Kerry, the war vote, and the movie "Fargo"

[ProfessorPlum]

Ok, let me premise this by saying that I think John Kerry is a good Democratic candidate and would make a pretty good (though not very dynamic) nominee, and I also think he would make an extremely good president. He has the experience, the liberal bona fides, and the overarching vision to do a lot of good for the US.

One big issue I have, and a lot of people have, with him as a candidate is his vote on the IWR. We've been over this ground dozens of times, obviously, and I think his actions leading up to the vote were well intentioned and as ameliorating as they could be. In the end, he voted "yes" on the resolution, but his vote wouldn't have changed anything. I think that vote was a mistake, and I think Kerry should recognize it as one, apologize as quickly as possible, and move on.

However, he keeps defending his vote, and I think I've finally thought of a fair analogy for his rationale for the vote and how it points out why it was a mistake:

In the movie Fargo, car salesman Jerry Lundegaard wants to extort money from his rich father-in-law. So he authorizes a couple of shady characters to kidnap his wife and hold her for ransom. But his father-in-law won't play ball, and in the ensuing misadventures, the two ex-convicts end up killing his wife. It's sort of clear that Jerry didn't plan to get his wife killed, only to threaten her to get what he wanted. But things in life often go awry, especially when you are dealing with unpredictable characters like his father-in-law and ex-convicts.

In the build up to Gulf War II, Democratic senator John Kerry wants to extort a safer world from Saddam Hussein. So he authorizes the Bush administration to threaten Hussein's regime until he allows full weapons inspections. But Saddam won't play ball (well, he will, but the Bushies don't care), and in the ensuing misadventures, the regime ends up invading, ending Hussein's regime, and killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and hundreds of American and British troops. It's sort of clear that Kerry didn't plan to get all of those innocent people killed, only to threaten them and the regime to get what he wanted. But things in life often go awry, especially when you are dealing with unpredictable characters like Saddam Hussein and the soon-to-be-convicts in the Bush administration.

At the end of the movie, how do we feel about Lundegaard? He's a bit of a coward, and can't take responsibility for how his whole plan has turned to shit. But the biggest impression he makes is that his plan, relying on ex-convicts to show restraint and accomplish the extortion without hurting anyone, is stupid with a capital STOO.

Please, John Kerry, do not become Jerry Lundegaard on this issue - renounce your IWR vote and move forward.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Go Bears!

Debate You?



Edit to add .wav

[ProfessorPlum]

9. LOL

.

[babzilla]

2. I guess that makes us Scotty

Scotty: Dad, what do you think they're going to do with mom?

Jerry: Don't worry Scotty, they're not going to hurt her, they just want money.

hilarious analogy professor

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. If that's the case...

I have something to say to you Jerry!

[renie408]

3. You are a genius.

That is the funniest analogy I have heard yet.

Do you think we can hope for Rumsfeld feeding Bush into a woodchipper??

[ProfessorPlum]

4. We can _always_ hope

:)

[Richardo]

5. "I'm...I'm cooperatin' here!!"

One of Jerry's more telling scenes...

Not sure I see Kerry as Lundegard - actually now that I think of it, BUSH is more Lundegard: an ineffectual milquetoast playing out an ill-conceived plan over his head.

When Marge starts pressing, he continues the lies and cover up while protesting his openness and candor ("I'm cooperatin' here!").

If anything, Sen Kerry and the rest of the enablers are like the financing guy who fronted the money for Lundegards non-existent cars (remember the purposely obscured VINs?).

Hey, I'm liking this - gonna have to think on it a bit more...

[ProfessorPlum]

8. obviously it's not a perfect analogy

For example, in real life the ex-cons came to Lundegaard with the plan, though he had been thinking this was a good idea for years.

But no way is Bush Lundegaard. He's as bloodthirsty as any of them, and hardly hapless.

[dofus]

6. Great reasoning.

And a very useful, insightful way to look at Kerry's vote.

I'm one of those who had tremendous respect for John Kerry, especially his military service, until he voted for the war powers resolution. But thinking of him as behaving like Jerry in "Fargo", like anyone who is well-intentioned and doesn't properly forsee the ultimate consequences of his action, well that makes me go back to thinking well of him. And recognizing that Kerry, along with most of the others also running, would make a good president.

