Question for Kerry Opponents:

In 1972, the Democratic candidate was George McGovern.

In 1964, Senator McGovern voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which effectively allowed US participation in the Vietnam War.

In the eight years that followed, Senator McGovern gradually became a leading critic of that war.

In 2002, Senator Kerry for the IWR, and yet his opposition to the Iraq War started almost immediatly.

So my question to those who will vote for someone other than John Kerry because of his IWR vote is this:

If you were of voting age in 1972, who did you vote for? And why?

If you weren't, who would you have voted for if you were?

Thats why his campaign slogan was "Right From the Start"

Only two Senators voted against Tonkin. Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening. Here's a photograph of the actual roll call vote.

when the body count hit 20,000

As did Inouye and Kennedy, the only other Senators that are still serving.

for a series of steps and War as a last resort. The president in essense said fuk the steps. So I don't blame Kerry for his vote

McGovern was voting for war and knew he was voting for war. It was only later that he was realized what a mistake he had made.

Kerry has not opposed this war -- he says that there is a "right" way to do it and discusses "internationalization" which doesn't necessarily mean that we are getting out, just that others are getting in.

Kerry's behavior in which he casts votes that give Bush powers, and then say that it was Bush who abused the powers -- then, says he is not responsible for what Bush has done -- seems to me to be very irresponsible, no matter which way you look at it. (BTW, Kerry also voted Bush FastTrack powers, and the Patriot Act...so this isn't a singular occurence).

At the same time, Kerry says that he was somehow duped by Bush's intelligence (which, as a senator, he should have researched since progressives like Kucinich knew that this was a war based on lies), so if he was thus duped, what's his justification for this war that he thinks we should internationalize?

Also, if Kerry was tricked by Bush somehow, that vote is still very wrong. He is responsible for not fully investigating the situation and intelligence (as I said, it's not like this same intelligence wasn't being questioned by others in his own party or the progressive media). He could have decided there wasn't enough intelligence, for instance.

Kerry can't have it both ways. He is using legalistic maneuvering to seem that he both supports and opposes the war simultaneously. That is not honest, and it is not a good sign that he will actually get the U.S. out of Iraq any time soon.

I refuse to vote for Kerry if he will not oppose this war.

Kerry has opposed this war. He's called it unnecessary and irresponsible on every possible occasion. He's called the Administration out for misleading the public.

As for the evidence that Iraq posed a threat, he was misled by the Administration just as Senator McGovern was misled by the apparently-false claims of a North Vietnamese attack on two US destroyers.

So you're saying you would have opposed George McGovern in 1972?

As I said, Kerry is trying to give two impressions at once, which makes me doubt his sincerity. If Kerry is against the war, I want to hear it loud, clear and in no uncertain terms.

He's called the Administration out for misleading the Public, but he shouldn't have LET the adminstration mislead the public in the first place. I'm calling Kerry out on being "mislead". Kucinich wasn't mislead. Where the hell was Kerry's resarch on this matter when it mattered. If he was "mislead", that means that he was wrong for his vote. Sorry, another example of a little too little, a little too late.

So, now that its "too late", that means that we don't need an exit plan too? Sounds just like when Kerry said that it's "too late" to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, as well. It's always a convenient "too late" excuse.

Mislead? Hell, was Kucinich mislead? If Kerry was "mislead" he is responsible for being "mislead", but I doubt that he was mislead as much as involved in giving tacit approval for this unjust war.

I'm tired of these sorts of manipulations and irresponsible leadership that Kerry has demonstrated on this matter. He must do something to commit an end this war, or he's getting no vote from me.

Kerry does have a plan for exit; it's outlined on his website.

Oh, do you mean something like this article?
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

Nah, Kerry's not saying he's against the war -- only that he's against Unilateralism. Well, I'm opposed to the war, even if it means that it is "internationalized" or multi-lateral, as Kerry likes to put it to make it sound more palatable. Again, Kerry is into the "right" way to do the war, not opposed to the war itself.

Also, if we are going to "internationalize" the "work" in Iraq -- how come we NEED so many troops added to our military. Doesn't internationalism mean that we are pulling a bunch of our troops out of there? So, then, why more troops? And what are our "responsibilities elsewhere" that involve the military, might I ask? Frankly he says internationalize and add more troops in the same breath, and it doesn't add up.

I don't know, but when I read what is ACTUALLY being said (behind the nice cadence, vague "nuances" and the fancy words) this sounds like a imperailtic intent backed by the threat of war to ME:

"I believed then and I believe now that Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. To provide responsible leadership, we need to take the third path in foreign policy – a bold, progressive internationalism – backed by undoubted military might – that commits America to lead in the cause of human liberty and prosperity. If Democrats do not stand for making America safer, stronger, and more secure, we won’t win back the White House – and we won’t deserve to."
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

I, frankly don't see how using "undoubted military might" to ensure "prosperity" makes us more secure. It's going to put us more and more in harm's way if we do not end America's imperialist goals and agenda.

alot like Kucinich's "get the UN in and get the US out." The key is giving up political control (read: oil) which is what "internationalizing" means, beyond troops. That's the biggest difference between the Bushies' war and all of the Democrats' proposals for exit. That's the difference between imperialism and internationalism. Do you have a better exit strategy for Iraq?

As for diplomacy being backed with might -- are you suggesting we demolish the military?

"Sounds just like when Kerry said that it's "too late" to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, as well. It's always a convenient "too late" excuse. "


What's the context of this? Kerry supported the Kyoto Protocol.

And still wondering where this 'info' is coming from.

reforms of any president prior. As Chomsky said, people continuing on this path are saying PLEASE IGNORE ME and that will be their result.

BTW Mobuto.....lots of these people weren't drinking out of a cup in 72.

it should be noted could be 31 years old and still fit your rather petty description of them. I will be 36 years and 11 months old when I vote in November and come pretty close myself.

until they learned that it was based on lies, including many Senators. I sat and watched Colin Powell at the UN, with his charts and graphs and satellite photos and tape recordings, and I thought, "Damn, it's terrible, but it looks like we have to do this thing." HAH! The story they put over on the nation and the world was pretty good at the time. Hard to tell then that it wouldn't hold water!

I can accept Kerry's vote, considering the circumstances under which it was cast. We all know better now.

There is no comparing him to McGovern.

He's always been against the war and proud of his vote. Whereas at one point McGovern was actually in favor of the Vietnam War.

that VietNam had attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin. Even Bush wasn't claiming that Iraq had already attacked us.

and the ability to use them against the United States and virtually everyone believed at least part of that. Virtually everyone agrees that preemptive war is justifiable - if someone's about to attack you, and you know it, you're perfectly entitled to attack them first. The problem is Iraq wasn't about to attack us, nor were they in a position to if they wanted to. The Bush Administration was simply lying, as LBJ's people did in 1964. There is no difference at all.

Even if everything Bush had said were true, you would have been left with a person with means and motive but no opportunity.

Even if they did attack us in the Tonkin Gulf, they didn't have the capability to threaten our security.

There was a very real threat of a North Vietnamese invasion. And that's exactly why George W. Bush had to remain in this country, so he could be called upon to straff NVA landing craft as they prepared to land their hordes on South Padre Island.

that is red letter justification for war. Otherwise we would have had no right to attack Japan after Pearl Harbor as they had no ability to attack our mainland either.

so you don't vote for kerry and we end up again with the lying liar who called for this bogus vote in the first place. what have we gained? i think it is safe to say more of the same.