Kerry and Edwards Need to Answer War ? Clearly and Succinctly

[mondo joe]

I was extremely put off by their answer about the war vote on 60 Minutes. And if they keep this up it's going to hurt them.

Though I like them, in this one answer they were virtually 2 more GW Bush's.

They need to answer clearly and succinctly. They need to say either:

Our mistake was believing the President and the intelligence. If we knew then whatwe know now we would have voted against it.

or

Iraq was enough of a threat that the President needed authority to go to war if he felt it was necessary.

Most will accept or forgive either answer. But trying to have it both ways is poison.

[NMDemDist2]

1. Kerry's statement on the floor

"The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change."

- John Kerry
Statement on Senate Floor
October 9, 2002

[mondo joe]

4. That still doesn't answer the question - was his vote a mistake?

He still has to answer whether it was a mistake or not.

[jean]

7. no he doesn't - why do you insist on laying down to the wording of

a dumb ass question from an idiot interviewer? She was framing the question and trying to bully them into fitting themselves into her narrow frame.

To hell with her and anyone else using this transparent we-can-see-it-coming-from-a-mile-away Repub framing game. Our guys should dominate and take control back, damnit.

[mondo joe]

11. Way to win over swing voters. Ambiguous, parsing answers.

See, if someone like me who suppotrs Kerry/Edwards is put off so badly by their answer, how do you think it will play with swing voters?

[Terry_M]

16. I'm sure the GOP will use Kerry's lack of a simple and short answer

to their advantage in future ads/comments.
On edit:
"John Kerry doesn't even have a position on the Iraq war! <insert long or ambiguous quotes> Is this the man we want to protect our nation?"

[Hoping4Change]

18. I completely agree with you Mondo.

Why give the media whores opportunity? They need a short concise sound bite, without it they are inviting relentless attacks. All they need to say is that they voted to give Bush leverage to compel Saddam to comply. Period.

I think many who voted yes had Roosevelt's "talk softly and carry a big stick" in mind. They wanted to increase the size of the stick not forgo diplomacy.

[HFishbine]

27. When Edwards says

a Kerry/Edwards administration will never send America's sons and daughters to war "needlessly," it's not a dumbass question to ask if they were sent to Iraq needlessly. And I agree, they better have better answers than the evasive crappola they tried to dish out to Leslie Stahl.

[shockingelk]

2. Kerry could just point to his floor statement

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

He already thought the pres had the authority to protect national security, and he specifically said he opposed "regime change" without a UN mandate. Which there wasn't.

Of course, he could supplement that with that he assumed he trusted the White House to represent the intelligence accurately.

[aden_nak]

6. And he should more often.

The problem is that it's an if/then statement of sorts. It's tricky to explain to a pushy reporter who wants yes/no.

On the other hand, I thought Kerry & Edwards were not making their point properly. If they are going to make a tricky point like that, they need to fucking make it, not beat around the bush (no pun intended).

[jean]

3. Stahl's question was off-putting - she wanted a yes or no from them

and Edwards pointed out they had already answered her 10 times.

I though their wording was fine - she was doing the Repub framing of the question thing and they didn't let her get away with it.

[mondo joe]

8. I strongly disagree

No one is more sympathetic to Kerry/Edwards than I am - but they have still not provided a clear succint answer.

Edwards is a trial lawyer. He ought to know the impotrance of the persion being questioned having a clear, unambiguous answer.

[HFishbine]

28. Edwards pointed out they had already answered her 10 times.

And he was wrong.

[aden_nak]

5. I'm such a helpful guy, I've written a statement for Kerry on Iraq.

"Yes, I did vote to go to war in Iraq as a last resort. Like the rest of the American people, I was being told on a daily basis that Iraq was a menace to America and perhaps the entire free world. I was being warned about chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons being constructed to further the vile cause of terrorism. I was told that Saddam Hussein was working with al Queda and Osama bin Laden. I was told all of these things by the President of the Unites States, a man who had unfettered access to the best intelligence in the world. So yes, I voted to go to war in Iraq. But if I made one mistake that day, it was trusting George W. Bush with the safety of our nation.”

