Kerry on C-Span(getting slippery on war vote)

[indictrichardperle]

2 different people from the audience questioned his war vote, he responded "we in congress didnt give * any more authority than we gave Clinton to go to Haiti". Im sorry but that is a load of Bull. If he cant see the difference hes a moron. Didnt he watch TV or read a newspaper ? Did he think Perle and Wolfowitz were pushing a "peace mission" in Iraq ? How many troops did we lose in Haiti ? How many years were we stuck in a quagmire in Haiti ? Did Haiti cost a billion a week ? Did we defy international law in Haiti ?

Senator, you better do better than this......pathetic.

BTW, Dean is starting to worry me with his seeming inabilty to articulate a policy on the I/P peace plan. If he is a weasel on that issue, maybe he isnt for real ?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. It's the difference between

It's the difference between the resolution he voted on and the illegal actions of Bushco. A very real distinction.

[Wonder]

2. ditto

on all points little distinction required.

[T Roosevelt]

3. Votes hold politicians accountable

He better keep that in mind because the issue of his Iraq vote keeps coming up...I can't believe that his constituents did not flood his office to not vote for the resolution, yet he still did. That will continue to be a problem.

On edit: glad we can edit the subject line...

[sandnsea]

4. He said there was NO vote on Kosovo and Haiti

He said the war powers act allows the President to commit troops and report to the Congress within 60 days.

He said the intention at the time was to give the President the muscle he said he needed in order to pressure the UN into enforcing the Iraq resolutions.

That Bush didn't do anything he said he was going to do is on Bush.

Agree or disagree, that's what he actually said.

[indictrichardperle]

6. that doesnt wash

He implied that he gave a good faith vote for Junior to use the military threat as an option, but was "tricked" when the cabal went straight to war. I find that very unbelievable. Remember back to that time, we all knew where the misadministration was heading.........its a Load of Bull. How could DU know and not a Senator ?

Kerry needs to give a straight answer.

[knight_of_the_star]

7. Maybe

Because he didn't think Bush was that stupid or arrogant and all of us here know that he is.

[Terwilliger]

14. maybe he should have

HOW FUCKING LONG HAS HE BEEN IN THE US CONGRESS????? HOW MUCH EXPERIENCE DOES HE NEED TO KNOW THAT GEORGE BUSH AND HIS MISADMINISTRATION WERE UP TO NO GOOD? DIDN'T HE PRESIDE OVER THE IRAN-CONTRA HEARINGS???

I think Kerry really needs to come clean.

[sangha]

9. Which candidate publicly stated that?

I'd like to know which Democratic candidate said that "Bush* is lying and will go to war without a UN resolution?"

Kerry isn't the only one who "needs to give a straight answer". Those who use one standard for one candidate, and another standard for their candidate, has something to answer to also.

[HFishbine]

22. Kucinich

Yep.

[aquart]

10. I do NOT want a president more naive than I am.

If Kerry believed that, anybody could sell him anything.

That's my problem with ALL the excuses for the war votes.

It was obvious to the naked eye that Bush was going to war no matter what. If I could see it, what the hell was the matter with Kerry and the others?

[molly]

11. This has been explained and explained and explained

here at least 20 times - extensively in some instances. There are people here that refuse to understand what the vote meant and what a non-vote would have meant. It's like explaining physics to two-year-olds.

[CWebster]

13. Sort of like

defending Arnold Schwartzenegger to all the two year olds, huh?

[molly]

16. We need to grow-up and work smart

not dip to the levels of following posters around the board - get my drift?

[CWebster]

19. LOL!

Don't flatter yourself.

Your girlish crush is no secret. ;-)

[molly]

21. Are you a "HIM"? Sorry, I'm married.

[CWebster]

24. Nope

.

[Andy_Stephenson]

41. I am not a "2 year old"

I see daily what the vote meant...How many dead now 11-12 k...that is what the war vote meant.

[Egnever]

5. So much of what he said

Was complete crap. I was quite honestly suprised. After mostly reading what other DU people have said in suport of him. I expected so much more in the first townhall I watched by him. Canned answers is what I heard and a few of them delusional. I think he said its the presidents fault I voted on Iraq the way I did. Uh huh...



I also agree that howard needs to flesh out his I/P policy. What i have heard from him so far worries me. But honestly i dont think he has looked really hard at it yet. I am hoping that is the case. I dont know.

