And Then Kerry Said...

[WilliamPitt]

[grasswire]

1. I wonder if the Georges Bush laughed.

It seems impossible that Kerry would say this.

[1000words]

2. To be fair ...

He said it with a long face.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

165. I see what you did there.

[WilliamPitt]

4. He said it

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/03/kerry-tells-putin-you-cant-invade-another-country-on-a-completely-trumped-up-pretext/

It seems he's against it after being for it before being against it.

[ProSense]

7. "It seems he's against it after being for it before being against it. "

You're three days late to the RW meme rehash party.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. there are photos to take, wood to chop. life in the New Hampshire wilderness has its challenges

[sabrina 1]

174. What was Kerry's position on Bush's illegal invasion based on trumped up lies?

[ReRe]

54. Exactly what I thought.. n/t

[wisteria]

86. Not real original, and very RW.

And, of course your comments ignore a more complex decision making process.

[progressoid]

103. It's so complex, that a decade later we still can't decide why we invaded.

[Mira]

168. ...but if you watch Rachel tonight, at 9 pm you'll find out more about this. n/t

[roguevalley]

169. kerry voted for it. He knew more than me who sits in alaska with a modem yet he1

voted for it. he's talking out of both sides of his face now. No would have been no. Yes doesn't mean no. Nuances don't apply. They were all too cowardly to vote no.

[Mira]

173. I'm so seconding every word you are saying!

It's the one thing I will not forget or forgive nor will I forsake kvetching about the fact that the guilty ones were not investigated and pursued. It was wrong to let it go and call it "the past". Had they been forced to suffer consequences Putin might have thought a little bit longer before invading a sovereign nation without provocation.

God forbid the Republicans get back in, we'll pay hell for letting them get away with it in the future too, not just in the history books.

Don't get me started.....................

[Cheese4TheRat]

114. Impossible for Vietnam Vet Kerry, but not DC Insider Vet Kerry.

[mylye2222]

199. Kerry has been for yaers an DC OUTSIDER.

Dont forget IranContras and BCCI and Nicaragua affairs.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Sow the wind.... n/t

[ProSense]

5. So Putin laughing at this is sad?

What does this mean?

[Gravitycollapse]

8. Are you seriously contending you don't understand the intent of the meme?

[ProSense]

9. I understand RW handwringing. Is that what you mean?

[Gravitycollapse]

21. I think we all know you understand unwavering party allegiance pretty well.

That's not at issue here. What is at issue is your faux confusion at a very easily understood meme.

[ProSense]

41. No,

"That's not at issue here. What is at issue is your faux confusion at a very easily understood meme. "

...the issue is disingenuous bullshit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024613725#post14

[babylonsister]

6. I trust Kerry is forwarding this President's position. That is his job. nt

[MADem]

129. Wow. Someone gets it.

I am always amazed at people who purport to be such savvy political insiders who don't understand that cabinet officials don't speak for themselves, they speak for their boss. That is their JOB, to articulate their superior's foreign policy.

The Commander in Chief who invaded, willy-nilly, wasn't the Democratic President, Barack Obama. Apparently the thread starter has trouble processing this concept.

[cui bono]

178. And some don't understand irony I guess.

It doesn't matter if it's what Obama wanted him to say, that doesn't change the meaning of it. It's still ridiculous considering our nation's history, the nation on whose behalf these words were spoken. Would it be better if it said "Obama said"? I don't think it makes any difference and I'm not sure why that's a big deal.

Also, I don't think it makes any difference who the president was who invaded Iraq. Again, that is our nation's history, the nation on whose behalf these words were spoken. I would call the statement ignorant except I know that both Obama and Kerry know we invaded Iraq based on a lie. I don't know what the fuck to call it. Outrageous perhaps?

[dionysus]

10. but William Rivers Pitt said;

Wednesday 10 December 2003

The Trial of John Kerry
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective


One of these days, this will be a textbook case for political science professors to use as a teaching tool.

Here is a Democratic candidate for the Oval Office in a year when the liberal base of the party is almost completely unified in its disgust for the sitting Republican President. The candidate, a Senator, has a 20-year liberal voting record to admire: He is peerless on the environment, a staunch defender of a woman’s right to choose, completely reliable across the whole spectrum of gay rights issues, totally solid on education, an advocate for campaign finance reform and health care reform, and will fight to the death to keep Social Security fully funded and reliable. It is the liberal base of the party that turns out to vote in the primaries, so the candidate’s record gives him an immediate advantage.

Add to the scenario a campaign season dominated by foreign policy issues. The candidate is a Vietnam veteran who wears Purple Hearts next to a Bronze and Silver Star, giving him a ‘real deal’ quality compared to the sitting President, who used family influence to avoid that conflict. The candidate served for several years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, affording him the justifiable claim that he is a seasoned professional when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.

This experience is tempered by wisdom and hard knowledge; the disgust and horror experienced by the candidate during Vietnam had an almost mythic quality, and led him to become a prominent voice against the war upon his return home, so much so that he earned a spot on Nixon’s infamous “Enemies List.” His service in combat, coupled with his principled stand against the Vietnam war and his time on the Foreign Relations Committee, has forged a whole man. This serves him well in the primaries with fence-sitters, and with people who might think Democrats are “soft on national defense.”


