Could someone who posts at the Kerry blog: Why not say war was mistake?

[madfloridian]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4297365,00.html

SNIP..."HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (AP) - John Kerry's presidential campaign avoided a platform fight Saturday by persuading activists to drop virulent language about the Iraq war that would have declared the conflict a mistake from the beginning.

The Democratic platform committee worked through the day at a beachfront resort to put final details on the party's statement of principles for the November elections.

The platform will be shaped heavily by national security crises and presumptive nominee Kerry's campaign.

First, however, the committee had to avoid demands by a group of activists that the document describe the entry into Iraq as a mistake and lay down an exit strategy to get American forces out of Iraq. Still, the document includes tough language on terrorism and President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. "

I want to understand. I really do. But the war WAS a mistake. I wish someone who posts there could get this clarified. Thanks.

[w13rd0]

1. Apparently...

...Bush isn't the only one that has trouble coming to terms with his many mistakes. It really should be no surprise they are attempting to minimize language condemning a war that many elected officials signed off on, regardless the quality of the intel. Some of those that signed off said that they'd still have voted the same way, even were the lies and misinformation not so pervasive.

[madfloridian]

4. And this means I must admit the war was not a mistake?

When I vote, I will in effect be saying that, right?
I have never felt so sad and conflicted.

[mandyky]

2. I watched the convention on CSpan

I missed this part but Kerry's stance on Israel and Cuba, of all cheneying places troubled me. There was some National Security/Homeland Security stuff reps from camp Kerry said they _had_ to keep so we can look as tough on terror as the idiot cowboy. After today and watching this the excitement about the Edwards pick was wounded.

[Kholst]

3. This may be a sign in part that he is listening to Clinton...

who advised him to "campaign as though Iraq was stable, the economy was going great, and bin Laden was dead."

[madfloridian]

5. I really want someone to clarify this.

Something from the campaign to clarify. This means they are calling Dean and Kucinich liars in the past and from now on. I know I will again be put down for caring about this issue, but I am too upset to worry about that now.

I want to know why, and so does my husband. Our group here is starting to wonder as well.

[Catt03]

6. Kerry keeps saying the war was a mistake

as we all know that the evidence was flawed and there was not plan.

What else do you want them to say?

[madfloridian]

7. Read this quote, and then see if that answers your question?

I don't know what you mean? I made it clear and I quoted the article. If Kerry says the war is a mistake, then why are they adopting this in the platform.

QUOTE: "John Kerry's presidential campaign avoided a platform fight Saturday by persuading activists to drop virulent language about the Iraq war that would have declared the conflict a mistake from the beginning."

If he is saying the war is wrong, then why are they adopting this in the platform. I think that is a fair and honest question.

[OKNancy]

9. He is trying to avoid a fight

It's as simple as that. When the convention votes up or down on platform issues he doesn't want the vocal anti-war and the DLC types to get in a big uproar.
Have you ever been in politics or done a national convention before? This is standard stuff.

[madfloridian]

11. It is wrong stuff. The war was wrong. Do you think it was wrong?

Are you ok with this? No, but I don't have to go to a convention to be active, important and a voter. Either our party says the war was wrong or I don't vote. I am so tired of the pandering and excuses. This forum is becoming such an apologist for everytime they wimp out.

I am sorry, but I hate to feel that way. If you can justify it, fine. I am glad. I can not anymore.

They are saying that if Dean and Kucinich say the war is wrong, then it will be against the party platform.

The right wing just won.

[OKNancy]

13. Yes I think the war was wrong

but many good Democrats thought it was the right thing to do. That doesn't make them bad people. I know that many were drawn to the humanitarian aspects of the whole thing.
Dean and Kucinich are not going to make a fuss about it at the convention. Dean especially knows how important it is to show a united front.
If you get all upset and don't vote, then you will hate yourself the next day.

[madfloridian]

16. They are saying in effect that Dean and Kucinich lied.

Think about it. Think really hard. No, no self hate on this. They must now stand up for something or that is it for me. They need to explain this.

I will continue to support the Dean Dozen, because they, as I, had faith in our Democratic system. I don't anymore.

You do what you feel is right, I am waiting for an explanation.

[w13rd0]

12. It's not that they are calling those that opposed the war from the start..

..."liars". It's that they are avoiding creating opposition material to be used against those (who may, for instance, be running for President) who took liars and crooks at their word. We may not like it, hell, I know I don't, but that's how the primaries went.