Like you I would like to know more.It is probably the one real issue that worries me about him still. It doesnt seem to be a major shift from current I/P policy but i happen to dissagree with our current policy prety strongly so it does bother me.

[MaverickX]

8. In his statement on the Floor at the vote..

He said his vote wasn't an endorsement of unilateral action against Iraq. People here are way too perfect for me..hindsight is 20/20. I supported military force at first too.

[Terwilliger]

12. thats what Bush got, whether Kerry said that or not

Kerry is a limp noodle...he's as muddle as the rest of them

[blm]

15. Nope...it WAS a multilateral action

and anyone who hangs their hat on it being a unilateral action will have it handed to them by the American people and the media. It can't be sold as a unilateral action.

[sujan]

23. And of course, the UN mandated the war

:eyes:

[blm]

33. unfortunately they did...

back in 91. They were supposed to enforce disarmament themselves. With Bush and his mediawhores pressing for dissolution of the UN precisely for their "perceived" ineffectiveness, it was essential for Democrats to emphasize the process of going to the UN.

Bush and Powell are in some trouble now for their dog and pony show at the UN, heh? Thanks to those Dems who bothered to negotiate with the WH for the cost of their vote.

[Andy_Stephenson]

40. What trouble are they in?

WMD issue has faded into the memory hole. Nice and tidy like...Oh and look Kerry is helping it slip into oblivion. I don't hear him harping on it...or saying he will bring the troops home. Anything short of that is pure cowardice.

[tjdee]

31. I agree. All they have to do is point to Poland.

US + Poland + Spain = multilateral.

Period.

You know, and I know, and DUers know that this 'coalition' means jack, but technically, it *is* a multilateral action and America won't buy it otherwise.

[blm]

32. you forgot England

and poor Tony Blair.

[tjdee]

42. D'oh! Poor Tony Blair!

Don't know how I forgot that, oy.

[Andy_Stephenson]

39. Which of our traditional allies...

other than England helped? Who other than bribed nations helped?

[phillybri]

18. Good call, Mav...

People that are calling Kerry a waffler or a pussy don't get it ot don't want to get it.

Kerry's big fuck-up yesterday was trumpeting that "inspectors were kicked out" bullshit....Why did he say that???

His bit on CSPAN yesterday was fantastic other than that one damn sentence...

[blm]

17. He's talking about the PROCESS,

which is the same for any action. You either preserve the process or don't. It was that process that restricted Bush from the blank check he wanted - No UN, No weapons inspections, and full freedom to invade Iran and Syria, too.

[0007]

20. Is there any real differnce between the two parties?

The objective is the same - money money and more money.

The mafia knows what it is doing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Are your eyes open?

Are your eyes open? Have you been paying the slightest attention to what is going on in this country? The evidence of history for the last 11 years should show anyone that there is an enormous difference. It REALLY MATTERS!

[styersc]

26. Actually if your looking for an "idiot" you'd save time by looking

in a mirror.

Kerry is absolutely correct. The legislature (including Kerry) gave Bush the same authority to act as they had given Clinton in Haiti. Kerry et al., voted to give Bush the tools to perform a job and Bush screwed up the job.

Somehow you believe it is logical to assign Bush's horrible failure to Kerry's giving him the opportunity to do things correctly. The failure is Bush's. We (the country and our countrymen) are paying the price.

To say that one piece of legislation is different from the other based upon the outcome is FreeRepublic-like "logic". Both the Haiti and the Iraq legislation gave the president the power and tools to go ahead. Clinton proceeded intelligently with positive results. Bush proceeded ham-handed and ill-advised- so you blame Sen Kerry?!?!?!?

Your statements are brainless. Very helpful to the Bush campaign (that fears a Kerry vs. Bush campaign)- but brainless.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. He gave Bush the "opportunity to do things correctly"

and, believed that he would? If that were true, and I don't believe it for a moment, then Kerry is not only a coward but a fool.

Spare us the "helpful to the Bush campaign" BS. Bush is considered a hero by most of the electorate because he was able to crush 2 third world countries with the military. If he gets reelected it will be because of the war, not because of his domestic policies. Kerry not only acceded to the slaughter, but helped Bush by voting for his policy of aggression.

We didn't vote for Bush's policy. Kerry did.

[styersc]

29. "Bush is considered a hero....

... by most of the electorate because he was able to crush 2 third world countries with the military. "

Cite the source of this nonsense. I was talking about planet Earth, not some Mondo Bizzaro somewhere.

Bush is not a hero.

