This is what Kerry said he would do if Bush went in Unilateraly. What did

[KoKo]

he really do? I ask Kerry supporters to tell me if he "forcefully and vociferously opposed" Bush's Invasion and Occupation of Iraq..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq war opponents walk line between critic, patriot
Joan Vennochi - Boston Globe
Thursday, November 21, 2002

(SNIP)(Article compares Max Cleland to Kerry in snip)

So did Kerry vote ''safe'' when he supported Bush onthe Iraq resolution? To that, Kerry says heatedly,''You don't vote safe or nonsafe when you're talking about sending people to war. . . . You had a national security issue. You may hate the timing, the cynicism
of it, the raw political exploitation of it. But you still have a fundamental national security issue.''

Kerry says that what he voted for was ''for the president to have the ability to maximize leverage with the United Nations . . . I think it worked. We have the U.N. involved. We got the president to go to
the U.N. Where we have the president is in the position we put him. He may not stay here; if he moves from there unilaterally, I made it very clear, absent any showing of imminent threat, which does not now
exist, I do not think we should proceed unilaterally. If he decides to do it, I will oppose him forcefully and vociferously.''

(SNIP) (Kerry voted AGAINST all AMENDMENTS to IWR!)

Cleland did not oppose the concept; like Kerry, he voted against amendments that would have replaced the Democrats' version with the path favored by Republicans. To highlight Cleland's votes, Chambliss
ran an ad campaign that flashed the faces of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

(SNIP)
For now, Kerry is talking left, but voting centrist. After Sept. 11, it may be the only way to run for president. But is it the way to beat one? Joan Vennochi is a columnist for the Boston Globe.

------------------------
This article is no longer available from Atlanta Constitution, but in spending a long time on Google search, this was the article which quotes him saying what I heard him say. (Since it's no longer available I assume copyright laws don't apply? The article I'm posting with some snips was out on something called vietpage.com.) Will snip down if Mods think I should.


(Full article HERE:)
http://vietpage.com/archive_news/politics/2002/Nov/21/0202.html

(Atlanta Constitution article is no long available unless you are a subscriber)
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/thursday/opinion_d3cd38f3d4c941140086.html

[blm]

1. He said back then it was the worst diplomatic effort in American history.

Granted the use of force IS a multilateral effort technically, but it didn't stop Kerry from also saying the coalition was fraudulent. He also said at the time "Do not rush to war."

He was also the first to say that Bush misled the congress and the nation and said if Bush lied, he also lied personally to him.

He also was the first to call for an investigation into Iraq intelligence in June. By then, he was already aligned with Joe Wilson and Wilson's column came out in July. You all think these things happened in a vacuum or are people pushing these hits on Bush behind the scenes?

BTW, KoKo...why are you so lax about Biden-Lugar which Kerry DID plan to vote for over the other amendments? That's the one Dean said he supported and still provided Bush with the final determination of use of force. If that was your problem with the IWR why does Dean get a pass? Did he cover up his support better? Reward deception?

[KoKo]

2. blm, I posted because I read Alterman's Column about "Franken Lunch,"

and I am a HUGE fan of Alterman. So, he had me almost convinced until reality asked me to go back in my mind over the hours of Senate Hearings I watched concerning IWR and the "amendments" which tried to put more restraint on it. If you heard Robert Byrd on the floor arguing against that Resolution, you would have "the fear of God" or whatever in you, that the IWR was about the worst thing the Senate/House has done supporting war and increasing Presidential Powers since Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, imho.

So, as I've said to you before. John Kerry could have had my vote if he hadn't voted for that Resolution. I did research tonight because Alterman really thinks he's better than Dean (my read of Alterman's somewhat "nuanced" article).

Refreshing my memory with this article brought back why I still can't support him. His Baker comment had me in "full alarm" this week, so that I took another look back in time for Kerry's record, says that I'm trying hard to be fair about him.

I ask you what I asked in my original post. Has Kerry done what he said he would after he made this comment before he voted FOR IWR and AGAINST THE AMENDEMENTS TO IT? "I do not think we should proceed unilaterally. If he decides to do it, I will oppose him forcefully and vociferously."

[blm]

7. Did you read my post?

It was a multilateral use of force. It was not unilateral, technically. Bush won that semantic game as per Daniel Webster.

Kerry came forth and criticized Bush fiercely. What more can he say that's worse than Bush misled, Bush lied, and call for an investigation into Iraq intel? You think he wasn't behind Wilson pointing the finger at Cheney on the intel? Some Dems are looking out for the good of the country, KoKo and Kerry is one of them.