[ProfessorPlum]

10. True, but until he renounces his vote

I'll see him as Jerry - someone I don't want running the country until he can own up to his part in this tremendous mess.

[ModerateMiddle]

18. what would have happened differently

if Kerry had voted differently?

[ProfessorPlum]

22. from my post above

"but his vote wouldn't have changed anything."

Except that it would have been the right thing to do symbolically - to give the Democrats the assurance that opposing unnecessary warmongering by an unelected fraud was in fact the right thing to do. It would also allow him to not have to start his sentences in which he criticizes Bush with "Although I voted to give Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq . . . "

Tell me this - what would be the bad consequences for anyone if he had voted "no"? What would have been wrong with that?

[ModerateMiddle]

25. If Kerry believed

as did SO many other Americans, that Iraq did indeed have WMD, and Kerry believed that (at least the threat of) military force was justified in 1998 when weapons inspectors left Iraq (kicked out or walked out, either way) - then why wouldn't he be for (at least the threat of) military force today - after 4 years of no inspections?

I didn't want the war either. I REALLY hoped that Bush would take his "win" of getting inspectors into Iraq and not invade. I don't think I was alone.

IF that was what Bush had done - build up the military on Iraq's borders and force Iraq to accept inspections - what would you think of Kerry's vote today?

I HATE the fact that we invaded Iraq and are in this mess today, but I do NOT blame John Kerry for it.

I put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the Bush misAdministration and the neo-cons lies and deception.

[no name no slogan]

118. What I find hard to believe...

I find it hard to believe that somebody, ANYBODY, as a semi-informed human being could be duped by BushCo into believing that Iraq was an imminent threat to ANYONE ELSE.

All it took to find out the TRUTH about what was going on was to scratch the surface-- take an hour or two and do a little RESEARCH into where this evidence came from. Damn, even a basic Google search would have turned up more than enough credible resources to see Iraq's "threat" as the lie it really was.

Even a little COMMON SENSE would have shown BushCo's ideas to be ludicrous. I mean, we're talking about a country that has been all but CUT OFF FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD for the last decade and reduced to third-world status. How the hell they could ever make nukes or chem/bio weapons with what they had requires an imagination of Spielberg-like proportions.

IMHO, somebody who voted for IWR and did NOT agree with BushCo's foreign policy did it for political expediency. S/he was playing a little "cover-my-ass" so they wouldn't look "weak" on "defense". These Representatives and Senators should be held accountable for their votes, regardless of their present position, and be required to explain their vote, too.

However, I have to admit that despite his vote, Kerry is still one of my top four pics, even above the likes of "anti-war" candidates Howard Dean and Bob Graham. Even though I disagreed with his vote, I still support much of his platform-- much more so than Liebermann (LieberWHO?). :)

[CWebster]

122. Interesting that you recognise the underlying dynamic

but don't weigh it in your final assessment of eligibility. Kerry strikes me as the classic Senator- less presidential in style and demeanor. Though, Kerry's admirable voting record and stand on the issues is also much more preferrable to candidates who only represent an anti-war stand for political gain.

Dean impresses me as practical and sincere and there is some quality about him that appeals to me--lack of pretention perhaps, whereas Clark seems superficial and programed to me.

[renie408]

36. What if....

You can what if this thing to death.

What if Hussein had used chemical weapons against us? What if we hadn't gone or the IWR had been voted down and feeling a little fluffy, he had gassed either his own people or one of his neighbors? What if they HAD found WMD?