Unfortunately, we don't get do-overs, and we get no special points for being able to say "told you so". If a position on Iraq were officially made part of the platform, BushCo WOULD find a way to use it against us, even if those efforts were later proven to be spurious (like say, planting WMD or digging up Ossama or beheading Saddam on national TV or whatever). Just because it isn't a position adopted into the platform doesn't mean we can't speak out on it, it just means the DNC is officially declaring that it's not a "make or break" issue, thus lending them flexibility as events develop.

I don't like it either, but I get no satisfaction from saying "I told you so". I just have to hope and act to add my own voice to the voices of others. Those activists that wanted the language included were right to do so, and the war has been a mistake from the beginning, but politicians have such a hard time admitting mistakes...

[madfloridian]

18. I have been giving in to this kind of stuff for years now.

I won't do it anymore. They will fully explain or I just can't go along.

[unfrigginreal]

8. Really?

Do you have a link for Kerry claiming the war was a mistake?

[Catt03]

14. Kerry statement

KERRY: I stood up to the people of Massachusetts and the country. Those are the people I answer to. There was a right way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and there was a wrong way. The right way was what the president promised, to go to the UN, to respect the building of an international coalition in truth, to exhaust the remedies of inspections and literally to only go to war as a last result

If anybody believes that John Kerry would have in fact gone to war the way George Bush did, they shouldn't vote for me. I would have stood up and exhausted the remedies and lived up to the values of our country.

Q: Under what future conditions would you support a pre-emptive military strike against another nation without wide international approval?
KERRY: Only when the US is so threatened that it is required for the survival of our country or for the accomplishment of some extraordinary humanitarian goal. Look, this administration misled the American people, abused the power that they were given, and has run an ineffective war on terror. Saddam Hussein was way down the list, with respect to the targets, even on the Pentagon's own list of targets. And what they did was supplant Iraq for the real war on terror, which is Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and terror across the world. The war on terror is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement operation. And we deserve presidential leadership that knows that and knows how to make America safer, and I will do that.

Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2

[zoeyfong]

27. Maybe that *his vote* was a mistake.

[madfloridian]

10. I checked the Kerry blog, but there is nothing there about it.

I won't vote for Nader, but it is looking easier and easier to stay home election day. I feel so bad about the lack of conviction here anymore. In the party there is a lack of it.

If this be true, then they are in effect saying Dean and Kucinich must shut up, and the words they have been saying are lies.

Get mad, get whatever. This is the reality.....our party is wimping out. They have us by the thumbscrews and think we have to vote for them. No, not if this continues.

[quinn94704]

15. but ...

if taking that stance costs him the 2004 election, would it still be worth it?

just a thought ...

[mzmolly]

17. An official stance is different then personal beliefs at times.

We have to tread carefully on this, because Kerry voted for the war. If he says "it was a mistake" in the platform, then we get into a whole debate about the past.

I really see this about looking forward. We can't convince some that the war was a mistake, even though it was. Heck some people still think Vietnam was just. :shrug:

Kerry is running his campaign very carefully, he want's to win. And, I hope like heck he does. :hug:

[madfloridian]

19. mzmolly, where did the real you go?

Do you realize what is fully happening here? Think of all the implications. I love you to death, but I am so damned tired of treading carefully. You used to be outspoken, too.

They are saying the war was ok by doing this. They are calling Dean and Kucinich liars if they continue to say the war was wrong. Think about that.

[w13rd0]

20. They aren't saying the war was ok...

...they are saying that they will avoid saying it was wrong. I fully realize what is happening, which is why I will vote, and then the following day I will begin agitating all over again. I can certainly understand wishing to withdraw from the process because of this, but then who will change things? Being disengaged, or too strident to make progress when the opportunity presents itself, is what brought us to this one corporate party state. They rely upon our disengagement.

[madfloridian]

21. So if Dean and Kucinich say ok, we'll play...how far right will they go?

I am not trying to cause trouble. This is my country, and this war is draining our economy, destroying future Social Security and Medicare, putting us deeply in debt to other countries.

And I am supposed to say ok? I won't do it anymore. I have been hearing back from some friends here on this, and they are so upset.

There comes a time when someone needs to say it is wrong, even if they don't matter anymore.

