Here's why Kerry can still challenge Bush on the war

The way Kerry trusted Bush to the right thing only to watch Bush abuse and misuse the authority given to him is an EXACT mirror of how the gerneral public increasingly views this war--as a betrayal of trust. People will be able to identify with this--Kerry trusted Bush, and was betrayed--so too were the American people.

This is simplifying things, of course, but even the media are building up this exact perception. In my opinon, enough evidence was shady so that Kerry should NOT have voted for the IWR. His motivations are totally open to debate, but since the general public was fooled as well, it could be turned to an advantage. When Kerry stands up there and says "Bush betrayed me--I trusted him to do what's right and he betrayed that trust", he is stating the feelings of about 50+% of the population. An overwhelming majority of Americans approved of Bush leading up to Iraq, so they have traveled more or less the same path as Kerry.

I would prefer we have someone with rock-solid credentials on the war, but since the only one who fits that bill is Kucinich, I say we still have a viable plan of attack with Kerry. Dean of course doesn't need this defense, as he is also better than Kerry on the war, but less so than Kucinich.

Let me ask you a question: do you think John Kerry is stupid?

I imagine that you must not because you back him, and why would you back a stupid man for President?

So if he's not stupid, how was he so easily duped by that oh-so clever George W. Bush when half of the American PUBLIC (knowing far less about the truth than Kerry ought to) were not duped? Why was he duped when millions of people marching in the streets across the world were not?

Lets face it, either the man is a spectacular idiot (which I do not believe) or he is a PNAC/BFEE enabler (by voting for the war). Can you see a third alternative?

You need to read my post again, but this time a little more carefully.

You are seeing this in black and white. The only candidate who disbelieved that Saddam had WMD was Kucinich.

So is every other candidate a spectacular idiot and a Bush/BFEE enabler?

I know or talked with supported Bush.

:eyes:

I'm working with a group of Republican/Independents who have banded together to vote ABB. Their goal is to tell the truth about Bush and to give facts about the eventual Democratic nominee who they have all pledged to vote for and work to elect. When we have the next meeting, it will be good to have this idea so that if anyone there questions Kerry's actions, I can present these ideas. Thanks!

"If you cannot admit Kerry and the Congress was lied to then you cannot say that Bush lied."
-cindyw

I guess I expect the Executive branch to be truthful to Congress, if not, the whole system breaks down. I beleive that Bush lied to Congress about the urgency of reacting to WMD in Iraq. Nonetheless, a resolution was passed that gave the President power to wage war IF UN inspections were not working. They were working, they were finding no weapons, and Bush used the resolution to declare unilateral war without basis.

Bush lied, lots of people died...and are still dying. He broke his trust with Congress and if we had a Republican Party that was not propping up this unelected fraud, we'd have impeachment proceedings underway.

Something else, too. Let's assume President Dean or Kerry or Edwards or Clark is elected next year and they have hard intelligence that says North Korea is ready to light the nuclear firecracker on, say, Japan.

If our President goes to Congress and says that this action is imminent, would we not expect Congress to react and support a resolution if the evidence is presented? Would we be pissed off if the Republican majority decided this was a political ploy and rejected the Resolution? If we're right and the nukes are thrown, who is responsible? I would think the American people, certainly the Japenese, would hold the Republican majority responsible.

As a member of the minority party the gamble was vote against and be proven wrong or support and qualify. Choosing the former, in hindsight, would be right but if we were wrong, the Party would be as good as toast. I think our Democratic Senators played the best hand they were dealt. I guess you can choose to hate Kerry and Edwards for their vote, but I think if I had been an elected Senator, given that this administration controlled the debate and the evidence, I'd have opted to protect my constituents.

or don't people believe their own rhetoric?

:kick:

Kerry's position will come across as 'bipartisanship', i.e. Kerry wanted to trust his president but was betrayed, i.e. Kerry put aside political differences and voted to do what was best for the security of America, but Bush and the neocons only cared about Halliburton.

Despite what people here think, Americans don't care much for partisanship. The self righteous "I was the first one to oppose the war" won't go over well with most Americans who care more about what we should do now about Iraq.

On the positive side, I've been surprised by several moderates on the internet who despise the anti-war crowd who have claimed Kerry is worth a look. I'm perplexed, since Kerry is more liberal than the more conservative Dean. Kerry's measured and rational demeanor makes them more comfortable with him, I suppose. These individuals don't like the antiwar "crazies," but don't like the fact that they've been lied to about the WMD either.

He could say that his vote was a mistake. He was lied to.

But he doesn't. He says his vote was correct. And the only problem is that George Bush didn't prosecute the war well. He didn't bring in allies.

Now we know, this is completely false. The war was unnecessary from the beginning. But has Kerry said that?

What's Kerry's strongest Anti-War statement?

All of the other candidates are behind.

I was originally supporting Dean. However, the idea that we are going to "stand up" against the war and win by a deluge of grassroots turnout was completely falsified in Iowa, where Kerry and Edwards did well.

They enjoyed a 2-digit lead over Reagan and Poppy Bush respectively in polls taken at about this time. They both went down to defeat in flames in big landslides.

According to Crossfire, Kerry said today he didn't need the South to get elected President.

He still believes that bad weapons in the hands of bad people who want to hurt other people is bad.

So even though he was lied to about Saddam, he still thinks that we need to work to disarm bad people. But through process, never unilateral war as a first option.

His position is War as a ****Last Resort**** after all other methods to disarm have been exhausted.

"Simply put:  The Bush Administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1203.html

Making America Secure Again: Setting the Right Course for Foreign Policy”
An Address to the Council on Foreign Relations by John Kerry
December  03,  2003

on edit clarify

Pulleaze.