Cast your mind back to a year ago, when they were voting on this thing. Bush has approval ratings going through the roof. That does not only mean that it would hurt you politically to go against him, it means that the people of the country are on his side. That 'we' liked the job he was doing right then. Things are still very up in the air on WMD. No, inspectors haven't found anything, but you have a ton of 'experts' (including eventually Clark) telling the American people that the WMD is there, oh yeah, it's there for sure. You are a Senator and being asked to vote on a Resolution that allows the President to do something he can do anyway, whether you vote on it or not (a President can use the military without permission from Congress, right?), you are a Democrat and are pretty much suspicious of the whole thing, but voting 'No' is the equivalent of pissing in the wind, and the truth of the matter is that if he isn't doing something worth kicking him out for right then, Saddam Hussein is bound to do it soon cause he can't help himself and his regime IS destabilizing the area. We are going anyway, everybody knows that. And if you are John Edwards, you can think about all the army, navy and marine bases in your state and how a 'no' vote could be perceived as not supporting troops that you KNOW are going to war, however you vote. You have a couple of options staring you in the face. Vote your unprovable gut instinct and vote 'no'. For which you will be pilloried if something happens to prove the existance of WMD or if Hussein does something crazy and gasses somebody (which he has already done and has already proven that he doesn't mind killing large numbers of his own people) or vote Yes, offer the administration stern words on the responsibility they are taking and pray like hell.

A year ago, could Kerry or Edwards or anybody else known that Rumsfeld would go through the Pentagon "Going Off to War" shopping list and carve it to pieces, sending our troops into battle seriously undersupplied? A year ago, how was anybody supposed to know that they would try to nickel and dime the whole thing down to its bare bones and go in so undermanned, undereverythinged?? And I swear, could anybody suspect how completely half-assed their post war 'planning' would be?? I know they are fuck ups, I am all about that, but DAMN! I just don't think that anybody could predict it would have been THIS bad. Even somebody in Washingon.

I don't have a problem with Edwards' vote not because I support Edwards. I support Edwards because I don't have a problem with his vote. I understand how he got there. I think it is easy to sit in your living room or at your desk and say what should have been done. Was Kucinich's decision wise and brave? In hindsight, yes. Would it be viewed the same way if things had gone differently? No. Same thing for Dean. And I have to say one more time that Dean DIDN'T have that much to lose by speaking out against the war. If WMD had been found, he could have spun his dissent into something else. And ultimately, he didn't have to vote.

Ok, sorry to have drug on so long and I do understand why you feel the way you do. I just want to explain why I feel the way I do. It isn't because I was for the war, its because I don't think they have anything to apologize for. I trust that both Edwards and Kerry really did what they felt they had to do at the time. I don't think they were being opportunistic or warmongering or sleazy. I don't think they have any mistakes to take back.

[Fabio]

127. great post.

wont win that many converts here. but that's the nature of this message board -- and I suppose message boards in general.

Either way, thoughtfully written.

[Brucey]

11. A woodchipper is too good for these murderers,

they need to be shamed in front of the world.

[Fabio]

12. My take on your analysis

As a Kerry supporter.

At a high level, I agree with many points. JK made a mistake in trusting the judgement of Bush Administration.

And I think he has been pretty clear on that -- saying that he regrets that Bush bungled the diplomacy leading up to the war and the plans for peace (and they are very linked). However, its very difficult for a Senator, especially one who has their own vision of how events should transpire, to renounce their vote, their one statement for the record. Why? One, because it would have been inconsistent with Kerry's pointed criticism of both the Clinton and Bush administrations of not holding Saddam responsible for his violation of the various UN resolutions. two, in the context of this stand against Saddam, such a stand would appear to be politically motivated.

A couple of pieces of context I also think are important --

1) Powell was infront of the foreign relations committee and told Senators, including Kerry, that the Administration was intent on going thru the UN and forcing tough inspections and letting them play their course.
2) Bush announced to the country that the vote did not mean that the war was inevitable, only that the country "spoke with one voice"
3) Bush's father had done a commendable job of building a coalition in 1991, surrounded by many of the same cast of advisors.
4) Bush Jr., as much as it hurts me to say, did a pretty good job of building a coalition in Afghanistan, including reaching out to countries like Pakistan and Iran for cooperation. Of course, that didn't last and neither did our commitment to helping Afghans --but the country was looking better in Oct 2002 than a year earlier.