You are supporting Bush's untrue propaganda when you link Afghanistan and iraq. As al Queada was harbored in Afghanistan by the Taliban conflict here was practiacally unavoidable. We did this with international support and it was only Bush's tactical failure that allowed key AlQueada leaders to escape through Tora Bora.

Iraq is totally different (no way linked to 9/11 like the al Queada in Afghanistan). Iraq was obviously not an imminenet threat but a potential irritation that could have and should have been handled with international pressure through avenues of diplomacy, economy, human rights and even targetted military pressure as a last resort.

Crushing Iraq was the worst of all the possible choices that bush and Co. made in regards to Iraq. Had he followed the game plan of a thoughtful, rational leader he would have used diplomacy and pressure to bring about a solution in congress with the UN and our allies. This was Kerry's idea and it has been echoed by several rational thinkers on both sides of the aisle and all sides of the globe.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Then why did he vote for it?

"You are supporting Bush's untrue propaganda when you link Afghanistan and iraq. As al Queada was harbored in Afghanistan by the Taliban conflict here was practiacally unavoidable. We did this with international support and it was only Bush's tactical failure that allowed key AlQueada leaders to escape through Tora Bora."

Well, it certainly has worked..hasn't it? No more terrorist attacks, Afghanistan a picture of peace and prosperity, Al Queda crushed. It was an ill-conceived, poorly executed, emotional response, that did nothing but alienate a goodly portion of the world. And, it led to the impression that the "terrorist problem" could be solved with military force. Do you deny the link?

"Crushing Iraq was the worst of all the possible choices that bush and Co. made in regards to Iraq. Had he followed the game plan of a thoughtful, rational leader he would have used diplomacy and pressure to bring about a solution in congress with the UN and our allies. This was Kerry's idea and it has been echoed by several rational thinkers on both sides of the aisle and all sides of the globe."

The vote effectively killed any chance of using "diplomacy and pressure". It gave Bush the power to bypass the U.N. - which is exactly what he did. Which "rational thinkers"? Rumsfeld? Powell? Blair? Suarez? Lieberman? Edwards? Gephardt? Were the senators and reps and diplomats from most of the world who opposed it, irrational? I think they have been proved right. Were the vast majority of the world's people irrational?

Does, "..most of the electorate" baffle you? All you have to do is look at the polls. The majority of the people of this country support Bush because of his aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and his "tough on terrorism" stance.

To save you time: I am delighted with the overthrow of both the Taliban and Hussein. I just happen to believe that both could have been accomplished with the naked aggression against sovereign states that was perpetrated by Bush and his (Democratic) supporters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Funny how 23 other senators saw through Bush

but Kerry missed it? Right. Is that Bridge in Brooklyn still for sale? There's a buyer available in Mass.

Get real. Kerry voted for the war because he thought it politically expedient to do so. That his cowardly vote was going to cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and the respect of the world, was of small consequence in the face of his ambition.

[sangha]

34. Not true

None of those Senators said that Bush* would go to war without UN approval if they had voted "Yes"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Actions speak louder than words.

What do you think their reasons were for voting against the aggression?

1. They were duped by Saddam Hussein.
2. They didn't by BushCorp's lies and refused to vote for the aggression.
3. They did it for political reasons..even though the polls showed their vote would cost them politically.
4. ?

My choice is 2. Yours?

[sangha]

37. Wrong again

They did it for the reasons they said they voted against it:

The didn't think the threat was imminent or justified an invasion, and not because they knew Bush* was lying. Despite your overheated accusations, not one of the Dems candidates (or any of the Dems) claimed that Bush* was lying. Not Dean. Not Kucinich, Not Sharpton.

Not one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Bush said the threat was imminent and justified

The 23 senators and 112 reps said it wasn't. Sounds like they're saying Bush was lying to me. Or is this a definition of "is" question?

[dansolo]

44. Dick Durbin did

This was a quote from the Senatorial debates in 2002:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sen09.html

Durbin opposes the language the president sent to Congress because "it is still calling for unilateral action, go it alone. I think it is better if we have a coalition behind us than a coalition against us.''

[JNelson6563]

30. when it comes to the war with Iraq

I agree with President Gore who said:

"...the first Pre-emptive War in U.S. history should have been debated more thoroughly in the Congress..."

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

Julie

[Larkspur]

38. Yep, that is a rebuke of the whole Congress

both Republican and Democrats who supported the war and sought to rush it through before the November elections.