[Hep]

17. Wow!

Sorry, but when I see people making Bush's arguments in defense of Kerry, I just have to shudder.

[blm]

18. I never made Bush's argument. Don't twist my words.

It was a multilateral use of force technically, as per the dictionary, and anyone who denies it is lying or obtuse. Kerry did say the coalition was built fraudulently. Care to go into detail why you claim I made Bush's case?


Go over to a gun control thread and lecture Deanies who say that the other Dems want to ban guns and Dean doesn't. THAT'S spreading GOP propaganda.

[Hep]

20. Twist your words?

You're saying the same thing that Bush says, I don't have to twist anything. You're saying it's multilatera, as if most of the "Coalition of the willing" weren't bribed or coerced into following us into Iraq.

I remember when that term was used "coalition" and Bush's claims that the invasion was multilateral. I laughed so hard driving my car that I almost ran off the road.

It's just funny that when people defend Bush by saying it was multilateral, it's a joke, but when people use the same argument to defend Kerry, I'm supposed to take it seriously.

Don't worry. I'm sure you don't get the hilarity of this double standard. It's OK.

[blm]

27. I said TECHNICALLY multilateral while pointing to

Kerry's criticism that the coalition was a fraud. YOU decided to twist that into a defense of Bush by me. Typical Deanie campaign of deception and diversion.

[sandnsea]

3. The rest of the article???

''no Democrat has offered a more coherent criticism of the Bush national security policies, ranging from military operations in Afghanistan to diplomatic fumbles in the Mideast.''

And he has been consistent with these criticisms starting in January 2003. He gave Bush time to do it the right way and as soon as he saw Bush wasn't, he criticized. Here is a whole bunch of speeches where he criticized Bush and his war. Just because it didn't get reported in the media because they were pumping up the Bush cause, doesn't mean Kerry wasn't opposing him.

http://www.cfr.org/campaign/bio_kerry.php

And as for the name Jim Baker, it draws a distinction between this Administration's foreign policy and Poppy Bush. They were not the same at all. Poppy was a multilateralist, Georgie is a PNAC unilateralist. That's why Bush has actually called Baker in to handle getting international help with Iraq, Baker is a multilateralist. Baker called for Bush to work with the UN on the Iraq war. Poppy and Georgie aren't exactly the same.

[KoKo]

4. Thanks for an additional article to read, but James Baker cannot be

apologized for. Any Democrat who would put his name in a sentence with themselves.....for SHAME! Carlyle/Architech of the BFEE/Connections with the most Powerful/Usavory Powers/Politics in the US. The GODFATHER..Poppy's man who propped him and his evil spawn, and the Guy who helped STEAL the Election of 2000.

How Democratic Candidates like Lieberman and Kerry could trash our Democratic Statemen and Women to say they would put Baker (Kerry) or McCain (Lieberman) in official roles in their Presidency is beyond my imagination and really demeaning to our party. Clinton was a TWO TERM Democratic President, and if they don't like Clinton they go back into Carter's administration and get folks who could present the Democratic Viewpoint in an Administration.

By Kerry and Lieberman suggesting they would use these Repugs makes it sound like we are so weak that our Party doesn't have anyone with "Experience" who can be in positions of authority in their Cabinets or to be used as envoys for Foreign or Military Diplomacy.

We didn't need for Kerry and Lieberman to make our Party look Weak by saying they would put Repugs in. It's a "slap in the face" and that's why Dean is ahead.

[oasis]

6. What did you say when Clinton appointed William Cohen as head of DoD?

[KoKo]

13. I thought it was strange. And, didn't approve of it, seriously.

But, at the time it was explained as a bi-partisan reach. However, Clinton didn't campaign saying he would appoint Cohen as head of DOD. That would have been just as bad as Kerry and Lieberman.

[sandnsea]

8. Unless Dean did it

You know, like when he said Bush 1 was great on foreign policy which was actually James Baker's foreign policy. Clinton left Woolsey in charge of the CIA for the first 2 years of his administration.

It isn't a question of saying our party is weak, it's a question of differentiating policy. THIS Bush from the PREVIOUS Bush.

Blaming Kerry for all the ills of the world isn't going to make Dean a better candidate. It's just rebellious nit-picking. Emotion over intellect. There was an intelligent political reason for Kerry to name that name, but people would rather nurse their wounds. Kerry's right. We need to get over 2000. It's clouding our judgment.