John Kerry had the foresight to qualify his support for the war with two very prescient statements often sited here - the Oct 9 speech on the Senate Floor and his speech at Georgetown in January. I encourage everyone to read them. They are available at his website. At the very least, it points out that this is a very smart man, faced with a very difficult decision, forced upon him by some pretty Machiavellian political enemies. Worse, he was undercut by members of his own party -- Gephardt and Lieberman being the most important -- who delivered Bush the votes on the looser resolution -- instead of the more constrictive Biden-Lugar amendment (which Dean supported, and JK says in his speech he would have prefered) Another interesting point to clarify the dynamics of the Congress- Biden and Lugar both voted for the IWR after their proposal was killed -- mostly on the strength of private assurances given to them in Committee (like Kerry).

Truthfully, when JK voted for the resolution, my heart dropped. The natural role for JK in this election cycle would have been as a phoenix rising, the once and future anti-war candidate questioning existing authority. It's completely consistent with his personna as a progressive and lone wolf in Washington. And dont think he does not know that. I respectfully submit Howard Dean would not be in the position he finds himself in had that been the case, all things being equal on the ground in Iraq.

Nonetheless, Oct 2002 was a very scary time when our national security, here at home on these shores, seemed very fragile. With that in mind, and given his longtime "get tough with Saddam" policy, there is also a remarkable degree of political consistency and sacrifice in his vote.

In the end, it was a no win vote for Senator Kerry -- which is precisely why the GOPers rushed it before election day -- and why Senator Kerry tried at length to explain his rationale for the vote. Again, all those here reading, I encourage you to read the two speeches I cited. They go a long way towards understanding John Kerry.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Faulous post Fabio!

I've been saying the same thing for almost a year now. John Kerry IS a very smart man. And he will make a fantastic president. And the "Fargo" analogy is flawed (to say the least). Although very clever.

[Fabio]

15. I'm not just a pretty face

trying to sell "I Cant believe it's not Butter...Spray"

[ProfessorPlum]

16. I've read them both

and actually posted a long post essentially outlining all of your points a few weeks ago, as well. It was definitely a tough vote for him.

All that in the past is fine and good. He has to own up to the problems of today, however, and admit that despite his good intentions, he had an actual role in bringing us to the horrible place we are today, renounce it, and get on to bashing Bush full force over this war. Until he does, he is caught trying to say "well, the war (or the threat of war) was actually a good idea, but I sort of disagree with Bush over how it was handled" or some such nonsense. He needs to be able to pound Bush over this war, and he can't do that without stepping away from his well-intentioned, but flawed, vote.

Edit to add a link to that thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=33125

[ModerateMiddle]

20. the threat of war WAS actually a good idea

it is what got the inspectors into Iraq. Many people mis-remember the time-line on that.

[ProfessorPlum]

24. Yeah, but

if you have to give the Bush administration the legal backing to do something else, much more horrible with that authority, and then they go ahead and do it, well then it doesn't seem like such a good idea in the end, does it?

Also, so we got inspectors into Iraq - what did we gain from that? We traded the possible bad of Saddam having weapons for the very definite bad of the horrible outcome we have now. A bad trade, in the end.

And it isn't like I fault Kerry that much for not predicting that outcome - but he has to own up to that outcome NOW - that's the point.

I don't care about how he voted in the past except what he does about it NOW, with the facts we have NOW. He needs to change, show some flexibility, admit his mistake.

[CWebster]

27. The entire threat was manufactured out of thin air

in a cynical ambition to extend mileage on the wartime popularity so they could sack and loot all the national social and financial structures behind the scenes.

[ModerateMiddle]

32. I think that was Rove's reaction to the idea of war

but I honestly believe that the war mongers in the administration believed that going to war was going to solve a panopoly of woes in the world. That they believed this in the face of reason and many available facts I don't dispute. But I do think they did it with what they believed was the best interests of the US in mind.

Oh, and oil. That WAS a major factor in the decision making.

[Fabio]

60. So I guess our disagreement is in this:

First off, I remember reading your threads several weeks ago and thought they were a fair critique - and I recognize you have researched JK. However, many people on this board seem to be basing opinions of JK based lightly on the facts. I just encourage everyone to read the two statements and tell me that this isnt a prescient, intelligent man who understands the world better than our president or, IMHO, any of the other candidates. Anyhow...back to the response.

You think Kerry should renounce his vote, claim it was wrong.

