one person's opinion of that invasion."

So, did Kerry oppose invasion and what was his opinion of the invasion?

To answer your question, "when did Kerry ever say that we should invade Iraq?" He didn't. But he didn't say don't do it and we have no idea whether he thinks it was right or wrong to have done so.

and publicly stated his preference for diplomacy and action through the UN. He even said you we needed a "regime change" in the US more than one in Iraq.

Does that sound like "support for war"?

But he didn't say don't do it and we have no idea whether he thinks it was right or wrong to have done so.

Which part of his "regime change" statement did you not understand?

Perfect political strategy

You must be getting dizzy. I know I am.

Are you asking me to believe that Kerry's call for regime change in the US was an epxression of opposition to invading Iraq?

But, since you quite clearly state "Yes, Kerry opposed the invasion," do you have any quote or source or sound bite or anything where that would be clear to a reasonable person?

Kerry said we need regime change in the US more than we needed it in Iraq.

Which part of that sounds like he wanted an invasion?

You should hear yourself...

"Which part of that sounds like he wanted an invasion?"

None of it. But it's a non sequiter. Here try this:

VOTER: "Did Kerry support the invasion?"

SPINNER: "Well he did say 'could you please pass the jelly' and no part of that sounds like he wanted an invasion.

"Please pass the jelly"????

It's amazing how "We need regime change here in the US before Iraq" could be misinterpreted as anything *BUT* a criticism of the invasion.

But then, Dean said he would invade Iraq *AFTER* giving Saddam 60-90 days EVEN IF the UN did NOT APPROVE, and that's being interpreted as opposition to an invasion, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Well then, I'll just wait until the question comes up in the debate and we'll see how brilliant that answer sounds.

----------------

MODERAOTR: "Senator Kerry, were you opposed to the invasion of Iraq?"

KERRY: "I've said in the past 'We need regime change here in the US before Iraq.'"

MODERATOR: "Weren't your exact words, 'What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States?' Sounds to me like you were in favor of invasion and in favor of regime change at home.

KERRY: "What I meant was regime change here first -- before we went to war."

MODERATOR: "Before we went to war?"

KERRY: "Right-O."

MODERATOR: "And you said this on...?

KERRY: "Um, a stage?"

MODERATOR: "The date?"

KERRY: "I'm sure it was well in advance of the invasion. When my opinion might have mattered."

MODERATOR: "April 2nd, 2003."

KERRY: "That was well after things got started, huh?"

MODERATOR: "You betcha. Let's move on..."

is revealed by your need to invent a dialogue

It was an attempt to bring humor to what you have a made a most monotenous discussion. But since satire has no effect, let me put it bluntly.

You are wrong to suggest that Kerry opposed the war by saying ""We need regime change here in the US before Iraq" (from your post).

First of all because that's not what he said. He said, "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."

Now, I'm sure you'll try to squirm around this one, but notice the implied endorsement of an invasion (regime change not just in Iraq) and he simply does not say that a regime change should occur in the US BEFORE Iraq, as you misquoted.

All of this is academic though, because, as I thought I made clear in my "invented" dialog, Kerry said these things after the war had begun, on April 2, 2003.

I asked you to give me some indication that Kerry opposed the war, and you give me a misquote of a statement made after the war had begun. Kerry is a democratic senator, for kripe's sake -- and a respected one at that. If he opposed the war, he could have made his opinions clear and he could have done so before the war started.

on edit: here's the link http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23490-2003Apr3?language=printer

However, AFAIK, he has never said "We should invade"

That's true - he only voted to authorize the invasion and now says that Dean's opposition to the war was wrong. He could mean anything, couldn't he?

:eyes:

Once again, we have "framimg the debate". There are only two allowable positions "voting for war" or "voting against war"

"Voting to support negotiations and diplomacy" is not allowed.

This is the part where I ask you if Kerry really thought that Bush would do anything except invade at the earliest possible moment and, if so, what he was smoking.

You're splitting hairs.

Not unusual. Propoganda depends on repetition. It's part of the "bandwagon" effect.

This is the part where I ask you if Kerry really thought that Bush would do anything except invade at the earliest possible moment and, if so, what he was smoking.

The same thing Dean and the other candidates were smoking. Not one of them accused Bush* of lying. Dean said he gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt"

You're splitting hairs.

Along with "Playing Semantics!!", this is one the signals that someone is uncomfortable with logic and reason. I guess you don't do "nuance"

I "do nuance" just fine. Yours is just unconvincing.

Not

I am interested to know, though - if Dean and Kerry's positions on dealing with Saddam were so close, why is Kerry making political hay out of it now? And why did Dean do the same a while back?

