|
There has been repeated discussion on John Kerry’s initial support of the war, and his subsequent “no” vote on the funding bill. It is so clear to me why this was the case, but I haven’t heard a single decent answer from those representing our side. It does not seem all that complex...
I know that politicians rely on the short memory of the American people...but it really hasn’t been that long since the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when it was essentially sacrilegious to go against the W administration. They rushed that “Patriot Act” to congress so quickly that we were still right in the middle of the post attack shock/blind patriotism mind frame.
Of course Kerry voted for it. The congress would have gone along with virtually anything W said at that time...to disagree would be political suicide. In fact, a local Congresswoman who voted against the Patriot Act (much to my delight), was widely criticized, even in liberal Berkeley, CA. I think in retrospect, most people realize that the division of powers in our government is necessary to provide checks and balances, and without it we could be subject to the whims of leaders who may not have the public’s best interest at heart.
It really wasn’t that much different just prior to the Iraq war. W had pumped up the public so much that I truly think people thought we could just march in there, take out Saddam, and it would be done. (Remember, the average IQ in this country is around 100...you can convince them of almost anything if you repeat it enough times.) People were still very firmly in the “them verses us” mind set. Again, almost anyone in Kerry’s position would have supported the war at that time. Think about it, if he hadn’t, he wouldn’t even had made it through the primaries. (Really, think about it...go through in your mind the outcomes if he had not supported W and the war...early on he would have been seen as a traitor, then even as more people began to think more critically, he would still not have been seen as someone who could attract a wide base of supporters.) He had to do what the people wanted, regardless of his own personal feelings. This is what he was elected to do...represent his constituents.
I don’t understand why the Kerry campaign just can’t say this in response to the repeated questions on this issue. How about:
“It is important to remember the mood of our country after the September 11th attacks. At a time when our National Security is at risk, it is vitally important for people to support our leadership. This is why it is so crucial to use your vote wisely, and elect leaders who are thoughtful and wise, who will critically examine all sides of an issue before acting. In a democracy, you must be able to trust the leader. John Kerry, and the majority of his constituents, trusted that President Bush had the welfare of the American people in mind when making such important decisions for our country. Since that time, we have all come to realize that this trust was misplaced, and that there was far more involved in Mr. Bush’s decision to send our brave young men and women into Iraq. John Kerry then did the only thing a thinking person could do. Upon realizing that the public interest was not being guarded, and the public trust was being squandered, he voted against allocating a huge amount of our money to support furthering our involvement in Iraq. This was not in any way a vote against supporting our troops, but a vote to stop and rethink our mission before going ahead risking millions of dollars, but more importantly, hundreds of thousands of American lives.”
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(450 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