I dont think Kerry should renounce his vote: I see it as consistent with his long standing belief that the US should hold Saddam accountable for his action. Not doing so, in Kerry's mind, was undercutting the validity of the United Nations and its ability to enforce its own resolutions. As a progressive multilaterist, that is his biggest fear.

I guess we also differ in that I dont see the events that happened after the vote (ie poor diplomacy, lack of coalition, poor peace planning, etc) as being Kerry's fault -- the right to wage war and the responsibility of Commander and Chief lies solely with the President. And control of intelligence (which seems like it was at least jaundiced) is the domain of the President, and to a lesser extent, the Intelligence Committee (on which Kerry did NOT serve in OCt 2002).

In the meantime, John Kerry has clearly stated that he regrets that the President f'ed everything up. In that context, Bush is making John Kerry regret voting the way he did. But in Oct 2002, without the benefit of hindsight, it's still a responsible vote.

This is how I think JK should respond to questions pertaining to the IWR:

1) First off, I would like to say to those that opposed the war in Iraq outright, part of me has tremendous solidarity with your position. Another part of me feels a tremendous debt of responsibility to the defense of this country. You can be sure that this was one the toughest votes I have cast in my political life.
2) I voted the way I did because I have long seen Saddam as a threat to stability in the Middle East and, increasingly in the age of terror, to our lives at home.
3) I do regret that the authority Congress granted, MYSELF INCLUDED, was so poorly used by this president. If anyone is interested in how I would have handled differently, please refer to the speech I gave on the senate floor shortly before I cast my vote.

I'd love to hear feedback on this.

[ProfessorPlum]

64. I think that is just about exactly right

He needs to express more regret on his own part for trusting Bush - I think that's all I would really need from him - just to admit that trusting Bush was a mistake he will never repeat again.

It would diffuse the issue for me in a big way. He keeps trying to defend the whole situation, including to some extent the invasion, and that just won't do.

It's not quite the whole picture, but in the end he approved of giving a madman a gun and then told him to go threaten someone with it (hoping that that was all he would do), and then when the madman shoots the person and kills him, Kerry should at least say, "Well, I was wrong to think that that madman would handle the situation correctly." So far, Kerry keeps saying, "my decision to give the madman a gun, though difficult, was absolutely the right decision."

Which, I think, is wrong.

Edit to add: I know that it is only wrong in retrospect - if we'd actually gone in and found WMDs and disarmed Saddam, that would have been great! But just because his decision turns out to be not a good one in hindsight, doesn't mean he doesn't have to own up to it.

[Fabio]

65. That I can respect.

good talk, russ.

[flpoljunkie]

21. Colin Powell either lied to Senators or he was used by Bushco...or both

1) " Powell was in front of the foreign relations committee and told Senators, including Kerry, that the Administration was intent on going thru the UN and forcing tough inspections and letting them play their course".

Not only did Dubya & Co not let the inspections play their course, they slapped down Hans Blix request for only 30 more days!

Bush went to Congress and the United Nations in bad faith, saying "war is my last resort" when, we now learn, he had made the decision to go to war in August, 2002.

Since Bush will not be impeached by a GOP controlled Congress, our only recourse is to vote the bastards out in November, 2004!

[ProfessorPlum]

26. I'll say it again

I don't really care about Kerry's original vote.

The important thing is how he handles it now. Sure, he had good intentions, but he needs to realize that they've paved the way to this particular hell, and he needs to own up and denounce what has happened and start hammering Bush with gusto.

[ModerateMiddle]

30. They kept moving the bar to stop war

They had a hardon for war from the beginning. They had this grand notion of what was possible if only they could do (whatever) in Iraq. I believe that those idiots believed what they were selling. I also believe that the evidence didn't support what they were saying, so they lied. But I do believe that the neo-cons believed that war in Iraq was the right thing to do - and they were hell bent on doing it regardless of ANYTHING else.

Unfortunately, I do hold Gephardt and Lieberman accountable for their "Rose Garden Betrayal" of the rest of the Dems in Congress, who stood half a chance of making it harder for Bush to act on his own. But I also firmly believe that nothing was going to stop the neo-cons.