"I'm not particularly concerned about convincing you"

What makes you think my comment was directed only at convincing you?

why is Kerry making political hay out of it now? And why did Dean do the same a while back?

I don't know what you're talking about. What are Kerry and Dean making "political hay" out of, and how are they doing that?

I don't know what you're talking about. What are Kerry and Dean making "political hay" out of, and how are they doing that?

That would be the Iraq vote and their respective views on what to do there, ace.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/04/kerry_changes_stance_takes_on_dean/

I still don't see any "hay" there, and Dean and Kerry did NOT agree about resolution vote - they had similar opinions on the invasion. You are, once again, falling for the false dichotomy of "Either you're for the invasion, or against it"

Dean and Kerry did NOT agree about resolution vote - they had similar opinions on the invasion.

Ok, let me ask you then - what do you think Kerry meant by saying "Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong."?

You are, once again, falling for the false dichotomy of "Either you're for the invasion, or against it"

Given that the thing happened several months ago, at some point I think it becomes ridiculous to continue splitting hairs and calling it nuance. The invasion happened and in happened under specific circumstances. I don't see it as being at all unreasonable to make a right-or-wrong judgment call.

Believe it or not, it's possible to *CONDITIONALLY* support military action in general (Something both Kerry AND Dean do) while opposing one specific military action. Dean, and his supporters, have been fudging that distinction (as demonstrated by the "either you're for the invasion, or against it", a position you agree with) and that position is wrong.

It's like those who would violently oppose Bush*. I am opposed to Bush*, but I am also opposed to those who violently oppose Bush*. IOW, it's possible to agree on the goal, but disagree on the tactics and the strategy.

Believe it or not, it's possible to *CONDITIONALLY* support military action in general (Something both Kerry AND Dean do) while opposing one specific military action.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Dean, and his supporters, have been fudging that distinction

How?

(as demonstrated by the "either you're for the invasion, or against it", a position you agree with)

Your words not mine, friend. Did Kerry *ever* say, even as the invasion was beginning, that it was wrong?

Nuances, where war and peace are concerned, are eventually resolved in the real world. The invasion began at a specific time and place and under a specific set of circumstances. Did those circumstances meet Kerry's requirements and, if not, why didn't he say so?

Dean has been fudging the distinction by misportraying the resolution vote as "Either you're for an invasion, or you're against it"

Your words not mine, friend. Did Kerry *ever* say, even as the invasion was beginning, that it was wrong?

Yes. Kerry said that an invasion should be a "last resort", should be UN approved, and multi-lateral, none of which apply to what Bush* did.

It seems you are quite capable of interpreting various comments and actions in the absence of a clear and explicit statement. That's why you have used the resolution vote as *proof* that Kerry "supports the invasion", even though there is no clear and explicit statement from Kerry that he really actually does support the invasion. And yet, when confronted with his numerous statements which clearly state the conditions under which he would approve military actions, conditions which Bush* did NOT fulfill, you lose this ability and demand a clear and explicit statement of opposition.

The invasion began at a specific time and place and under a specific set of circumstances. Did those circumstances meet Kerry's requirements

No.

and, if not, why didn't he say so?

He did say so. Numerous times. He just didn't use the exact words you demand.

Dean has been fudging the distinction by misportraying the resolution vote as "Either you're for an invasion, or you're against it"

How has he done that? A cite would be nice.

Yes. Kerry said that an invasion should be a "last resort", should be UN approved, and multi-lateral, none of which apply to what Bush* did.

But he never actually said it was wrong. Gotcha - thanks.

It seems you are quite capable of interpreting various comments and actions in the absence of a clear and explicit statement. That's why you have used the resolution vote as *proof* that Kerry "supports the invasion", even though there is no clear and explicit statement from Kerry that he really actually does support the invasion. And yet, when confronted with his numerous statements which clearly state the conditions under which he would approve military actions, conditions which Bush* did NOT fulfill, you lose this ability and demand a clear and explicit statement of opposition.

I don't know if Kerry supported the invasion as it happened or not. His unwillingness to make it explicit, paired with his comment regarding Dean's opposition, do make the question relevant. I understand that Bush didn't fulfill the Kerry's conditions, but if that automatically puts him in opposition to the invasion, why not say so explicitly?

He did say so. Numerous times. He just didn't use the exact words you demand.

That's called "waffling". Earlier today I told dolstein that I at least admired Lieberman for sticking to his guns even when I think he couldn't be more wrong. Kerry's trying to have his cake and eat it too. Got no use for that.