...


The Iraq Resolution was enacted October 16, 2002

you're being disingenuous here Will. you do remember what you wrote, right? You were a hardcore Kerry supporter well after that vote.
but you know where the wind is blowing on DU, eh?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x866357

[JI7]

11. so he was for him before he was against him ................

[dionysus]

12. yep. a windsock always knows which way to blow, apparently...

[Number23]

15. !!

Edit: That post just reminded me of how sad I was when Kerry lost. Which I don't think is the OP's intention.

[Aldo Leopold]

39. Man, that sucked.

Sad? I was devastated.

[Number23]

45. Yes. We'll never know how much damage could have been undone or spared ourselves from altogether

if Bush had had four less years in office.

[sheshe2]

100. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind...

Will's blowing in the wind~ sad that!

[Cheese4TheRat]

115. Because some people actually can reevaluate.

Which is a good quality. Or do you prefer the resoluteness of the likes of climate deniers, for example, who clearly are no windsocks.

[Bobbie Jo]

20. Well...

[ReRe]

68. I was very disappointed when the Democratic Party....

.... promoted and nominated John Kerry in the 2004 general election. I did go vote for him, but I was NOT happy about it one bit.

[blm]

158. Why? Try naming another person in DC who investigated and exposed more govt. corruption than Kerry

.

[ReRe]

176. I had no problem with John Kerry...

... I just felt he could not be elected. I don't know why, but that's the gut feeling I had at the time.

[blm]

177. With TeamBush and TeamClinton working against you, it's amazing that Bush STILL had to steal it,

isn't it?

[ReRe]

179. Not sure where you're going there, but...

... frankly, can we trust any election anymore? We need paper ballots, no matter if it takes a month to count them. I don't need election results before effing midnight on the day of the election. I'd rather know that it was a fairly conducted election.

[Whisp]

154. All kinds of beauties out there to fit any occasion:

A little rag tag from usage tho.


occassion

[greatauntoftriplets]

213. ....

[SidDithers]

13. Well done...nt

Sid

[ProSense]

14. Or this:

Two personal experiences with John Kerry, and why I'd support him...if he runs again in '08.

<...>

So this is it for me. Yes, he has made some bad decisions. Yes, there is reason to be pissed at the man. But I think about his willingness to wade into a three-hour confrontation with the editors and writers of the heaviest political publications in the country. I think about how well he stood his ground, made his arguments (and apologies, in regards to the IWR vote). I think about him talking to those kids at that school, about how utterly genuine is his desire to defend the environment and, in the process, defend our economy, the planet and our national security. I think about how goddam smart he is, and how both these instances displayed that intelligence so completely clearly.

I think he would make a magnificent president, and I think it is nothing less than a full-spectrum calamity that he is not president right now. If he ran again, I am not sure I would support him in the primaries, simply because I do not know who else will be running. But if he gets the nomination, he will have 100% of my support and energy. I don't base this decision on what I've read at DU or elsewhere, but on what I have seen from the man with my own two eyes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x650034

Now, it's RW talking points: "It seems he's against it after being for it before being against it. "

[rug]

32. Critical thinking tends to do that.

[ProSense]

33. Or disingenuous crapping. n/t

[rug]

34. You mean disingenous sniping.

[ProSense]

37. No, I meant crapping. n/t

[rug]

38. Then you missed.

[Aldo Leopold]

42. I thought you meant fapping.

Disingenuous fapping. Sounds about right.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

46. lots of disengenuous fapping takes place on DU for sure

[rug]

50. More in some places than others.

[TeeYiYi]

214. I thought all fapping on DU...

...was ingenuous.

Um, ok...no. No, I didn't really think that DU fapping was a sport borne of naivete.

TYY

[sabrina 1]

210. How does pointing out that the US cannot expect to be taken seriously when it says

something like that, have anything to do with how someone might feel about Kerry? Has it occurred to you that people can totally LOVE someone, and still point out a mistake they have made? In fact that IS what you do when you love your country or someone in your personal life, you try to stop them from doing foolish and harmful things.

We, because we let the war criminals go free, treat them like elder statesmen and women, have lost the moral authority to lecture anyone else on 'illegal invasions'. Anyone who cared about Kerry would advised him not to do so, to find some other way to approach the subject. There's nothing worse than watching someone you respect put themselves in an untenable position.

Of course if we started the long overdue prosecutions of the war criminals, THEN we could lecture others and tell the world we do not condone invasions of other countries. But unfortunately that hasn't happened, although anyone who really cares about this country will keep on demanding justice for all the victims they are responsible for. Anyone who is only interested in politics, will continue to try to explain why the rule of law does not apply to them.

[1awake]

16. How is this even relevant to what he posted above?

He posts a meme on the message being delivered by Kerry from the US is ironic since the US has done that very thing many times?


Your claim is a huge leaping stretch to connect the two because Kerry delivered the talking points given to him.