[mzmolly]

22. I am still "me" still "outspoken" ...

but perhaps we won't agree on a few things regarding John Kerry's campaign? ;)

I really don't see this as calling Dean a liar. If I did you bet your arse I'd be hoppin mad'...

Out for the night.

Peace my Floridian friend. :hi:

[madfloridian]

23. Dean has often said the war was a wrong thing from the beginning.

Now if he says it, and he believes it, he will be going against the party platform.

[mzmolly]

30. It won't be the first time Dean has gone against the party platform.

He was also for states rights on gun control?

However, the Dems are simply playing it safe. This document does not say the war was NOT a mistake. It simply leaves the decision up to individuals.

Sorry you are disapointed MF. I guess I never expected them to come out one way or another in an *official* manner.

You are entitled to your thoughts on this, no matter what. And, I respect your feelings ok? :hug:

I read the entire article and there was compromise on both ends.

``What we got was a commitment to begin the process to talk about bringing the troops home, and the Kerry campaign and the DNC from the outset didn't want this language in there,'' Kucinich deputy campaign manager Tim Carpenter said.

``We've moved. They've moved. It's truly unity in that sense,'' Carpenter said.

[madfloridian]

32. Not disappointed in you. But their half-truths are still lies.

I am vastly disappointed in them. I guess I will never be able to stand pandering anymore. I have been this way since the 2000 steamroller in Florida. Dean made us worse on speaking out, and I guess it just won't go away.

A half-truth is a lie.

[mzmolly]

35. I hear ya MF. I was so surprised a guy like Dean made it as far as he did

It shows there is a real hunger for honesty and a desire to rid our system of *pandering*

I so hope we see Dean as President in our lifetime.

I simply think the position the Dems took on the war, leaves it up to the individual to decide. Pandering or not, I think it's much safer come November?

I do understand your frustration and meant not to belittle your concerns as they are very VALID.

Hope all is well in Florida. :hi:

[KFC]

34. Who gives a shit about Dean?

Carrot Top was vocally against the war from the beginning. Mabye you should write him in, considering that he is slightly more relevant than Dean.

Me - I'll just stay home and brag to all my friends how I am just too principled to vote for Kerry, or anyone for that matter. I demand perfection.

Now off to the club. Do I look too fat in this top?

[madfloridian]

39. Not playing your game anymore. Sorry.

.

[KFC]

46. I think I look slimmer in black.

But my thighs still kill me.


Any advice?

[MichiganVote]

24. Bush was the mistake

The war was the expected outcome among a congress and population shell shocked by 9/11 and heavily influenced by the Bush make war propaganda.

Iraq is everyone's mistake......but it doesn't have to continue to be.

If George Bush is re-elected, I believe that he will involve the US in more military conflicts in the Middle East. Plenty of spoilers to play the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/spend money game. George Bush trucks with all of them. He has declared himself the "war president". He has stated that he believes he has a mandate from God and that he has resolved that he is supposed to solve the mideast conflicts.

Think about it. This admin. is removing divisions from Germany, Bosnia, and South Korea. They are pulling in Reserves from the hinterlands, some heavy handed illegal stuff with these prior service men and women. What's new? Its not all about Iraq. There have been massive cuts in social programs, school funding and the like. Where is that money going to go? Buy down the 7.2 trillion dollar debt? Not hardly.

Anyone who doesn't vote in this election has effectively "voted" for Bush to involve the US in another mideast conflict. And for American or international CEO's to make more billions at our own expense.

Vote in the election. We owe it to the latest 19 year old killed in Iraq. 12 soldiers killed this week alone. Why beat a dead horse, in or out of a convention about whether or not to state the war was a mistake? The election of George Bush was and is a mistake.

Even if George Bush wins or steals the election, he won't be doing it with my say so. Self pity gets us nowhere. Self pity is a luxury no one can afford at this time.

Vote-Vote-Vote

[madfloridian]

25. If they don't say it was wrong to go there, then I know why.

It is because of the fact that they intend to continue in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, wherever, in this effort to remap the mid east. I don't see a single reason for them to put in the platform that it was not wrong from the beginning. Unless it is the imperialism.

[madfloridian]

26. Never mind.

As usual, I am the one who thinks they must speak out...they have to do so.

It is a no win situation. If the thread keeps up, another line of attacks on me will start....saying our Democrats did not really know.

