Will you support Kerry if he apologizes for the IWR?

If Kerry did such a thing, it would be extremely risky and would require a lot of courage and toughness. It takes a lot to admit one was wrong. Apologizing may create more damage for a struggling campaign and little benefit. My question is-- if Kerry apologized for the IWR, would you vote for him as a candidate, given he is more liberal than Dean and Clark? Or would you see it as shameless pandering, too little too late? If your support didn't move, how would your opinion change?

I'm not exactly certain how I would react myself; my support for Dean isn't exactly rock solid, as everyone knows.

Even if Kerry did apoligize, it could be seen as "political" or "desperate". I am not saying the action of him apoligizing is, it is just that it could be perceived that way.

What he should be doing more is explaining his rationale for voting for the war.

That's not the only negative I see with Kerry anymore.

(And Kerry was originally my first place pick over Dean too.)

How does he plan to solve the problem?

As you say, how does he plan to solve the problem?

Terwilliger, what I am saying now is meant as a general response, not one to you personally (even though I am responding to your post -- please bear with me).

My only nephew got out of the Army in June -- he got out by going into the National Guard -- and is now in college. His old unit from Schofield Barracks is being sent to Iraq next month. His National Guard unit is asking for volunteers to go to Afghanistan. So far, my nephew is committed to staying in college. This is a quagmire, much as Vietnam was. Kerry offers no solutions. No apology is enough. He will not be nominated.

Unless he can bring back the dead,
an apology wouldn't count for much.

Let me ask a similar question:
If a convicted mass murderer apologized for
their murders, would you forgive them?

I realize that the answer is personal and individual.
And the question's rhetorical BTW.

Kerry has offered detailed solutions at every phase of the game. I know, because I posted them repeatedly. It is Dean who criticizes without offering alternatives beyond vague language about allies and such.

Since the response has been 4-0 no difference, even in opinion, so far.

Of course, this is a small sample and the DU supporters are more committed to their candidate than regular voters.

n/t

Whereas right now, he has NO chance, at all.

But it would have to be 100% sincere --and that's not a quality I see in him as a rule (Ever?)

Eloriel

but I would not change to him. I do not think that Kerry is more liberal than Clark and I don't think that he is as electable as Clark. I also like Clark on various issues that are not really traditionally left/right.

Kerry has established himself as one of the furthest left members of Congress over 18 years. Clark has only been in politics a few weeks, after voting for the same people that were secretly spying on Kerry (Nixon and Reagan).

He can't be labeled as a liberal because he's been in the military all his life. It's not going to stick. I also like Clark because he can really go in there and clean up the Pentagon, cut the Defense budget, and make the military what it needs to be, not what the toy boys want it to be. And I do think he can beat Bush.

But, personally, Kerry has the 20 year liberal record so I don't have to even wonder what he'd do as President. He's also sat on numerous committees and made tough calls on arms programs, but also supported various parts of the military as well. And he's already negotiated normalization with Vietnam, wrote intelligence laws to go after terrorists, sat in various internationa conferences, and a host of things that make him as qualified as Clark. He could also beat Bush. But Kerry and Kucinich are the truest liberals in this race, no question in my mind.

to "truest liberal politicians in this race." The rev. Sharpton is pretty darn liberal, as is Ambassador Mosley-Braun.

Kerry is a liberal. TWo problems exist for Kerry: 1] He is from New England, and 2] He has fallen from Frontrunning liberal (with Leiberman as the frontrunner) to third place (behind Clark / Kerry). He can't recover from problem #1. Can be overcome problem #2?

If Kerry were to apologize his IWR vote in public, what would it take for those that it turned away from him to accept it?

he looked at the facts that he had, he made a descision and he stuck with it. he pointed out that 'had he known then what he knows now' it would have been another matter.

backpeddling now just to save his ass would totally demean him in my eyes.

Because it would not be sincere.

Too many of us begged him to do the right thing on October 10, 2002. He ignored our pleas and voted for his political career.

Knowing that he had seen an indefensible war up close and personal, made it all the worse.

If he did this before Dean surged, then yeah, I probably wouldn't have really looked at Dean. But when he started telling us to "Get over it" and defending his vote, I desperately wanted someone else. Kerry represented politics as usual. If he would have stepped forward and said, "Bush misled Congress. If I knew then what I know now, I would never have voted for IWR." this would be a different ballgame.