[dionysus]

18. LOL. okay. nt

[1awake]

19. Sorry, I know it's Pitt and some people love targeting him. Carry on. nt

[babylonsister]

36. Kerry never delivered this message-how was that relevant to begin with? nt

[1awake]

40. I have no idea babylonsister... I found it a poor attempt. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

25. 5 star find, dionysus.

too funny.

[dionysus]

31. i just did a 3 word site search and picked one link.... i'm sure there's a ton more....

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. regardless. fits well with the thread.

[geek tragedy]

30. That was before Kerry worked for Obama.

That's the real betrayal--probably made some more fragile types "sick to their souls."

[WilliamPitt]

47. You could quote the rest of it

Especially the part at the end where he expressed regret for his Iraq vote. This article was the first time that sentiment from him was recorded in print.

I supported Kerry in 2004 because defeating Bush was the paramount issue. As I recall, you agreed at the time. Who did you vote for in 2004?

Who did you vote for in 2004?

Who did you vote for in 2004?

Who did you vote for in 2004?

Who did you vote for in 2004?

Who did you vote for in 2004?

Answer that question please.

And take your petty backshooting and stuff it. I stand by every word of that article, which, by the bye, bears my real name.

dionysus.

[dionysus]

87. i provided the link Will. pointing out your glaring hypocrisy trying to score points with the crowd

du jour isn't backshooting, it's quoting your own words, and pointing out when you said them.

don't take it personal, I have your first book and I enjoyed it.

[WilliamPitt]

96. Who did you vote for in 2004?

[dionysus]

98. Dean primary, Kerry in the general. but i'm not the one dissing the guy you were a hardcore

supporter of, even after the vote you're so disgusted with now. even in 2008 you were singing his praises.

now you're just trying to score points with the crowd du jour; the perpetual outrage people.

your windsock approach here is obvious to many, Will.

[WilliamPitt]

104. I thought it was an ironic, amusing meme.

And here you are, slagging me for my 2004 support of the same guy you also voted for.

Speaking of obvious.

Ham-fisted, actually.

I've got your windsock right here, old friend.

[dionysus]

106. might as well call it a day then, old timer...

I wasn't joking, I liked the book

I still think you're being opportunistic though.

[WilliamPitt]

109. We all have our crosses to bear.

He voted for the war. I supported him in 2004, because Bush. The idea that his vote on Iraq is now somehow encased in unbreakable glass is, to me, preposterous.

If we don't call these fucking people on their fucking mistakes, they will make those same fucking mistakes again. It's called "feet to the fire," and it's our duty.

But you know that, and had some sport with me anyway, to score points...even as you accuse me of trying to score points, because irony is always awesome.

Hope it was fun.

[dionysus]

111. i highly doubt kerry will make that mistake again, and i doubt you think so either. either way,

good night Mr Pitt.

[WilliamPitt]

112. Straw

Man o Man o Man.

[MADem]

131. +1 I agree entirely with your analysis.

I think someone misinterpreted the Bob Dylan song!

[merrily]

89. Dude, now you lost me.

His apologizing for a war vote is totally inadequate. The sane time to reconsider a war vote is before you cast it. He voted for the war and he also kept voting to fund it after a blip that cost him some criticism for voting to send troops in, then voting against funding.


I do agree that loyal Democrats in 2004 had no other option in the 2004 Presidential election. I certainly voted him then.

[WilliamPitt]

97. "His apologizing for a war vote is totally inadequate."

I agree. Voted for him anyway. Be hard to find someone here who didn't. And yet, the pigpile.

Selah.

[merrily]

105. Not piling at all on regarding your OP.

It was only the apology comment with which I took issue and we seem to agree on that.

[ProSense]

135. Wait,

"'His apologizing for a war vote is totally inadequate.'

I agree. Voted for him anyway. Be hard to find someone here who didn't. And yet, the pigpile."

...you agree? You wanted him to run in 2008, and cited his apology.

Two personal experiences with John Kerry, and why I'd support him...if he runs again in '08.

<...>

So this is it for me. Yes, he has made some bad decisions. Yes, there is reason to be pissed at the man. But I think about his willingness to wade into a three-hour confrontation with the editors and writers of the heaviest political publications in the country. I think about how well he stood his ground, made his arguments (and apologies, in regards to the IWR vote). I think about him talking to those kids at that school, about how utterly genuine is his desire to defend the environment and, in the process, defend our economy, the planet and our national security. I think about how goddam smart he is, and how both these instances displayed that intelligence so completely clearly.

I think he would make a magnificent president, and I think it is nothing less than a full-spectrum calamity that he is not president right now. If he ran again, I am not sure I would support him in the primaries, simply because I do not know who else will be running. But if he gets the nomination, he will have 100% of my support and energy. I don't base this decision on what I've read at DU or elsewhere, but on what I have seen from the man with my own two eyes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x650034

Now, it's RW talking points: "It seems he's against it after being for it before being against it. "

[Junkdrawer]

49. Candidate Kerry disapponted more than a few...(Ohio)....

let he who is without sin....