How has he done that? A cite would be nice.

Dean has been misportraying the candidates who voted for the resolution as being "for" the invasion. If you need a cite, PM me, and I'll get you one.

But he never actually said it was wrong. Gotcha - thanks.

Wrong. If I state the conditions under which something is right, then any other situation is not right.

I don't know if Kerry supported the invasion as it happened or not.

But you said Kerry did support the invasion. Gotcha - thanks (You see how childish "gotcha" is now?)

His unwillingness to make it explicit,

The only unwillingness at play here is your own unwillingness to listen to reason when that leads to a conclusion (ie Kerry did not support the invasion) you don't like. Kerry never said he did support the war, but you haven't complained about his "unwillingness" to make *that* explicit.

You are using a double-standard. Support for the invasion can be implicit, but opposition must be explicit.

I understand that Bush didn't fulfill the Kerry's conditions, but if that automatically puts him in opposition to the invasion, why not say so explicitly?

There's nothing "automatic" about it. Kerry has a long history of calling for Saddam's removal, and how he thought it ought to be done. I didn't come to this conclusion by reading one speech. It's the result of Kerry's long record on foreign policy which I have been following for years, and not just since announcing his candidacy.

And once again, your call for explicitness is hypocritical. He hasnt explcitely supported the invasion, but you have no problem portraying him as supporting the invasion.

That's called "waffling".

LOL! Since when is saying something that people don't want to hear "waffling"? Kerry's position has been consistent over years, and not, like some other candidate, just since he announced his candidacy.

Kerry's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Did Kerry explcitely say that? Do you have a cite?

and so do a whole bunch of other politicians, dems and repubs... I agree 100 percent with that... But here's the question.... Would Kerry have voted for the Iraq Res for the sole reason that Saddam was a bad guy? I don't think he would have.... He and other Dems believed that Saddam had WMD..... That's why they voted for it...

BUT now they have found out he doesn't have wmd's but they continue to support the war... Why? AND they continue to fall back on the Saddam's a bad guy excuse... I'm saying that if that's all they have and they continue to support the war then they're a bunch of chickenshits.

Yes, Kerry did believe that Saddam was trying to acquire WMD's, and thought that he might already have some. However, Kerry's position that Saddam posed a threat did not depend on Saddams' being in possession of WMD's. The threat was:

1) Saddam's attempts to acquire WMD's
2) The perception that Saddam would use them

Of course, Saddam would pose an even greater threat to us if he actually possessed WMD's, but Kerry's perception of the threat did not depend on Saddam's actually possessing such weapons. If you were to read what Kerry has been saying for years, you'd see that.

they continue to support the war then they're a bunch of chickenshits.

Kerry doesn't support the invasion, and he never has.

Saddam's attempts to acquire WMD's? Where's the proof of that? Niger?

Again...I would think that Kerry's perception has changed since the war since we now know that Iraq does not have WMD's... So if it's changed then why does he still support the war and knock around those who don't? I haven't heard Kerry say that Suddam has WMD's lately...He only states that Suddam was a bad guy... So again I ask... Senator Kerry, Do you support the current war and our presence in Iraq because Saddma was a bad guy?

Saddam's attempts to acquire WMD's?

The UN inspectors that were in Iraq in the early 90's proved that Saddam was trying to acquire WMD's.

I would think that Kerry's perception has changed since the war since we now know that Iraq does not have WMD's

Kerry's beleif in the Iraqi threat did not depend on Iraq actually possessing WMD's. It was based on Saddam's intent to acquire them.

So if it's changed then why does he still support the war and knock around those who don't?

He doesn't support the invasion, and he never has. He criticized Dean because Dean was hypocritical is his opposition. Dean says he opposed an invasion, while at the same time said that he would give Saddam 60-90 days, and then, if Saddam didn't give in, Dean would invade.

Senator Kerry, Do you support the current war and our presence in Iraq because Saddma was a bad guy?

That's a VERY loaded question. You link "support for war" with "support for maintaining a military presence in Iraq" as if they were equivalent. I, for one, opposed the invasion, but do not support withdrawing out troops. I oppose "the current war" but I "support our presence"

"Support for the invasion can be implicit, but opposition must be explicit."

Okay, here's an idea. How about an explicit statement from Kerry: "The invasion was (right) (wrong)."

You obviously DON'T need an explicit statement in order to conclude that "Kerry supports the war", but you DO need an explicit statement in order to conclude that "Kerry does not support the war"

Good lord, man. If we want a spin meister, we've got the top guy in the White House already. Do you see why Dean is so popular? He speaks candidly to the people.

