Reply #19: Expediency. [View All]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Sure, most politicians will vote against their consciences for the sake of political expediency.

What makes Kerry's vote special, or even consequential? His vote for the IWR (along with Gephardt's, Lieberman's and Edwards') gave political cover to the invasion, suppression and destruction of Iraq at the cost of thousands of lives.

There is a difference between voting to name an airport after Ronald Reagan, or compromising over buidling a dam, and advocating the slaughter of people.

As much as Kerry, and the others, would like to paper over their vote to back the war with excuses and rationales, the fact remains that there are a lot of dead and maimed people in Iraq who didn't deserve their fate because some American politicians wanted to prove their "patriotism".

Would the war (if you can the slaughter a war) have happened if Kerry had voted against the IWR? Most certainly. But, that's sort of like saying that you oppose "collateral damage" if it won't cost you votes.

With that vote, Kerry said that it's OK that people will die because Bush wants to look like a "decisive leader".

Please remember that there were 23 of Kerry's fellow senators who had the courage to vote against the bloodshed despite the political risks.

That's what make Kerry's vote "special". If you can write it off as mere political expediency, then you have a stronger stomach than I do.