[merrily]

56. Is your position that praising a politician in 2003 means you cannot criticize him in 2014?

[JaneyVee]

61. I think the position is that OP praised even after Iraq vote, but is now mad at diplomacy.

[ProSense]

69. He wanted Kerry to run in 2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024613725#post14

[merrily]

80. So?

[ProSense]

82. Did I respond to you? If you want to dismiss that fact, then ignore comments not directed at you. nt

[merrily]

92. Why would I ignore your comment?

Besides, it's too late for me to ignore it since I already responded to it.

[merrily]

107. P.S. Not dismissing any fact, just trying to understand.

The thrust of a number of posts on this thread seems to be that, if you support a Democratic candidate in 2003 or 2004 or 2006, you cannot make fun of a remark that same politician makes in 2014. That position seems odd to me, so I am trying to understand if that is what posters mean, rather than assuming anything. Hence my questions.

However, I understand your reluctance to answer my questions.

[merrily]

70. The OP doesn't seem "mad at diplomacy" to me. Seems like a comment on

an unintentionally ironic remark that even Democratic loyalists like Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow both mocked.

Diplomats tend to want to avoid remarks like that.

Anyway, my question was for another poster.

[JaneyVee]

77. So you agree that the mockery could go both ways?

For Kerry and for OP for praising Kerry for doing something Kerry himself now regrets.

[merrily]

79. Straw man

[bravenak]

57. Whoa!

[JaneyVee]

67. Make that a 30 year liberal voting record now. But yeah, lets just mock him instead.

[WilliamPitt]

75. See post #47

Hit and run. dionysus used to be better than that.

If that is your real name.

[sheshe2]

123. Talk about hit and run.

Will, you seldom respond to the bait you throw out.

Just saying!

[WilliamPitt]

128. Derp.

Ha! A response.

Thanks for kicking my thread.

[stupidicus]

76. why is that such a surprise?

he was obviously writing a persuasion piece which would necessarily preclude any devil's advocating, no? Maybe you point out the bad things about what you're trying to sell, but I'll assume we can at least agree that pointing out weaknesses or undesirable things about those you're stridently advocating for on a board like this isn't done. After all, isn't Mr. Pitt's mocking of Kerry's remark what got your dander up and inspired to post something you thought was an ironclad case of what, hypocrisy?

It also as I recall, took quite some time for the bright light of truth to show what most of would describe as incontrovertibly, the almost full depth and breadth of the Bush wmd lies, and therefore to fully appreciate much sooner the mistake the dems that voted yea made. So even if Mr. Pitt, like many of us did, had concluded before posting those remarks that Kerry was in error with his AUMF vote, there's no reason to use that as a reason to vote for him, is there? That would be like including BHO's keeping chained cpi on the chopping block on his platform in explicit language to that effect, no?

He was obviously better than the alternative to Mr Pitt at the time, as even someone like HC will be in 2016 to the alternative to me.

I'm not so sure I could muster the same ambition for her as Mr Pitt did for Kerry though, but then I think she's worse in many ways than Kerry.

And his support for Kerry and the form it took then and Kerry recently trying to reclaim our collective moral authority with full knowledge of that sordid history we all share, and Mr Pitt's mocking of that, aren't mutually exclusive or even inconsistent things at all warranting a hypocrisy charge.

And I find such a charge amusingly hypocritical given the efforts of the purity police around here, should one of them advocate for it. His sin would been playing the devil's advocate then, and guilt of trying to throw the election as a stealth Bushbot. Charges would have been swift in the coming.... I know this because I read that and more well before the 2012 election for daring express any concerns about dear leader.

[WilliamPitt]

85. See post #47.

Still waiting.

[ProSense]

91. See post 14 n/t

[MADem]

130. Time for a musical interlude....

Uh OH!!!!!!

[sibelian]

172. What's the controversy?

It looks to me like you've discovered that people respond in different ways to the same person after new information about them arises.

I'm not sure what you think the denizens of DU are likely to surmise from your revelation.

[Martin Eden]

17. The Irony, it Hurts!

You can't make this stuff up.

[Adrahil]

22. Without a doubt, we're paying for Dubya's stupidity....

... but that doesn't mean Putin gets a free pass.

[Junkdrawer]

23. ...reap the *damned* whirlwind. n/t

[JVS]

26. Oh are you going to get in trouble for that!

[Catherina]

27. The hypocrisy is astounding. Rec'd n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. "you must lead a sad life"

Pitt's comment to me the other day. lol. you have a frowny now?

[WilliamPitt]

83. I have a frowny always.

Those who don't are either deliberately oblivious or are trying to sell something.

Find a mirror. Decide which one of those categories you fall into. It's definitely one or the other.

And saddest of all, you know it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

93. or are optimists. those still exist.

I hope your tortured soul will one day produce a great work of the 21st century as a reward for your continuing anger/sadness.

Despite the death of 2 close relatives in the past few years, my life is uplifted by my wonderful son who turns 2 this month. Some days it feels terribly hopeless looking at the world events. Other days, I remember where we were as a civilization a few hundred years ago and understand we often take for granted the many blessings around us.