I have just been the same route here late too much. So never mind trying to clarify. It is very clear. We copped out again.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Senate cover-up of WMD lies underscores Democrats’ support for Iraq war

Now, for the Socialist point of view...

Senate cover-up of WMD lies underscores Democrats’ support for Iraq war
By Bill Van Auken
10 July 2004

The Democrats have neither the justification nor the inclination to brand the ongoing carnage in Iraq as “Bush’s war.” It is their war too.

The way in which this war was prepared and executed is an indictment not just of one administration or one party, but of the entire American ruling elite—from the Democrats, to the pliant media, to the corporations eager to profit from the seizure of Iraq and its oil wealth. It represents a monstrous violation of both international law and the democratic rights of the American people.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq are the realization of a consensus policy within US ruling circles to use Washington’s military might to secure domination of the world’s markets and control of vital resources, most importantly, oil.

If powerful sections of the financial oligarchy have now turned against Bush, it is, in the main, because they think he has botched the project. Kerry is increasingly seen as a more competent “CEO,” who just might avert a total disaster by means of some tactical adjustments.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/sena-j10.shtml

[mzmolly]

29. Except for the MAJORITY of Democrats who voted against the war.

If Bush lied, Dems were "lied to."

By the way, look up what this source says about Kucinich. You'll probably reconsider their ability to reason. ;)

[jpgray]

37. I think you have missed the point of this move entirely

This isn't intended to muzzle activists, it is simply to keep the election platform in line with all those congresspeople who are running for reelection. If Congresswoman Harmon, for example, believes the war was not a mistake, and her party's official platform declares otherwise, how the hell does that work? This has nothing to do with whether they 'knew', it only has to do with providing a platform that doesn't backstab various Democrats.

[saracat]

47. Nothing matters but that we win!

I am tired of people who want a Pyhrric victory.I want to win1 And BTW Dean wasn't the first candidate with and anti war stance.The only candidates who endangered themselves and actually had a vote and voted against the war were Bob Graham and Kucinich and look where that got them! No one puts laurel wreaths on their heads and they lost too!

[IndianaGreen]

48. Real victory is to change course, and obliterate Bush's policies

otherwise all we have gained is to replace one tyrant with another.

[incapsulated]

31. I understand your feelings

I, too, was rather disgusted by this stance in the platform.

But you have to look at it practically. You now have both the Democratic nominee and his running mate as Senators that voted for IWR. Already the media and rethugs are calling him a hypocrite for even criticizing the current state of the war, let alone it's early formation (i.e. media: "Kerry, who voted for the war..." etc.). If the platform takes the position that the war was a mistake from the start, those attacks will only intensify.

If Kerry had come out, as I wish he had, and said that not only was his vote a mistake based on "faulty information" but a personal mistake for which he takes serious responsibility, things might be different. He could take the stand that he is accepting full responsibility for IWR and it's consequences, intended or not, unlike the Bush administration, who continue to lie to the American people in an attempt to justify an obvious mistake, making the situation even worse.

Ironically, I believe this would appeal to many swing voters, who are not necessarily looking for some middle-ground mush, but for someone who takes a courageous stand, someone who is willing to take responsibility. This position is actually how a lot of voters feel, they just are loathe to admit it. It's hard to admit you were wrong, but I think if Kerry gave voice to that they would respect him for it.

Well, it's water under the bridge now. This is the stance they are going to take and given that stance, the platform is understandable to me, if slightly nauseating. But so is so much of election politics.

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. The DLC Neocons picked their ticket. Now they have their pro war platform.

...do ACTUAL Democrats have any say in this fucking party anymore??

The war was wrong. The IWR vote was wrong. Kerry and Edwards should have the balls to admit they made a fucking mistake.

[jpgray]

36. Well, not everyone in the party agrees it was a mistake

So if you have a congressperson or senator up for reelection who fits that profile, it would help not to have the platform state flat out that the war was a mistake--the division would be capitalized on very quickly by the GOP. You're seeing this is in a weirdly limited way--this isn't about telling activists in general to stop calling the war for what it was (a mistake!), but to keep that language out of the party's statement of principles for the election, where it can be used to backstab and undercut various congresscritters. It just makes sense.