[mondo joe]

9. Perfect! He should use it.

[BeFree]

15. Let me help ya finish that fine statement

"Because I trusted boosh to go to the UN and have inspections resumed, and that those inspectors would then come back to us with a reccomendation of whether or not troops are needed to get rid of the WMD. As we now know, there were no WMD in Iraq, so the responsibility for the invasion rests solely at boosh's feet because he didn't have the patience needed to keep innocents from being killed. I have that kind of patience, I am not a wild-eyed radical like boosh."

[Parche]

10. Kerry

He answered it very well

It was a vote for the "Authorization of the use of force"

It was not a vote to go to war

GW Bush took this country and invaded Iraq

[mondo joe]

12. This is parsing worthy of GW Bush

"It was a vote for the "Authorization of the use of force"

It was not a vote to go to war"

Please.

Please.

Authorization to use force is an authorization to go to war.

Kerry and Edwards have to own up to it.

[Parche]

22. war

It was NOT an authority to go to war
that is a fact

Like I said, they have explained it very well

[mondo joe]

25. If it was not authority to go to war how did we go to war?

No matter how you slice it they authorized Bush to go to war.

[Parche]

33. war

Who took us to war...and illegal invasion of Iraq
It was GW Bush, not anyone else

[Beloved Citizen]

13. Taking Hostages

On the narrow issue you might be right.

On the big issue of unseating the worst president in US history you are wrong.

I'm growing tired of hostage takers. Can't we just get behind Kerry and Edwards and win one for a change?

[mondo joe]

14. I'd like to win it too. That's why they need to figure this out.

I'm behind them 100%.

But they need to figure out a better answer to this question.

[jean]

17. John and Elizabeth Edwards have this well in hand. Both are brilliant

wordsmiths - have faith!

They've probably reworked this item already - it is a joy to watch and hear them in action. I don't think we'll hear Kerry/Edwards falling for the 'mistake or not' wording any time soon.

[mondo joe]

19. I hope so. I love J&E.

I realy loved John & Elizabeth last night.

I confess I now wish it was Edwards for President.

[sandnsea]

21. No, people need to stop twisting their position

For whatever bizarre reasons they've been twisting Kerry's position for two years now.

[mondo joe]

26. He sure twisted it himself last night on 60 Minutes

I was absolutely appalled.

Neither Kerry nor Edwards could provide a clear, succinct explanation of their position or their vote.

Edwards is a trial lawyer - he has to know how bad this looks.

[sandnsea]

32. It was as clear as a bell

If you don't understand getting inspectors into Iraq, I guess it's just over your head. Sorry, can't do anything about that.

[sandnsea]

20. UN Weapons Inspectors

What is it that people don't understand about getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq? That was the process they voted for. He's been saying the exact same thing for two years now. Because of Saddam's history of WMD, inspectors needed to be in Iraq. I agreed with that in 2002 and if Saddam was in power today, even knowing they've found nothing, I'd still say weapons inspectors need unfettered access in a Saddam controlled Iraq.

If Saddam didn't comply, war was authorized as a last resort. That's what the IWR said.

If Kerry had been President with that IWR, he would have worked with the UN, with the weapons inspectors and with the international community. We would have found their were no WMD and war could have been avoided.

What he hasn't said and needs to say is that at that point, he would have moved for peacekeepers, NGO's and the rest in the north and south of Iraq to begin to allow those people to build their portions of the country and democratic institutions within them. Then, we could have pushed Saddam out, arrested him for war crimes, whatever.

But the vote was about a process to make sure Saddam had fully disarmed, with war as a LAST RESORT.

[Malva Zebrina]

23. they cannot say either your first or your second propositions

If they say Iraq was enough of a threat, they endorse the Bush 'pre-emptive attack doctrine and thereby tacitly support the action Bush took. If they say the first, they hand Bush a weapon to use against them--that is that he had the same intelligence as they

Cheney is playing that trump card to the hilt

The conclusion I have come to is that they both and those others who voted that vote, WANTED to invade Iraq. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.

They knew it was immoral, they knew it was distinctly against all international parameters for war, but they voted to let him do it at his descretion.

that is the fact that cannot be denied and it is sad. very sad, as far as I am concerned.

Edwards and Kerry will win--there is not another choice if anyone wants Bush out-they will bring some change and we are all better off without a mad and stupid, religious nut trying to scare his own people all the time so he can maintain his control over them

-yet that vote and the weakness or the politicking of a majority of congress, who did, indeed, vicariously drop our thousand pound bombs to kill babies and children,and all others who were terrified, defenseless and vulnerable and hovering in fear beneath the assult, and who were negligent or lazy in doing research, are as much to blame

I am very uncomfortable that I am almost forced to vote this way and pretend Kerry/Edwards had our best interests at heart re this vote.