[KoKo]

14. It isn't about Dean. It's about our Dem Party standing up for it's own!

If Dean said he would bring in Baker or McCain, I would be just as upset. I'm Dean/Kucinich BTW. I still had my mind open, though, if Kerry could have done something to inspire my confidence along the way.

I'm sorry he just can't overcome some of the mistakes he's made with his campaign, but he's too "wired into beltline" like Gephardt and Lieberman and doesn't get the anger out here by we Dems who know what Bush is all about and how dirty the Repugs would fight.

[KoKo]

19. If we "get over" Selection 2000 our Democracy is Doomed. That was when

the Repugs PNAC plan started rolling. And, we didn't know that we had been rolled and played for dead. "Selection 2000" was the start of the road down to where we are today.

I and others will NEVER "get over it."

[Sideways]

21. We need to get over 2000. It's clouding our judgment. My Ass! You Are So

WRONG!

It is crystalizing our judgment because it is the fucking PIVOTAL as in important, central, critical, crucial, momentous, grave, fatal, decisive, significant, vital, and consequential POINT.

Any Dem who sides with the media cabal or any other tongue wagging SOB about getting over selection/fucking theft 2000 has lost their FUCKING marbles.

We are not nursing our wounds sandandsea we are hell bent on flushing out a goddamn infection.

[Sideways]

22. BTW I Nearly Miscarried During Selection/Theft 2000

My grief and anger were that severe. Peyton is fine and more than that she is spectacular. Whenever she sees a monkey in print or on TV she shouts "IDIOT BUSH."

What a fine young lady she is.:evilgrin:

[JNelson6563]

23. I've seen you post this before

and I am often compelled to explain the obvious to you. Here it is.

One can be gracious and give a former somebody or other more credit than they are due in order to make it clear they can simply can be gracious, as is necessary in diplomacy.

To employ such diplomatic means is much different than actually saying you'd consider such a person for office. Especially the person who played such a crucial role in an event Kerry has advised us to "quit crying in our teacups and get over it.

That advice was slap in the face enough, to even wonder aloud about appointing one of the main perpetrators of that debacle is unthinkable.

Kerry should employ some of the caution on the campaign trail that he is so fond of on when it comes to voting on "popular" wars.

Julie

[loyalsister]

5. This is terrible for Kerry

When you truly look at this, it is hard for Kerry to walk away from this statement as anything more than a gullible dupe. He allowed the con artist talk him into it. Bush had no intention of consulting with the UN on anything but a symbolic level in order to get his war. It was clear to most of us after the Wespoint speech that he was itching for a war, and any reason\ploy he could come up with would be opportunistic. But the affable "fool" played congress. Kerry is pathetic in that he fell for it and is trying to pretend, now, that that isn't what happened. Of the IWR voters, the most intellectual consistancy on this is coming from hawkish Lieberman and Edwards who broke down and said it.

[sandnsea]

9. Lieberman and Edwards...

said what? They were itching for a war like Bush?

Bush consulted the UN for 6 months. In the first 3 months it was genuine. It turned bad at the SOTU and Kerry immediately came out against Bush.

People filled with hate think they know something, but blind hate only makes you blind. You could have just as well been wrong and there could have just as well been a nuclear weapon in Iraq.

[Jacobin]

10. Amazing revisions of my memory of the last year's history

Smirk was obviously bound and determined to attack Iraq as soon as he came back from the ranch.

It was ALL over this board for months, up to and including the vote on the IWR.

I remember it clearly. I have the faxes I sent by the hundred to congresscritters.

If you like Kerry, fine. But, please don't distort what happened in the run-up to the vote and the 6 month aftermath. Not here, where everyone remembers what happened.

[sandnsea]

11. I know what happened

And 80% of America ended up disagreeing. Blind hatred of Bush does not make facts. Calling every war the U.S. gets involved in a war for oil, doesn't actually MAKE every war a war for oil. And people in Washington D.C. actually have to look at real information from all over the world and try to sort out truth from fiction; not just rely on anger and hatred. Congress doesn't get to just react negatively against everything that comes out of a Republican's mouth and run out in the streets and protest. They actually have to try and figure things out and work out ways to make a bad situation better. That's what people like Kerry tried to do. Recognize the possibility that Saddam had these weapons and try to make a bad situation better.

And I still know this war vote isn't so important because Hillary still beats everybody and she voted for it too. Campaign strategy, Joe Trippi campaign strategy, that's all it is.