[WilliamPitt]

99. OK.

I can get behind that.



Yesterday afternoon.

So, yeah. OK.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

102. Thanks for sharing. She's a cute one.

[merrily]

160. Fie on frownies!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum

[merrily]

29. Introducing a clip of Kerry's speech, Jon Stewart said,

"So Obama sent in a drone."

[bullwinkle428]

43. Rachel Maddow described it as a "spit-take moment" the other night.

I guess Rachel is now a "RW-handwringer"!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

48. why is everyone acting like Kerry was a mouth piece fore Bush? Seems in 2004 Kerry was

distinctly antiwar and running on shutting that ugly craptastrophe down.

[Hissyspit]

53. This?

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

[Pretzel_Warrior]

55. yep. everyone forgets all of the things in play at that point

"Mushroom cloud", "yellow cake uranium", 9/11 happening just a year prior, Hans Blix and U.N. inspectors still in Iraq at that point.

There are so many reasons that are very easy to mock now as to why senators gave Bush authorization.

To pretend he is somehow responsible for launching an invasion based on pretexts instead of Bush and that somehow does not allow him the right to point out the pretext against Ukraine's Crimea is ludicrous.

At the very least, admit what Saddam was all about as a dictator in Iraq and try to find ANY equivalence to Putin having a legitimate fear that ethnic Russians were somehow going to be targeted by their fellow Ukrainians.

BULLSHIT

[dionysus]

119. saddam was an asshole, but not a danger to us. putin is an asshole, but not dangerous to us.

the difference is, Obama and Kerry aren't going to start a war with Russia, but bush started one for no reason with Iraq.

and I'm sure the people slagging the admin, and tacitly praising Putin know better, but it's just another excuse to trash the Dems... Obama, Kerry, Hillary, it doesn't matter to them. just another "the US is evil"-fest.. but paying special attention to shit on the Democrats instead of the Republicans who are responsible.

[Hissyspit]

122. I haven't forgotten anything, and I knew it was all bullshit.

So did Will Pitt.

[Enthusiast]

132. Most of us here knew it was bullshit.

Why did so many pretend that it wasn't bullshit?

[Rex]

137. Because they have a narrative to maintain.

Thankfully it is not that many people on DU.

[Bluenorthwest]

142. 23 Senators voted against authorizing Bush to invade Iraq, they were right.

Those like Kerry and Clinton who voted to give Bush the authority to invade were wrong. There was a right vote and a wrong vote. Not all of them were fooled, as Kerry and Clinton were fooled. Some Senators were duped, others showed discernment and wisdom.
One of the greatest failures of our culture is made evident in the fact that those Senators who made one of the worst decisions in history were all promoted, while those who were correct and insightful were dumped. Mediocrity and mistakes get rewarded while excellence and courage is punished.

[merrily]

152. I would not take for granted that

Hillary and Kerry were fooled.

I am not saying they weren't fooled. I am saying only that it's very possible that they weren't. Some Democrats who took that vote have defended it vehemently, saying it was very carefully worded and Bush betrayed them.

In my view, it was a political vote on the part on at least some of them, especially those who were entertaining Presidential ambitions.

[merrily]

150. Oh, please, Louise! Like Hissyspit, I haven't forgotten and, since

you are throwing the word around, the war vote was bullshit.

So was voting for the Patriot Act, which even the Republican Justices held unconstitutional in several particulars.

I don't believe very many DUers who followed the situation then have forgotten.

[wisteria]

90. And, he was briefed on these concerns and believe he was being told the truth in good faith.

I suppose we should all live our lives without risk and not believe anything we are told.

[merrily]

116. Did you believe the claims of the Bush administration at that time?

I don't know many lay people who did.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

147. The vast majority of Amrricans did believe them

With their lies. Additionally, we don't know wha they were shown in classified briefings.

[merrily]

149. No one I know believed them.

We absolutely do know that, whatever they were shown in classified briefings, they were not shown anything that proved that there were WMD in Iraq. I also find it hard to believe that Colin Powell held back evidence when he tried to pimp that war in the UN; and his presentation was laughable, literally. (The UN reps of Germany and France were interviewed after the presentation and they laughed.)

[wisteria]

183. Well good for you. What knowledge did you have that supported your POV?

Or was it just a feeling or a hunch? Frankly, I do not know of anyone who would make important decisions based on feeling or hunches. When it comes to protecting our country and the people, I think facts should be the determining factor. And, many in the Senate at the time thought they were presented with the facts.

[merrily]

62. This post is about an ironic statement made in 2014.

[QuestForSense]

71. A lot of people believe the reason Kerry lost to Bush was he because was too much like him.

He did seem to go out full out, along with Hillary Clinton by the way, to sell the Iraq war to the American public.

Edit: You'd think he'd have recognized the irony of his statement as soon as he opened his mouth.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

73. no he didn't.

[QuestForSense]

84. In 2004

Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said that he 'still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.'

He later changed his mind and said that his goal as president would be to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during his first six months in office through diplomacy and foreign assistance.