[ProfessorPlum]

33. Of course they had a hardon for war from the beginning

what about that didn't Kerry understand?

And I know all about Gephardt and Lieberman - please see my post "Voting for the War". Don't worry, they won't be getting my vote either.

Kerry can salvage this, but he doesn't seem to want to try.

[CWebster]

31. The base knows better, they didn't buy it then

and increasingly. along with the rest of the country, they don't buy it now.

We knew it was a pack of lies, and by denying that obvious reality, Kerry is fooling no one and the base resents that he is playing them for fools.


Are you listening, Senator Kerry, I am giving you good advice. ;-)

[renie408]

38. I think he was used by Bushco

Hasn't there been talk repeatedly about his either leaving early or not coming back the next time around if they win? I know that more than once while he was off doing whatever the Secretary of State does that Bush and Co. cut his feet out from under him and left him looking like shit. I have also read that there is very little love lost between Powell and the WH.

[renie408]

37. Ok, his is smarter than mine, but that's what I meant.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

117. What I find so ironic

about the demonizing of Kerry for his IWR vote is when people say he voted out of political expediency - when the exact opposite is true. Kerry's base, his constituents, Democratic primary voters, all would have been happier with a 'No' vote - but Kerry made the tough choice and voted his conscience anyway. I don't agree with Kerry's vote but I do respect him for it.

[CWebster]

121. I find that really hard to believe.

It wasn't as if he had to make the decision based on credible intel.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

124. You find it hard to believe that Kerry's vote is unpopular?

What Democratic Party are you in?

[Fabio]

125. Why be a revisionist?

It makes the conversation here duller.

[CWebster]

13. Entertaining post

The moment is ripe for Kerry to make a strong, clear and principled stand and state clearly for the record, in the eloquent tones he is capable of, that it was wrong, the case hadn't been made, and his strategy to prevent it through conventional avenues and consessions backfired due to the criminal intent of the Bush administration.

He has nothing to lose by speaking the truth for history, even if his calculation was flawed, he can expose what a fraud it all was and come clean.

Be your own man, Senator Kerry.

[ModerateMiddle]

17. I believe that there is a real difference

between voting yes on the resolution giving the President the ability to credibly threaten force against Sadam Hussein, and being "pro-war", or even pro THIS war. Kerry has denounced Bush's "rush to war" and his failure to do everything possible diplomatically. I don't believe Kerry *needs* to renounce his vote. What he needs to do, and what he HAS done, is renounce the way that Shrub used that authority.

[ProfessorPlum]

19. I don't think Kerry is "pro-war" - not by a long shot

but this vote and his adherence to it has forced him to come out as supporting Bush and his decision to invade. He said so quite clearly at the first debate.

What he needs to be is anti THIS war, in as many ways as possible.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

28. Agreed, it's about perception

I've worked with clients to develop methods for monitoring customer satisfaction, and the first most basic thing I tell them is that it doesn't matter if you deliver a great product or service: if the customer thinks you have a problem, you have a problem.

Same thing with Kerry. He's a very intelligent guy and has been one of Bush's strongest opponents in the Senate, but he killed himself with this vote. I understand why he voted yes, for all the reasons he's explained, but he missed the big picture: how it would be perceived.

I'm not advocating that he should've changed his vote because of how the voters would perceive it -- he did believe he was making the right choice -- I am simply explaining why I think many Dems won't take a second look at him.

Of course I will eagerly support him if he's the nom, I believe he's a very good man and would be an excellent president, but he's not doing anything right now to change our perception of that vote.

[Fabio]

58. That may be true

This issue of perception, but to play to perception rather than the outright security of the United States is a dangerous proposition -- and as a responsible member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I think he chose a responsible choice, but definately not the best in the minds of primary type voters here in the DU.

In that light, I respect him more for doing it.

[CWebster]

59. Sorry fab

Kerry fell for the perception. Kerry played to the perception instead of the truth and it ultimately served to create a greater security risk. And he was wrong.

Kerry needs to bust through that wall. Can he do it?

[Fabio]

61. Clarification

Not needling or anything here. Just got a little lost by your response (i think we are tangling the meanings of perception).

