Answering the IWR question...

[DjTj]

Many people were disappointed in Kerry and Edwards' answer to the IWR question on 60 minutes, but they were the two that struggled most with it in the primaries, and having both of them together only exacerbated the problem. However, I think they're getting closer to a pretty good response (which I would have expected them to have polished by now)...

Here's what I feel like they're trying to say:

"We voted to put trust in the President - to give him the authority to evaluate the intelligence, build alliances, and take us to war only as a last resort. Now we know that trust was a mistake. We don't regret our votes, because the American people should be able to trust their President. We don't regret our votes, but we regret that George W. Bush was the one sitting in the White House, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that's not the case for the next four years."

...hopefully they can get to this point in the next 2 weeks.

[CTLawGuy]

1. they need to get to the point

where they REGRET their votes, and say they won't allow a president to take the country to war without solid evidence.

Also you are not supposed to trust the president, you are supposed to be a check and balance on the president.

[emulatorloo]

2. The day they say they REGRET their votes is the day the GOP prays for

Non-stop Limbaugh out of context playing
Non-stop Bush Ad "Kerry wont keep us safe.' 'Kerry wont protect you'

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.

You want them to give a sound bite that the right wing is salivating for.

[AP]

4. My feelings precisely.

[CTLawGuy]

5. so let me get this straight?

its a GOOD idea for democrats to authorize war based on ANY information they hear, no matter how bogus, because they want to hold up the principle of "defending America?"

So if Bush says "The Netherlands has nukular missles pointed at us, we gotta invade," the democrats should not say

"What proof do you have of this?"
"Can we send weapons inspectors in instead to disarm them?"
"I'd like to see solid evidence of this first."
"I won't authorize unless you have the backing of the UN."



Instead they're supposed to say...

"Im gonna let you go to war, but if you do, and hundereds of our soldiers die, its not gonna be my fault, but yours, esp. if the info was wrong. At the same time, I don't look like a Massachusetts Liberal becauase I voted for war."

Give me a break!


The point of our separated powers is that you ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TRUST THE PRESIDENT, EVER. Why not have a dictatorship if we must accept the premise that our president should be trusted? What would be the reason for having it otherwise?

What Kerry and the other traitors did was pure political cowardice. They thought nothing of the 1000 US soliders who are now dead or wounded, thought nothing of the thousands of Iraqi civilians who are dead, wounded, or unemployed, or without power or running water.

How the hell can they say with a straight face that they were voting to protect this country?

I hope they come to learn the folly of "trusting the president."

[emulatorloo]

7. No that is not what I am saying

The US should be able to defend itself against imminent threat. With a process that puts war as the very very last resort. Most rational people would agree with the concept of non-proliferation of weapons,

Separation of Powers has nothing to do with a President who would be willing to lie and manipulate about the most serious matter facing us.

The President should not lie about imminent threat. Everything breaks down if the President is willing to lie about something so serious.

[CTLawGuy]

8. no it doesnt break down

because you are not supposed to hand over war-making power to him on his word alone.

The system breaks down when one party is run by a bunch of people with no self-confidence who are afraid to oppose the majority party.



Why didn't the democrats wait until the inspectors had completed their work in Iraq before voting on the resolution? Wouldn't that make more sense? Wait till they actually find WMD before rushing in?

[emulatorloo]

12. Because Powell promised them they needed the resolution to keep

inspectors in. They needed it to put pressure on the UN to keep putting pressure on Iraq to let inspection continue. That they needed a show of unity, but they would go to war only as a last resort.

Despite what you and I think, Powell had credibility then.

Additionally, the admin and repugs were adamant that the vote be done right at that moment. There was no delaying it.

[CTLawGuy]

15. well, we don't have to listen to Repugs do we?

also, do we have to authorize war? or could we simply have issued a strong statement saying we will authorize war if inspectors do not get let in?

[emulatorloo]

16. the repugs control the calendar. . .

and the resolution as it stood was the best the dems could get. . .the orig as i understand it had no checks on Bush.

[AP]

3. What if they say they regret their votes, and there's a terrorist act ...

... before the election?

Bush will be able to say that the terrorists are attacking us because they want Kerry-Edwards, IWR-vote regretters, in office instead of Mr. IWR Cowboy in office.


No Democrat will EVER win office saying anything that can be remotely construed as an unwillingness to defend America even in the grayest of situations.

Democrats need to simply NOT let this be a wedge issue. If you think that Kerry-Edwards are a couple of imperialists and would want to get us into situations like Iraq, you're mad. And if you think they need to regret their IWR votes in order to win in November, you're politically suicidal.

[CTLawGuy]

6. Im so sick of

we can't get caught in "wedge" issues.

Were civil rights for black people "a wedge issue"? Would you have recommended that democrats vote against the Civil Rights Act?

If we hadnt put civil rights in the platform in 1948, the South would still be Democratic and we would have had no Pres. Ronald Reagan, or Republican Congress. We would be the solid majority party. But you know what, unlike you, I think doing what is right is paramount, and if doing what is right causes us to lose than so be it.

If you have to take all of Bush's stands on the issues in order to win, what would you gain by winning? Nothing.

[AP]

9. Civil Rights was a wedge issue, but a long term winner for Democrats

I would ALWAYS pick the candidate who is better on civil rights. It's definitely a litmus test for me. But it's a winner. Racists are fighting yesterday's battle and will soon be in the dustbin of history (if they aren't already).

Acting like you care about national security is NEVER going out of style.

FDR knew it, and that's why he focussed on building up the UN. He thought the UN would create a safe world so that reactionaries could no longer use fear. But FDR knew that pacisfism was never going to be a winning strategy.