If he did it now, it would look like a political move in an effort to jump on the anti-war bandwagon after it has left town.

what he knows now. If he had bothered to read and had been even the least bit skepticle of shrub. Nothing has vhanged in relation to Iraq since that vote was cast.

Still no wmd still no iminent threat justifying an authorization for war.

He had the same report the 16 words were based on when he voted.

And Kerry was the FIRST to say Bush misled us, and the FIRST to say if Bush lied - he lied to him personally, and the FIRST to call for an investigation into Iraq intel.

Kerry was probably behind Joe Wilson coming forward in July and don't think BushInc. doesn't know it.

someone else is though ..

..snip..
"Wilson isn't waiting for George W. Bush to hand over the perp. In mid-October, the former ambassador began passing copies of an embarrassing internal report to reporters across the US. The-Edge has received copies of this document.

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner. "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

Gardiner has credentials. He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College.

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort began before the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world. Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic influence" that were known to be false." ..snip.. con't

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=491&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

If Kerry is so tight with Wilson, why didn't he believe the intelligence report Wilson provided? I believe JK has admitted he saw the intelligence. no?

Wilson is part of Kerry's team and what Wilson is doing is part of that tearing down of Bush.

Kerry's team was assembled to bring down Bush. BushInc. knows this. That's why their whores in the press worked to tear Kerry down by either ignoring him outright or focusing on any bad story they could push while pumping up Dean.

They gave Dean a press plane in June while ignoring Kerry speaking at the VFW convention and attacking Bush there while the vets cheered him. Condi and Rummy's speeches were covered, Kerry's was not. The writing was on the wall. Too many Democrats weren't paying attention.

Kerry hasn't said a peep about Wilson lately. He goes from one desperate stance to another. "Real deal" to "ice cold anger". It'll be something else next week.

Who is "they" that gave Dean a press plane?

I don't doubt JK's team was assembled to bring down *u*h, but not in the way you think ..
..snip..
A key sign that Kerry might be the anointed one came for me when George W. Bush's chief counter-terrorism adviser Rand Beers resigned in a dramatic moment last June, in protest over Bush's handling of the war on terror and his headlong rush into Iraq. Beers immediately became Kerry's senior foreign policy advisor, as Kerry continued to state that he would improve on and expand the war on terror. Beers' protestations concealed what I considered to be a much more sinister objective, the placement of a key, hands-on operative to manage a smooth transition of power and a continuation of secret policy. Beers, who had served in national security roles for three Republican administrations, was the man who had replaced Lt. Col. Oliver North after North was fired in 1987 during the Iran-Contra scandal.
..snip..
Like all of the Democratic challengers, Kerry has been quick to jump on the bandwagon of cooked Iraqi intelligence and the Plame leaks. But he won't go near 9/11, stating instead, that if he were president he would "really" prosecute the war on terror, (i.e. go after Saudi Arabia, etc.). .. snip .. con't ..
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

We don't know. There's a quote referenced in a Seattle news article and that's it. I have never seen any other reference to these comments or where they would have come from.

It's just as likely he was telling people to quit crying in their teacups because that isn't going to change anything. Get over it. Then get up and fight to win the next election.

But we don't know because all we've got is a quote out of context.

And he has said the vote was taken in the time and place it was taken. You can't go back with today's info and truly second guess. But he has said you can call the war whatever you want; Bush misled, a mistake, whatever. The war itself was wrong and he has tried to say so in a way that isn't going to abandon the troops who are still in Iraq.

He only supported the idea of military leverage to force Saddam to comply and he also that the IWR would force Bush to the UN. And it did because it said the war could ONLY be to enforce UN resolutions OR protect U.S. security. You can't hardly enforce a UN resolution unless you go and talk to them first, now can you?

I don't care who people are for as long as they truly believe they are electing the guy who will make the very best President possible in 2005. The guy who will change the world. If you think that is truly Howard Dean, vote for him. I believe it's Kerry, and then of course Dennis. Who doesn't dream of a world where Dennis' ideas were just 'normal'.

for Dean

I think it would be the honorable thing to admit that he voted on the IWR before asking the questions that needed asking..however, it wouldn't make that much difference to me and it would lose him a HELL of a lot of the support he enjoys as a combat veteran.

Besides, what else will he be apologizing for in four years in office?