[blkmusclmachine]

44. pot, meet kettle

[babylonsister]

51. Not impressed. He's doing the best he can

in a horrible situation. Yea, let's make fun of this SoS, for whatever reason. He's doing what he has to do, and doing it well. And that means avoiding war. Not funny.

[1awake]

52. I dont think it's a hit on Kerry

or at least that's not how I took it. I took it as a hit on the US for condemning what we as a country have done multiple times. But that's just me.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

59. then its on all of us for allowing that little motherfucker to stride past Gore into the WH

[1awake]

66. That I agree with completely. So much damage done

and I still wonder what it might have been like.

[merrily]

153. Odd. I don't remember being on the Supreme Court in 2000.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

166. We're you in our equivalent if Maidan or Tahrir square?

Was anyone in the U.S.? No. Not really. We took it. We should have risen up.

[merrily]

167. I don't think we have an equivalent of Tahrir Square. In fact, I don't

think even Cairo has an equivalent of the Tahrir Square you are imagining. (The military took over again.) But, that is a whole 'nother discussion for another time and another thread.

[madinmaryland]

78. Not funny at all. He made a horrible faux pas, which I don't know if he

even realized.

[ProSense]

88. It wasn't a "faux pas"

The silliness of this entire meme would mean that no one should say what Kerry said.

The claim that the U.S. has no moral authority to say the right thing would mean that no American could speak out because Bush invaded Iraq.

It's silliness.

[Orsino]

143. Loaded with irony, at least, since Kerry is now the mouthpiece for foreign policy.

Given his AUF vote, it's also hypocrisy. He was not an innocent in the rush to war; he was an opportunistic politician trying to appear strong by joining the bloody bandwagon. And he did it by ignoring the trivially easy debunking of the hawks' lies.

[ProSense]

144. Spare me the nonsense. n/t

[Orsino]

145. Which part was the nonsense? n/t

[merrily]

157. No, it would not mean that no American could speak against Bush.

Average Americans and the USG are two very different kinds of actors.

Average Americans do not cause the US to invade other nations on trumped up charges. Ergo, nothing stops them from criticizing Bush for doing that.

On the other hand, the USG has gone to war on trumped charges. So, for a representative of the USG to wave that at Putin is tone deaf, at best, leaving him open to laughter, which diplomats should avoid.

[Blue_Tires]

156. Like I said in the other thread

it was a silly thing for Kerry to say, but he pretty much had to say it (or something similar) because the Ukrainians needed some reassurance that the USA wasn't going to abandon them up shit creek when things started to get hairy....

[merrily]

159. Oh, come on, now. Posting it, even twice, does not make it so.

Thousands of ways to signal support without exposing yourself to snark, even from loyal Democrats like Stewart and Maddow. comedians.


I've seen the "It was the only (or the best) possible thing that anyone could have done" argument on this board so many times.

[Blue_Tires]

162. I've never said it was the "only or best possible thing" bullshit

I just said he had to send a message critical of Russia while showing implicit support for the Ukrainians...Clearly Kerry or his media reps chose the words poorly...

[merrily]

163. Um, you said he had to say it or something a lot like it.

No, he didn't.

[Blue_Tires]

164. Fine...Go apply to be Kerry's new speechwriter, then

what the fuck do I care?

[Isoldeblue]

58. Are you aware that people

in the real world, actually have the ability to grow emotionally, change their minds and learn from their mistakes.... But instead of giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt, for saying the right thing, it's so much cooler to do this. This is clever, I get it....

[JaneyVee]

63. And he has stated he regrets his vote. I know, God forbid people change their

Minds based on evidence.

[Hissyspit]

126. God forbid Will Pitt discuss this, given the evidence he published at the time

to try to GET people to change their mind.

[bobduca]

64. paternalistic crap

[ProSense]

65. Exactly.

"Are you aware that people in the real world, actually have the ability to grow emotionally, change their minds and learn from their mistakes.... But instead of giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt, for saying the right thing, it's so much cooler to do this. This is clever, I get it...."

...which is why this isn't about what's right, it's simply an attempt at ridicule.

I mean, what's the point: Kerry is right, but Putin is right to laugh?

[Hissyspit]

125. No, it's not.

Kerry's words carry no credibility, whether he's right or wrong. That's the point.

The man who said "who'll be the last to die for a mistake?" sure as shit should have had his guard up. "Grow emotionally, change their minds and learn from their mistakes." He should have done that already.

I remembered being horrifiedly disappointed in him at the time. Will Pitt's book on the other hand, was an interview with an Iraq weapons inspector who was all over the place telling people we were being lied to. I don't know how Kerry could have missed Ritter.

Regardless, you are missing the point of the graphic, deliberately or not.

[ProSense]

134. You know,

"Kerry's words carry no credibility, whether he's right or wrong. That's the point."

...that's absolute bullshit. I mean, no one said a damn thing about Kerry's moral authority when he called out Netanyahu. No one mentioned it when he raised diplomacy with Iran. It implies that he should be SOS. It's silliness.

"The man who said 'who'll be the last to die for a mistake?' sure as shit should have had his guard up. 'Grow emotionally, change their minds and learn from their mistakes.' He should have done that already."