[maggrwaggr]

12. sorry but you're WAY wrong with your generalizations here

I was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt for a while. I wanted them to make their case. I listened with an open mind. I especially listened when the "highly respected" Colin Powell spoke at the U.N.

I couldn't believe it when I listened to his entire presentation and realized he had NOT made a case AT ALL.

None of them made a case.

They kept saying they knew exactly where the weapons were. But they couldn't/wouldn't tell the inspectors where to look.

If they could have sent the inspectors to ONE SITE where big nasty stockpiles of WMD had been, well, they would have had some credibility. But they didn't.

I am not in Congress. Why was I smarter than the people that voted for the resolution?

Why did I notice, and they didn't, when Bush said over and over again that he would attack Iraq with or without the U.N.?

Cheney, in a speech in August of 02, made it abundantly clear that they were gonna attack Iraq whether anybody approved or not.

If it was obvious to me, why wasn't it obvious to Kerry? And Hillary? And Edwards?

No, these people wanted to vote "safe". They wanted to play both sides of the fence, which is the BIG FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THE DEMS WE HAVE IN OFFICE GODDAMNIT. They have no backbone, no spine, they're a bunch of wimpy-ass yes-men who just want to follow the zeitgeist.

Fuck that. I want them all OUT.

Spinelessness is worse than evil. Spinelessness is a choice.

[KoKo]

16. I've not seen any DU'ers who have a "Blind" hatred of Bush. Most of us

hate his policies and "dislike" the man with a passion. But, hate is for policy. It's Bush who "Hates." He runs his P-Residency on promoting Hate around the world. To him everyone is "EVIL." Or, everyone who doesn't agree with his policies, anyway.

[Sideways]

24. If Congress Had Listened To The Rest Of The World Like You State Here

"And people in Washington D.C. actually have to look at real information from all over the world and try to sort out truth"

Well guess what sandnsea? The rest of the world outside of poodle Blair (not his people because the citizens of the UK were so fucking not for this engagement) and John Howard "I am THE coward of Australia" told Bush to back down and cool off.

You are right on one point and I give it to you with a wry twist. Not every war is about oil some are about other resources. Do you really think that our conquest bound greedy leaders (mostly GOPers) go anywhere in the world with goodwill on their minds?

Doesn't it strike you as odd that they leave their own citizens without but are hell bent to provide for the rest of the world?

And what do they really provide? Have you been following what has been going on in South America and East Timor and Myanmar or the Philippines?

Do some well needed homework and stop bleating about Hillary and your naive screed about "real information."

The real information is out there IN FUCKING SPADES.

[Bandit]

25. When one is dealing with crooks and liars one needs to verify everything

Senator Kerry knew the people he was dealing with but did not verify anything they told him. I think the Future Leader of America should have a little better judgement than was displayed during this time in our countries history.I am starting to question your judgement also. You have been spouting the Republican line without facts to back your words. Remember Democrats are dealing with known liars and thieves. How do you deal with such people? I personally don't fall for every thing they say without checking it out.

[Scott Lee]

28. Why didn't Kerry gather the Dems and make a press conference

To tell the American people what Bush was up to with this strong arming of the IWR and the Patriot Act?

I'll tell you why. Because he, like most other Dems in Congress, were scared first and foremost for their own behinds. The consituents, whos sons and daughters would have to go fight and die in Iraq, be damned.

I would probably be a Kerry supporter today if he had gathered the Dems together for a press conference, and defy Bush on ramrodding this crap through. He and the others should have made a stand. They did not.

[KoKo]

15. Those of us on DU who read "Guardian" and other newspapers didn't think

there were WMD or enough of them that couldn't have been contained by inspections. Many of us knew it was hoked up by the PNAC'ers from the beginning. Maybe we are just the "fringe conspiracy wing" of the party.

But, Robert Byrd said WAIT! Many of us believed him.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Kerry's "safe" vote cost him the nomination. Justly so.

Kerry, cynically, voted to have people killed because he thought it would advance his political career. He's now paying for that cynicism. As are his fellow collaborators, Edwards and Gephardt. Lieberman, to his credit, has stuck by his vote and seems to genuinely believe that it was right. The others, Kerry foremost, are trying to convince us that they were "misled" by Bush in a pathetic attempt to justify the bloodshed and aggression against a sovereign country and people.

His "safe" vote backfired - and proved not so "safe" after all. It's time for him to go - and think about what words like integrity, courage, and ethics mean and lack of them produces.