How Should Kerry Deal With Inconsistency's on War?

[Quixote1818]

My last post was not clear enough so hear is one that is more to the point. The consensus on the regular media such as Chris Matthews is that Kerry has not been consistent on the war so their must be something to it. While we don't like to say it their is no doubt that Kerry voted against the 87 Billion because Howard Dean was winning and he and Edwards felt like they had to position themselves as anti War at the time. Thats just politics and he had to do it to survive. Somehow Kerry is going to have to figure out a way to smooth this out. My original post was not clear as to what the inconsistency's were but he does have some things that he needs to be ready for. I don't know if you would call that a flip flop on the war but he was trying to appear that he was against the war at that time because of Howard Dean. Does anyone remember if Kerry actually said he was against the war during the campaign or did he just make references to that so he could pull anti war votes away from Howard Dean? Also, how can Kerry deal with this in the debates? This seems a little complicated. It's one of the things the Republicans claim to be a flip flop. Was it ever technically a Flip Flop?

[David Dunham]

1. Kerry should focus on Iraq NOW, not how he voted 2 years ago.

[Quixote1818]

2. I am talking about when this comes up in the debates.

[robbedvoter]

3. "Sorry I truated W - he proved unworthy of my trust - made a mess"

Said it before too - and sounds better than the rest of the babling. Also, as Hillary said: "had we known there was no WMD, I trust the IWR wouldn't have been brought up"

[sonicx]

4. cable news can go fuck themselves

kerry has never said he's against the war. the 'anti-war candidate' talking point was a kerry quote taken out of context.

Chris Matthews asked Kerry if he, like dean and others, was against the way bush took us to war and handled the war, Kerry said yes. That is what Kerry will say in the debates: He voted for the IWR for the inspections, a UN vote, and war (with international help) as a last resort. Kerry trusted bush to do all of that, but he didn't. Iraq is bush's fault. case closed.

[NV1962]

5. WHAT inconsistencies?

I'll go out on a limb and take issue with that fundamental charge of "inconsistency" here:

1. Kerry, like many other members of Congress trusted the President's word that there was an "imminent" threat coming from Iraq.

2. Whether that basic trust in the assurances delivered with the institutionallweight of the Office of the Presidency is right or wrong is a DIFFERENT issue, that at any rate goes beyond John Kerry himself, and even the Democrats. If one questions Kerry's trust, one has to presume an inherent inclination by the President to lie. As I said, that's a very substantial and fundamental issue that goes beyond Kerry, and even Bush himself.

3. That basic trust of Kerry in the President's word (again, that goes beyond this one) was the fundamental premise for Kerry to give the President of the United States the necessary credibility using the (a) threat of force. It was NOT a "carte blanche" and it was most certainly not -- as the pathological liars and criminals in the White House and the BC'04 campaign persist in saying -- a "support of the war." That is an insidious lie, which furthermore implies that the Bush junta deliberately set out to go to war anyway.

4. Kerry was not the only one to misguidedly believe the President needed "leverage" to threaten Saddam Hussein into compliance with UN resolutions (especially the last one) - but once the indicators of the Bush junta misleading both Congress and the greater public (not in the least, through Powell's charade on Feb 5, 2003 before the UN) clearly prompted a skeptical attitude, Kerry used his vote to deny the Bush junta further "discretion" to misuse the power he was given: that's when and why Kerry voted against the "war budget."

STOP REPEATING THE BUSH JUNTA'S LIES!!!

Kerry did NOT vote "for the war:" he voted for giving the U.S. Government's voice -- with its threat of using force -- CREDIBILITY.

So, you want to talk "inconsistency?"

Then here's my advise: given the Bush administration's proven misleading statements, it's inconsistent of the bushistas to question Kerry's support for Bush's credibility.

If they criticize Kerry's pre-war IWR vote, they're QUESTIONING THE CREDIBILITY AND JUDGEMENT OF BUSH.

Sorry to shout a bit there, but this has been bothering me no end for quite a while now.

(And yes, I'm well aware of other Democrats who refused to believe Bush's "word" - Dennis Kucinich, for one brave example.

But unless you're ready to attack ALL DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS who along with Kerry trusted Bush's word, I wouldn't go there.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Actually, Here Is Kerry Saying It Is Not Imminent

If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

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.

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.

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

[NV1962]

10. "How Should Kerry Deal With BUSH's Inconsistencies on War?"

I guess that's in essence how I'd rephrase the topical question here.

And yes, you're right: instead of "imminent" I should have used any of words like "urgent," "unique" or "serious" (take your pick from the many similarly worded statements by the Bush junta, in the run-up to the war)

But my basic point is that unlike Bush Kerry was willing to cast an "impopular vote" as his contribution to warding off (what he saw as) a threat.

I don't see how one could "attack" that - unless, of course, one advocates for the indefensible: (re) election of the monkey and his gang of crooks.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. You Are Either Pro-War Or Anti-War & With Us Or Terrorists

I'm sorry, but this isn't an A & B quiz. Clearly, Kerry at no time wished to invade, and certainly not in such a half-assed manner, nor did he feel that containment was sufficient given Saddam's record of screwing with previous inspectors. So which is he: pro-war or anti-war?

When Clinton said in 1998:

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

Is this a pro-war or anti-war statement? If Clinton argued for the "credible threat of force," but was appalled by an unnecessary invasion, is that a flip-flop?

[Guaranteed]

7. First of all, when the $87B gets brought up, Kerry needs to

remember to shove it back in Bush's face. Bush threatened to veto the money on the simple fact that 20B's of it might have been a LOAN- can you believe that? Bush was going to veto that military spending bill unless taxpayers gave $20B to the Iraqis. That's doubley irresponsible.

[Quixote1818]

9. This is the answer I was looking for! Thanks!

[Kimber Scott]

11. AND... they can't account for the money now. There was no clear

spending plan and the much of the money is missing, or unaccounted for.

As for voting for the war in the first place... "I was misled by this President, just as the nation was, just as Tony Blair was and others around the world were. This President did not tell us the truth. He exhagerated the threat, he lied about WMDs, he led us to believe we would be greeted with flowers, and he placed the word of a convicted extortionist over our own intelligence professionals'. That is why I voted for the IWR."

But, you said if you knew then what you know now, you would still vote for the IWR. "I shouldn't have said that. I mispoke. That would have applied had I been able to trust the President. I thought I could. I shouldn't have trusted him, or given him the power to wage a war. It's like giving a guy the keys to your truck and then finding out he's an alcoholic."

[NV1962]

12. One added point

When he said that he'd cast his IWR vote (and later his vote on the $87bn) the same way with the benefit of hindsight I'm positive he meant to express his support for strong national security, by giving the President credibility - but not automatically free reign to go about and invade countries that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Talk about inconsistencies that actually COST LIVES AND ENDANGER THE US!

[Kimber Scott]

13. Exactly. But, it goes with the idea of giving a drunk your car keys.

If you didn't know he was a drunk... (Power happy, War-monger, whatever) He thought George Bush was the President of the United States of America. A respected position, held by what should have been a respected man - not an irresponsible man.

[Guaranteed]

14. AND, even though the bill passed, our soldiers STILL don't

have all the armor and supplies that they need!!!!

[IIgnoreNobody]

15. Deal with what?

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/10/kerry_says_hed_still_vote_to_authorize_iraq_war
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0906-02.htm