What the hell are you talking about. The OP made clear that Kerry has long said he regretted his vote. He even wanted Kerry to run in 2008: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024613725#post14

Your comment is beyond bizarre given that you quote Kerry from the 70s and then ignore everything he said to date regarding Iraq. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024613725#post120

[bobduca]

148. awesome

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/archivist.htm

[Hissyspit]

180. I mean he should have done thar already AT THE TIME of the vote.

Jeez

[ibegurpard]

72. I'm not going to jump on Kerry for his past votes here

But considering the history of US interventionism over the past decade and a half it was a pretty tone-deaf thing for him to say. We really don't have the credibility as a nation to be making these kinds of statements.

[ProSense]

81. Funny, how

"But considering the history of US interventionism over the past decade and a half it was a pretty tone-deaf thing for him to say. We really don't have the credibility as a nation to be making these kinds of statements."

...that didn't apply to Putin the Peacemaker.

Putin Peacemaker
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661265#post5

Stand With Putin
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023654178

Remember Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed? Let’s revisit it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024593821

[madinmaryland]

74. Thanks, Will. It is interesting to watch heads exploding on both sides of the aisle.

Now, I must ask why Hillary just compared Putin to Hitler. Now she is backing away from that.

Fucking DERP.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

95. not backing away. clarifying for the dunderheads who didn't listen closely the first time.

[Bluenorthwest]

146. In politics, a 'dunderhead' is anyone who thinks folks listen closely and because of that

indulges in rhetoric that needs later explanation. It's that simple.

[Rex]

189. Will points out an obvious line of hypocrisy and the usual suspects

do their best to disrupt and distract from the obvious double standard comment. These same people hid in the background when Bush as in office...gee I wonder why?

[madinmaryland]

194. You are right. If we cannot call out the hypocrisy of our party members, then we

are no better than the other party. We must point out what we do not agree with in the Democratic Party, rather than believing and agreeing what our representatives say.

You are right, that there is a small group that was in the background when * was in office.

[grahamhgreen]

94. War of the week. N Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq.....

[ProSense]

101. The good thing is that

Putin likely isn't laughing.

Putin Gives Largely Incoherent Press Conference - Srsly
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024605329

President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims about Ukraine (US State Department)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024612455

[1awake]

117. No he is not... actually.. he seems a bit jittery,

and Im not sure if I should be happy about that or worried.

[JI7]

108. i think Will Pitt is building his "DU Cred" with these type of threads

[WilliamPitt]

110. Thanks for kicking my thread.

[Hissyspit]

124. Um, he doesn't need to build cred.

It's Kerry with the credibility problem. (And it's not that what Kerry is saying is incorrect, necessarily.)

Woosh.

[KoKo]

187. I think he's speaking his mind as evolves as a Human Being..with backlook

at history and ready and willing to EVOLVE as situtations CHANGE.

The ability to CHANGE YOUR VIEWS...as NEW INFORMATION comes forward is what we need in Forward Thinkers.

I've been here for a long while...and Pitt and I have had certain disagreements and he is a Controversial Fellow...for Sure....but what I feel about Pitt ...is that he is a SEEKER FOR TRUTH ...misguided sometimes like the rest of us...and a bit OTT and sometimes even seeming "off the rails" at times.

But...I appreciate varying Opinions and what I know about him for all his flaws...he does express his Humanity for better or worse.....and we should RESPECT some of this...as EVOLUTUION of him (like the rest of us) on his Life's Journey.

I understand that some might have problems as some of us have had with him in the past...but he is one of the Voices for the Future...and what Pitt makes of it in his new ventures will guide him...even though we might get into his ANGST with him and fade in and out.

Just Saying...and believe me...I know he's not easy to get along with!He can seem an Evil Bastard...and he could seem to "flip/flop" in his views from time to time..BUT, I APPRECIATE one who can Revise their Opinion when Circumstances Change...over an AUTHORITARIAN/RIGID view of Situations and Politics.

But...he's one that is worth reading when his views change...Because the Young are Worth Watching as they pass through their lives...for whatever will be THE CHANGE in our Political System.

And...yeah...

[grasswire]

203. sure

The New York Times singled out War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know as an anti-war book that "emerged from, and then codified opposition to the war in Iraq."

[ProSense]

118. Breitbart was good at that too. I mean

the clip cherry picks quotes to distort the context of his statements. For example, it cites this op-ed.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

By John F. Kerry
Published: September 6, 2002

It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

<...>

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

I can cherry pick quotes too, but they do not distort the context of his overall point.

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq “in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

<...>

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.
<...>

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

[PowerToThePeople]

120. I know, I debated not posting it

But, looking at that Youtuber's other video posts, they seemed to target both D and R. I took that to be they were at least trying to be non-partisan....


edit - but, nevertheless, Kerry still voted to give * the go ahead to invade.

edit2 - ya, I think I am self-deleting. Thanks ProSense.

[grasswire]

121. the things one *learns* on DU

Will Pitt is now RW for pointing out current situational hypocrisy of those who supported America's most egregious war of choice.