Not as long as Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun and Edwards breath air, in that order. However, if anything happens to these six candidates, then Kerry has my support above Gephardt and Lieberman. It's too late for an apology. The damage is done. Our phone calls and letters were callously disregarded because, apparently, a lying fool has more credibility than 'We The People'. We can't bring back the thousands of innocents slaughtered in this war, and we can't bring back 435 soldiers. I want a President who makes sure he knows the facts before signing his name on a piece of paper advocating war.

because he'd still have to apologize for No Child Left Behind, and not voting on the Medicare Bill. Too many apologies needed, where Kerry is concerned, imo.

One, if this is for the primary....

No. Too late. I would view it as pandering. I would think thathe should have realized his mistake by now. If he hasn't seen that error yet, he never will.

Two, if this is for the general election....and Kerry is the candidate.....

Hell, yes. I'll support him even if he votes for it again. I'm not a one-issue voter, and I never will be.

for Kerry to change his message now. I would respect him a lot more if he came out and called his vote what it was. But no I wont support him ever at this point. The Kerry I have seen in this campaign is not a man I want leading my nation.

on the record. More when I write my article.

:wow:

Definitely let folks know when you're finished with it.

off camera without issuing a statement or press release? That seems odd.

Rick Hertzberg, senior editor, the New Yorker
David Remnick, editor, The New Yorker
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent, Newsweek
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst, CNN
Frank Rich, columnist, the New York Times
Jim Kelly, Time Magazine
Richard Cohen, columnist, the Washington Post
Fred Kaplan, columnist, Slate
Jacob Weisberg, editor, Slate, author, “Bushisms”
Art Spiegelman, cartoonist
Eric Alterman, columnist, MSNBC and the Nation
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist, Newsweek
William Rivers Pitt, Truthout

That's the list, with a couple of extras.

Did he say "sorry I helped Bush begin his destruction of the United States"?

Did he say "sorry I was a pussy-assed follower of the country's mood swings and have absolutely no ability to be a leader"?

Did he say "sorry I played it both ways so I could dodge my way out of whatever outcome happened later"?

Did he say "sorry I contributed to plunging the United States military into a quagmire not seen since Vietnam and thereby lessening the actual security of the United States"?

For me IWR isn't the issue of my choice, my choice first and foremost is who I think can beat bush, the rest are just in the way to the white house.


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

He's held to a different standard. Alterman said it himself today. Kerry is supposed to be the guy who doesn't let us down. He could explain his position on Iraq and WMD a million times and it wouldn't matter, because there are those who will always think he was being politically expedient. They wouldn't be satisfied. If he said he was being politically expedient, he'd certainly be finished. It won't matter.

People have made a decision to hate him. He is picked apart and scrutinized for the silliest things, things nobody else has to answer for. It's a feeding frenzy. I don't understand how these things get started, but once they do they're very difficult to stop.

the most liberal of the front runners- tough enough to call bush a chickenhawk. Dean can't. Clark will.

Vice President Humphrey had been an enthusiastic supporter of LBJ's Vietnam war, and had been trailing badly in the polls after "winning" the 1968 Democratic nomination, thanks in large part to Sirhan Sirhan's assassination of Bobby Kennedy.

Humphrey then gave a speech, the Vicepresidential seal noticeably missing from the lectern, in which Humphrey broke with Johnson, and broke with himself, by calling for a unilateral American withdrawal from Vietnam. Humphrey's poll numbers turned around and, had he done it a few weeks earlier, he would have beaten Nixon.

Kerry needs nothing less than a Humphrey conversion!

I see other candidates getteing a free ride on "I wouldn't have" when there words at the time were clear that they did.

Because of that, I've wiped all their slates clean except for Kucinich and Sharpton who start with several points more than the rest for having been unequivocally clear, from the very beginning, that they were against this war and have a record to prove it.

and he still has a decent platform. His attacks on Dean are turnoff though

saw that the only way to beat Bush is direct opposition, and expressed regret for voting for the IWR, then, yes, I think I would support him as my candidate. It would be tough, because he's put himself in a hole, but, I think he can dig himself out if he's honest about it.

He's a good guy, and I think he's learned a lesson. But, I don't think he'll apologize, and it probably wouldn't even be a good idea for him. So, for now, I'm with Dean.

I don't know if I would support him at this late date, but it is the right thing to do.

Kerry is a whitewash.

How many times do I have to say it.

He should drop out now, with dignity

Kerry is a whitewash.

How many times do I have to say it.

He should drop out now, with dignity

as matter of dealing with Bush it was risky, but you do give the POTUS the benefit of the doubt- especially when his own father was telling him not to go to war.

can he apologize for being a spineless follower? For trying to have it both ways?