He was right. Democrats will win and achieve your ends not by running on pacifism. They will, however, win by sounding tough on those who threaten America, and tougher on the things that create international instability (so that we don't have to resort to military action in the first place).

[CTLawGuy]

11. How do you know

that the lens of history will not look favorably on those who voted against IWR?

Voting against IWR means you care enough about national security to not send a thousand of our troops to their deaths for no good reason. Since 9-11, the wars we start have killed more Americans than terrorism.



In your opinion, should Democrats have voted against the CRA and stayed in the majority?

[AP]

13. Because over 230 years, it never has. It's the same with crime. Dems are

never going to win by caring more about criminals than victims. Never. They have to find other ways to fight for criminal justice rather than saying you are against punishing people for the crimes.

It's simply political reality.

I said why it was right to vote for the CRA. It was perfectly obvious where that arc of social justice was bending, and you can tell today that race has just about run its course as a wedge issue.

But crime and national security will never be trumped by empathy for prisoners and pacifism. Never. That doesn't mean you ACT republican on those issues. It just means you sound Repubican and then ACT to find other ways to do the right thing. For FDR, it was the UN. FDR was not pacifist, but the whole point of the UN was to end war so that the reactionaries couldn't use it as a political issue.

[CTLawGuy]

19. what if the Arc wasn't "bending that way"

would you sacrifice the civil rights and liberties of African Americans for a more certain Democratic victory.

Also consider this. After embracing civil rights, the South slowly left the Democratic party, first through third parties and then by settling on the Republican party. LBJ said, as he signed the CRA, "the Democrats have lost the South for a generation."

The Democratic party shot itself in the foot in order to do what was right, we lost one of the most powerful political regions in this country. We gave up our majority status in order to do what was right. We believed so much in civil rights that we didn't care about our electoral fortunes.

If the DLC had been in control, blacks would be second class citizens today. They'd be saying "no wedge issues!"

[AP]

21. It is impossible for the arc to bend any other way on civil rights. It is

the heart of what a democracy is all about.

And it wasn't just CRA that lost the south.

RFK could have ended the Republican grip on the south. He talked about race as a subset of class (which is what Clinton and Edwards do). RFK could have ended race as a wedge much sooner.

But without RFK, the Republicans moved on to culture issues beyond merely race and were able to consolidate until Clinton came along. I believe the Clinton years removed race as a wedge issue -- and RFK could have done the same a mere 4 years after LBJ's quote.

But look at National Security. Beign strong on national security is an impulse Americans have embraced for two centuries. How do you see pacisfism ever winning the day?

[CTLawGuy]

22. what I am saying has NOTHING to do

with Pacifism. What I am saying is that the Democratic party should not embrace ill-conceived wars of choice.

Are you saying that you can either be for ALL wars, or be for NONE of them? What about being in favor of only the prudent ones?

[AP]

25. Personally, I think the line for whether US force is approrpirate is

when it's used (in cooperation with other liberal democracies) to defend democracy and the downward and outward flow of power to the people, and when it's used fight imperialism.

I don't think it should be used to promote imperialism and the upwarda and narrowing flow of power.

But, it's never easy to draw the line between those things. And that's what Iraq comes down to. There's a big difference between perception and reality, and I don't know if it's wise for Kerry-Edwards to fight over where that line is drawn when it's much easier simply to win the election and then stop acting like imperialists.

[JI7]

26. right, Afghanistan was about oil

for the bush administration. that doesn't mean there weren't the problems with al qaeda . but rather than do what the congress gave him power to do which is go after al qaeda they used that as cover to get their pipeline in.

[CTLawGuy]

10. not even the most avid NASCAR fan

thinks that Iraq has anything to do with defending America. If there's another terrorist attack, they'll probably be MORE likely to vote for Kerry, being sick of Bush's incompetence.

Kerry should say, "It would have been better for defending America if I had pushed for using the troops we have in Iraq now to be used in fighting Al Qaeda."

[AP]

14. If Kerry says he regrets his vote and there's another attack, Bush...

will say we were attacked because they want someone in office who won't attack them and Bush will win.

[CTLawGuy]

17. sorry

thats a stretch of logic.

Any terrorist attack now will reflect really badly on Bush, since he's been "obsessed with terrorism for 3 years." How could anyone let him get a pass after he's spent so much time fighting terrorism, and the result of all this investment is that we are no safer than before?

9/11 he could blame on clinton because he'd only been in office 9 months. Theres no one to blame for a new terrorist attack except himself.




You talked about your belief that Dems should be always defending America. Is there any situation in which you think it is right to vote against a war resolution? Or should Dems always vote for the war, no matter how misguided?

[AP]

20. There doesn't even have to be a terrorist attack for 'IWR vote regret"

to look bad.

But if there were one close to the election, and Kerry were a vote regretter do you think Bush wouldn't try to spin it that way?

[CTLawGuy]

23. maybe not

Iraq is not that popular anymore, and it's easy to see that fighting it has not made us safer. Taking that tack might backfire on Bush.

[zulchzulu]

18. They need to boil the answer down to one powerful sentence

When asked about the IWR, the simple, ready-for-soundbite digestion answer would be:

"I voted for the UN to do its job assuming the President wasn't lying about the threat that Saddam posed on America and was willing to work with our allies and the World, not alienate and lie to them as he arrogantly decided to do."

or...

"I trusted the President would be a responsible World leader and work with the UN, not decide to send our troops on a careless war on the wrong track. He let the World and our troops down and we are paying for it now in Halliburton profiteering and the blood of our military."

[DjTj]

24. Or maybe even down to just a headline: "I regret trusting Bush." (nt)