For all I know, Perhaps they and others who did vote to give an ignorant and stupid madman a blank check, thought our best interests was to pursue the invasion pre-emptively at will, seize the oil fields, claim them as ours, allow American corporations to infiltrate all over the country and no others, and be sure it is written into the interim constitution that they cannot be ousted or in any way disturbed or prevented from pursuing their billions of dollars in profit.

Then tacitly assent to build at least seventeen American military bases and rule over the ME. And the rest of them little snotty twit countries in the area, better pay attention to our mighty military force because we will drop thousand pound bombs on them, their clay houses and their children also, if George Buish the maniac says so.

Or that they had superficially reflected upon the "right thing to do" as far as the lives of ten thousand innocents go and decided the "best thing to do" was to look ahead to their own political careers.

I do not know. All I know is that the whole exercise was so sad. :cry:

Sorry, I know many will be miffed or insulted by my perception of the facts, but I am too old to automatically adore candidates and hand them unquestioning support as one would worship an idol.

[emulatorloo]

24. The GOP is praying for Kerry to say his vote was a "Mistake"

Kerry and Edwards are defending the principle that the US should be able to protect itself against an imminent threat. With diplomacy, pressure from UN, pressure from allies, inspectors etc etc etc with war as the very very last resort. Because Bush Lied This Time, does not mean that they regret the concept of protecting the US>

They are squarely placing the blame on bush for manipulating the info, breaking promises, for abusing the office of the president.

Bush lied about the imminent threat. And that is where the "Mistake" lies.

This is Bush's mess and Kerry is putting the blame where it belongs.

If Kerry says the vote for defending US was a mistake, then the GOP goes into "Kerry will not defend you" "Kerry is weak on defense" etc etc. Limbot will play it out of context non-stop. etc etc etc.

See interview below. they are handling this well.


_________________________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/politics/campaign/11TEXT.html?pagewanted=1

snip


Q.What if the vote were today?


KERRY: Look, the vote is not today and that's it. I agree completely with Senator Edwards. It's a waste of time. It's not what this is about. We voted the way we voted based on the information in front of us, based on that moment in time. And it was the right vote at that time based on that information. Period. And this president not only abused the intelligence and the information, for which he is responsible, not just Mr. Tenet - not just the vice president, not Secretary Rumsfeld - the president. You know, Harry Truman's sign didn't say, "The buck stops at the Pentagon," or "The buck stops at the intelligence agency," and the fact is that we authorized the president to use force in a responsible way, and I have said for months, you know, I have said it to you, I have said it across the country: this president abused the authority that he was given, by abusing his own promises to the country as to how he would build a coalition and how he would go to war.

Q.Did he mislead you, did he mislead Congress, you, and the American people?

KERRY: Over a period of time, there were a number of misleading statements made by the president. He certainly misled America about nuclear involvement. And he misled America about the types of weapons that were there, and he misled America about how he would go about using the authority he was given. "Going to war as a last resort" means something to me. The president did not go to war as a last resort, period. Moreover it's the responsibility of a president, if you are going to go to war, having said we're going to do all that's necessary, to do all that's necessary. He didn't. Because he had no plan for winning the peace. It is utterly extraordinary the level of miscalculation of this administration, as to what they would find in Iraq and what was going to be necessary. They discarded their own professional military evaluations, from General Shinseki and others, they disrespected professional military careers, turned their backs on their own State Department's plans, and arrogantly believed. . . . And they were wrong. And soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong. And America's paying -billions of dollars because they were wrong, and allies are not with us because they were wrong. I think there is no greater responsibility of the president of the United States.
 

[EndElectoral]

29. What Kerry said on Senate Floor when he voted for the Iraq Resolution!!!!

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
….
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

[shindig]

30. WOW...

That really shut everybody right up. I guess Leslie Stahl musta missed this somehow.

[Anwen]

31. I totally agree.

I cringed while watching the 60 minutes interview. They (somewhat) successfully tap danced around the question last night, but that question is going to come up over and over and over before the election...and other reporters might not be so willing to let them slide. Not giving a clear answer on this question is potentially very damaging to their campaign.