Here's an illustration. Ask yourself this question of Dean and Kerry:

"Was invading Iraq the right thing to do or not?"

Dean: It was not.
Kerry: Who the hell knows?

Dean said, in response to a question, that he would give Saddam 60-90 days to come clean, and then he would invade, even if the UN did not approve, which is awfully close to what Bush* did, so I find it hard to believe that Dean was against invading Iraq. IMO, Dean, like Kerry, opposed what Bush* did. Neither would rule out an invasion.

Sure, but Dean has been clear in his condemnation of THIS war, as it happened, under the circumstances. Kerry has not said as much. He's pointed out that he expected Bush to have made a better go at diplomacy, but he hasn't condemned the war action itself. He'll condemn Bush, but not the war.

on numerous occassions.

does not make it so. Look, I'm a pretty close follower of poltics. I admit there's plenty I don't know, but I've followed Kerry pretty closely because he is my second choice.

Yet I fail to see the clarity you think exists. Please, educate me.

If Kerry has been clear in condemning the war, would you please provide me with a source -- not a paraphrased quote, but an actual article, video clip, web page, anything, anything at all where I can see for myself just one of the numerous occassions where Kerry has condemned the war.

Really, I want to see this so I can continue to pull for Kerry. Hell, he can even make his opinion clear tomorrow, and it would aleviate my concerns. But I'm pretty damn sure that I, and a lot of other people, are not going to vote for someone whose position on the war is unclear.

does not make it not so.Look, I'm a pretty close follower of poltics. I admit there's plenty I don't know, but I've followed Kerry pretty closely because he is my first choice.

Yet I fail to see the clarity you think exists. Please, educate me.

If Kerry has been clear in supporting the war, would you please provide me with a source -- not a paraphrased quote, but an actual article, video clip, web page, anything, anything at all where I can see for myself just one of the numerous occassions where Kerry has supported the war.

And I don't want to see opinions about Saddam, WMD's, Bush*, the troops, etc. I want to see a clear statement that "Kerry supports the war"

The Patriot Act? If so, I'm surprised no one's called him on THAT one yet! :eyes:

Of course, so did John Edwards--but at least he's busy trashing Ashcroft for his "interpretation" of it!

B-)

Patriot Act...over and over...but noone listens. They spin it with...he didn't read it and it was a rush job...all the more reason not to vote for it. We now see the results.

question on kerry's stance.

ah, it feels good turning that on someone rather than having it hurled at me. :evilgrin:

Seriously, who does Kerry think he's going to win over in his campaign. The millions and millons of bloodthirsty Deanites??

Ughhh...wait, almost all the Dean supporters are anti-Iraq war...humm...shot himself in the foot on that statement.

Perhaps he'll try to eat into the massive voter base of Lieberman, Gephart and the other hawks...oh, wait again...there's very little support in those two camps already.

I think that Kerry's stance on the Iraq war is going to be an albertros that he won't be able to shake. And Dean is only going to pull more votes because, Kerry's "just like the rest of 'em."

If I remember correctly, Dem. voters were against the war somewhere in the neighborhood of 65%-70%.

Bad, bad, bad move Mr. Kerry.

He has said he respects people who opposed his vote. He might have said it on Meet the Press, or it might have been at some other event.

I heard Lieberman say the same thing, that he understands that people have different opinions.

But if Kerry does answer your letter, please post it here, I'd be interested how he answers.

...the invasion misses the main point, IMO. As I recall, he voted YES on the resolution authorizing war. If he opposed it, then why didn't he have the strength of his convictions to vote NO? Can his YES vote not be interpreted as the most relevant indicator of his intentions? I want a dem candidate with the courage to stand up to Bush*, and Kerry seems to have stood WITH him on two of the most important issues of the Bush residency (USA PATRIOT and invasion of Iraq).

was wrong' ??????????????

Net results of Kerry's vote: Bombs Awaaaaaay!!!!!!!!!!!

Dean '04...

Kerry's record isn't going to change so he really only has a few options.

1) "I was wrong to have voted for the war resolution. I should have known that Bush would not make a real effort at diplomacy. It was wrong that we went to war so hastily."

2) "I was right to have voted for the war resolution, but I expected Bush to make more of a diplomatic effort. It was wrong that we went to war so hastily."

3) "I was right to have voted for the war resolution, and I approve of the path Bush took. It was the right thing to do for us to invade Iraq."

or, the nonsensical:

4) "I was wrong to have voted for the war resolution, but I approve of the path Bush took and it was the right thing to do for us to invade Iraq."

You said it all.