No. No no no

Kerry took two contradictory positions before the war by publicly opposing it, but voting for the IWR. There is nothing he can do now to erase that stain, and any change now would be pandering, nothing more.

I can't envision J(Forbes)K apologizing for Anything.

Will you support Kerry if he apologizes for the IWR?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Kerry has said that he now regrets that vote.

I really do believe that Congress was given deliberate misinformation and I really do believe that no one imagined the UN and the rest of the world would be ignored so totally at the time they voted. But again, I could be wrong.

I wonder what you'd like exactly from Kerry? Is it a matter of specific words you'd like him to say?

BTW, Dean has the dubious luxury of never having to make the call that Kerry had to make. Kucinich voted against the IWR, did he not? But most clearly didn't do that.

At the time the vote was taken, I really do think most of our Congressmen and women couldn't believe deep in their hearts that the administration was really as down and dirty evil as we now see that it is. Maybe giving the administration... or anybody... the benefit of the doubt isn't a bad thing. Hindsight, unfortunately, is 20/20. I imagine a lot of Congresspersons regret their vote... now.

I kinda like Kerry actually. Overall, he has a pretty decent record. None of them are perfect!

Kerry sold out, thinking it was the "smart, pragmatic, realistic" thing to do. He did it cynically without considering the price to the Iraqis and the American cannon fodder sent to do Bu$hCorp's dirty work.

Support him? No way.

My hot anger might keep me from the polls.

and claims they were somehow 'duped' into supporting it.

Note: this in no way means that i would not vote for him should he be the nominee

i remember sitting at my computer for days leading up to that vote. for a time, there was almost NOTHING on DU except that topic. we were collectively SCREAMING with our keyboards watching CSPAN DURING the vote.

they weren't "duped" at all. they knew the info was false. WE KNEW the info was false.

if WE knew the lies, THEY knew the lies. IWR was politics pure and simple. it was politically expedient at the time to authorize the bombing of brown people.

pure and simple. they CAN'T claim ignorance because WE were calling their offices.

period.

I knew, we all knew, Byrd knew.....

Anyone who truly did not know is too dumb to be president.

he is tone deaf. He is so totally freaking tone deaf it is losing him support. He has no respect for the regular grassroots activist democrats to whom the name James Baker is equivalent to Satan. Kerry supporters want to pretend his statements on the election of 2000 and his support of James Baker are not a problem, but they are.

And I'm a Kerry guy. Just say, "I'm sorry. The war sucked and Kucinich was right."

... that bothers me about Kerry. It is but one piece the puzzle.

Many here talk of his long service, and adherence to ideals that most of us support. But, that makes his IWR support all the more unacceptable to me - he really has no excuse for not having a better grasp of the situation since he was the consummate insider.

And, I know it is not a popular sentiment here - but I'm not going to be happy voting for any sitting Congressman with the possible exception of Kicinich. They seem to be in a "go along to get along" stupor that has contributed greatly to the sorry situation this country finds itself in.

I'm sure Mr. Kerry is an honorable man. But he simply does not impress me as the kind of President we need.

Sen. Kerry might well move up to my #2 spot, and earn my respect (again); it takes a big man to admit he was wrong, and if Sen. Kerry apologized for the IWR, it would eliminate 95% of any 'problems' I have with him as a candidate.

His hallmark seems to be voting for these egregiously wrong legislative acts, and then trying to paint himself as being against them all along. I point out his IWR vote and the Patriot Act votes. There's an old saying that the proof is in the pudding. Judging by what he does with his votes rather than his mouth, I don't like the taste of that pudding.

One note in his defense. He's not alone in this by any means. I have become a harsh Hillary Clinton critic because she unabashedly supports Bush's war, the Patriot Act and other warmongering America-supreme acts by this administration. I appreciate that she doesn't try to hide her sentiments through apologies and weasely wordsmithing, but nonetheless she has set me up to oppose her.

Kerry's behavior here is indicative of the Democrats in Congress on the whole. If the Democrats don't work through all this and determine who and what they are, and vote for it regardless of their feared political fallout, they are doomed as an opposition party. It's as simple as that.

Tell ya what, how about posing that question to
survivors of the US soldiers killed in Iraq.

Then to take it an extra step; ask survivors of
dead Iraqis if they'd forgive Kerry for voting to
invade their country.

Otherwise, it's too late, baby, now, it's too late, but we really did try to make it...

The man has never made a decision that wasn't dependent on HIS career.
Exactly like his supporters on DU.