Sigh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. Our supposed "moral high ground" was drowned in the Gulf of Tonkin.

[NuttyFluffers]

133. thank me for kicking your thread! >_<

i like receiving thanks.

[Autumn]

136. That was a big Duh. Maybe it's time for Kerry and a lot of other politicians

to retire.

[ProSense]

140. Hillary needs to "retire" and not run in 2016. Kerry has no plans to run for elected office. n/t

[Autumn]

141. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024613725

[MBS]

182. +100

Totally agree. Thank you for your fact-filled responses on this thread - and elsewhere!

[wisteria]

184. SOS Kerry is no longer involved in politics.

He has retired from politics.

[Autumn]

200. Yeah cause SOS is not a senior political appointment and has nothing

to do with politics.

[mylye2222]

201. By sayin " retired from politics" the poster meant

that this is his last job, and that he will not do typically political things, like : campaingning, endorsing candidates, raise funds, and so.

[wisteria]

205. He is no longer an elected official, and he represents the President and the US

as our senior diplomat. He is no long consider a political entity. Oh, and his appointment had to be approved by both the house and the Senate-he was not simply appointed by President Obama.
But, again, it is obvious you know nothing about the post nor what SOS Kerry has been doing. You are just chiming in with your own uninformed 2 cents.

[Autumn]

209. No shit??

Thanks for the lesson A POLITICAL appointment, appointed by Obama, approved by the house and the Senate

And Then Kerry Said... You Don't Invade A Country On A Completely Trumped Up Pre-Text

And I said... Maybe it's time for Kerry and a lot of other politicians to retire. That's my opinion and I think I'll speak it and say it. You don't like my opinion, ignore it.

[wisteria]

212. And it is my opinion that your are uninformed,

or in other words ignorant regarding foreign policy matters and our SOS.- No shit!!!

[Rex]

138. Aww...you made some people get a real sadz!

Their continued denial of reality is amusing as hell!

[librechik]

139. IKR? I literally LOLed when he said that n/t

[malthaussen]

151. Hey, he said "you," not "we."

God is in the details.

-- Mal

[KoKo]

155. I don't get what's with his bellicose language since becoming

SOS. It's either he's influenced by the Neo-Cons that infest State or he truly believes what he says. Either way...I wish he would tone it down and try to do some diplomacy.

He's becoming an embarrassment.

[ProSense]

161. "You don't invade a country on completely trumped up pre-text"

Yeah, that's "bellicose," right?

"He's becoming an embarrassment. "

Kerry is not the "embarrassment." That would be those twisting themselves into a pretzel to reject the premise that: "You don't invade a country on completely trumped up pre-text"

I mean, why would anyone be against that statement?

[jsr]

175. Maybe he's building his street creds as a general

or Secretary of Defense or some such.

[wisteria]

185. What do you think he has been doing?

I suspect you have know idea what he has been doing.

[duhneece]

170. Why didn't he say 'anymore' at the end of that? nt

[ProSense]

171. Where are

all the foreign policy experts?

U.S. response to Ukrainian crisis takes shape
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024617136

Obama: Crimea Referendum Would Violate International Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024617772

[BelgianMadCow]

181. direct plug-back to Cindy Sheehan times on DU. n/t

[mylye2222]

186. I begin to be REALLY SICK AND TIRED ABOUT KERRY BASHING.

Angain the dirty long face sad jokes. Again the " before he was against it " again the "poor candate"....

ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rex]

190. So how does that address the double standard quote in the OP?

You can always go back to the echo chamber groups. Nobody is forcing you to read GD and comment.

[mylye2222]

191. No one can force me to NOT participate and read and comment GD either

Period.

[Rex]

192. Yeah I read your OP, can you actually point out any of these people

making fun of Kerry's face etc..?

[bigwillq]

188. ...I lost to Bush.

[ScreamingMeemie]

196. ...

lulz

[delrem]

193. Kerry's statement was a disgrace.

[ProSense]

195. "You don't invade a country on completely trumped up pre-text"

How exactly is that a "disgrace"?

Seriously, how?

Clearly people are using this opportunity to jump on the anti-Kerry bandwagon.

[Cali_Democrat]

197. Reading the replies in this thread...you would think it was Kerry who invaded Iraq and not Bush

Amazing.

This place is infested.

[delrem]

204. It was the US that invaded Iraq, not "Bush".

And it is the US that decided to proceed on a "look forward, not back" agenda.

And the hypocrisy of the US, esp. including US citizens who make remarks like yours, reeks. Totally reeks.

But go along and finger point, pretending that you, as a US citizen, have some moral standing to justify that kind of self-serving pointing.

[ProSense]

206. That comment no sense. n/t

[wisteria]

208. +100!

[mylye2222]

198. yes they are ridiculus. I just opened a protest tread. About those often personal critics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024619714

[delrem]

202. You aren't capable of understanding the disgrace of that level of hypocrisy.

That's just a plain fact.

[ProSense]

207. No, it's incoherent because it's nonsense. n/t

[Whisp]

211. and then

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]