[madfloridian]

38. Could you please not say "weirdly limited?"

Just say I see it in a limited way. I do not think it is weird at all, to ask that they say the war is wrong. The war was wrong, soldiers are dead, Iraqis are dead.

I do not think I am weird for being upset about the fact that politically correct trumps truth so often.

[jpgray]

41. What should be done with those who don't admit the war was a mistake?

If we put that Iraq was a mistake on the platform, it's going to be fish in a barrel for the GOP, especially for Democrats in profoundly conservative states and districts who still wholly support the war. Do we just abandon them? The platform isn't about dictating the behavior of all activists, but it is meant to be a policy statement all the representatives of the party up for reelection can live with. Compromise means not getting all of what you want, and a party platform for a party so diverse as to contain Kucinich and Lieberman is going to involve compromise.

Asking them to put something on the platform that leaves Democratic congresspeople out in the cold during an election makes zero sense. The war was wrong, soldiers are dead, Iraqis are dead. Yes--and? Since when does the truth have a place in national politics? Shall we go on about how Dean was the only anti-war candidate in the primaries? Your standards can be met by no one candidate, let alone a national party.

You're not weird, but your expectations of a national party platform seem pretty strange to me. We all have strange expectations, but those don't make us strange. At least, I hope they don't, because I expected Kerry to lose the primaries some months back. :silly:

[madfloridian]

43. My standards are too high, you say.

No, not really. And by the way, everyone keeps turning this into a Dean thing. It is not.

I was never passionate about politics until 2000, than again in 2002 when I saw how they played it here, and then the war. I am truly passionate about the dead soldiers and the dead Iraqis.

Not going to argue, but hubby and I are about as moderate as you can get. We have an issue about taking responsibility and telling the truth.

This is not about any one candidate at all. I get tired of that. Dean says he was not anti-war. I will not go into that again to allow folks to take the blame off those who will NOT say their vote was wrong. That has been done too often here. Blame Dean is over. He is out. Now they need to take responsibility for their actions.

I can not believe you think my standards are too high. What a crying shame.

[jpgray]

44. For a party platform, yes, your standards are unreachably high

You standards aren't too high regarding the war or the behavior of politicians. I often read your threads about Kerry and the Democrats who voted for war, and you are right to say they did not behave well, and made serious mistakes that cannot be explained away. But for the party platform, I don't think you are being realistic. Party platforms are traditionally full of bland generalities so as to not alienate voters in any particular region of the country--your platform would not apply to a sizable chunk of Democrats, and therefore could hardly be a party platform at all.

You keep conflating the platform with objective truth. Platforms have nothing to do with objective truth. When I talk about your standards for the platform, don't try and pretend I'm talking about standards in general. If I were to look at the platform and evaluate it without any consideration for what its purpose is, I would say it's vapid, pandering and its conclusions about the state of the country are insulting to my intelligence. However, you can't remove the platform from the context of providing a statement of Democratic values for ALL Democrats, and this party includes a pretty wide spectrum, so the platform must reflect that.

Please cease with the interpreting of my comments as attacks on your personal values. I don't have a problem with those, but I do have a problem for taking a party platform as the Democratic version of objective truth--it's a bland and general policy statement meant to cover the views of as wide a section of the party's candidates for the election as possible. Your platform would not meet those goals.

[madfloridian]

45. Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, I do hold out high standards for myself. I hold them out for others. I still say that to protect the ones who voted by not admitting it was wrong.....is wrong.

At least you are courteous about our disagreeing. We campaigned very hard here for McBride in 2002. We donated a lot. We saw him pander, and never say anything. I called the campaign the last couple of weeks with dynamite stuff from a researcher. The manager told me it would not be politically expedient to bring it up....she said sometimes you have to compromise.

He lost. We have not forgotten that, and it is so hard to keep compromising so as not to lose. Yes, I am idealistic in some areas. I make no apologies.

[Tweed]

40. Probably because Edwards doesn't say it is

That would be a major problem.

[West Coast Democrat]

42. Because we've got 150,000 troops over there at the moment

It's a very sensitive issue when you're running for president.

[HarveyBriggs]

49. Dear Mother of Dead Soldier,

Your son or daughter's life is worthless. All that time you spent raising your child means nothing. We don't care.

The war was a mistake.

Love and Kisses,

Uncle Sam

Even if you believe the war was a mistake, you will not win the election by saying it.

Harvey Briggs