Which perception did he fall for, and what was truth?

[CWebster]

23. He has to get past that mindset

It isn't working for him. He is mired down in the particulars avoiding the greater reality of what that vote represents--relinquishing congressional checks to a illegitimate dunce.

He needs a stronger approach and now is the time to grab the opportunity. It may be his last chance. I am sure he can figure out something strong and noble to make a real impact on the national conscience.

[TheDonkey]

29. I'm against IWR, but most Americans are still overwhelmingly FOR it...

yet are all complaining now about how many people have died, how much money, etc.

So Kerry really has a good position in the fight off against Bush. He can agree with the majority of Americans and tear Bush a new one and not seem like a wacky hippie liberal.

BUT this war vote is definetly going to be a liability in the nomination process, as it should.

[blm]

34. You should stop pretending his position is incomprehensible.

Are you part of the corporate media, too?


From mediawhoresonline:

The media should stop pretending they don't understand Senator Kerry's nuanced position on the Iraq resolution and subsequent invasion. They do.

What's more, so do the vast majority if Americans, including the more "impressionable" segment Kerry detractors hope to convince he's a "waffler."
The voting public will understand Senator Kerry's explanation because their view has evolved in precisely the same way. There was a surge of public support for the invasion when the invasion became an inevitability, followed by increasingly expressed doubts and criticisms. When Senator Kerry says he believed the resolution was necessary for the US to negotiate from a position of strength, people will get it. Despite the willful obtuseness of his critics, context matters, and any voter can easily discern the difference between actions such as voting for a resolution out of "statesmanship" and strategy (or voicing support to pollsters during the invasion) - and "flip flopping."

What's more, Kerry is on record as voicing conditions for an invasion similar to those voiced by the public.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Kerry's vote in favor of the Iraq resolution would not a liability in a Kerry-Bush matchup, except for tiny minorities who opposed any invasion under any circumstance and will not vote for either as a result, or who believe affording a liar a degree of trust for defensible reasons is worse than being a liar.

In fact, each time Senator Kerry is asked about it he is granted another opportunity to relay to the vast majority of the American people that he, not the unelected fraud, better represents their favored approach to international relations - the one they have repeatedly told pollsters is their preference.
--
This MWO article was up at Atrios' blog on 9-9.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

35. Conspiracies.....Everywhere!

except for tiny minorities who opposed any invasion



Incomprehensible.










You get the idea.

[blm]

41. Biden-Lugar had the same reasons for use of force that IWR had.

Dean supported that, you support Dean.

btw...do you have any pics of Dean speaking at antiwar rallies? No. Why not? Surely his campaign team discussed it for hours while they were collecting antiwar $$$$$$ that should have gone to the REAL antiwar candidate, Kucinich.

[CWebster]

42. blm. you are hopeless

You are being obtuse. Your candidate is in a bind...Think it through....think it through...

[renie408]

43. Help

I am lost. How is Kucinich in a bind on the war issue?

And isn't it a good point to point out that Dean didn't speak at any anti-war rallies?

Did Kucinich?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. Kucinich isn't in a bind.

And nobody thinks so, despite claims to the contrary by blm.

Is it fair to point out that Dean wasn't speaking in front of the war rallies? Sure. Does it mean anything in light of the fact that he was questioning the race to war vocally and more effectively than DK 10 months before hostilities began? Not really.

[CWebster]

46. Kucinich doesn't have that problem

He has others.

But Dean spoke out. That was the most important thing. He gave a clear, persistant voice to all the anger and frustration so many of us felt. It is truly his forte. That, he does better than any of them---even Kucinich because he also has the ability to connect to a broad audience where Kucinich can't.

Just the view from here. ;-)

[renie408]

47. OK

I got lost in the argument. Thanks.

[blm]

49. Yes...Kucinich did speak out, while the media

ignored him and played up Dean as the antiwar candidate causing millions of antiwar dollars into his campaign coffers.

[blm]

48. Easy, CW...you're wrong...but I would never call you

hopeless.

[CWebster]

50. Just frustration, blm

Just trying to be a little helpful while I am in a generous mood. Would you prefer it if I went back to slashing? ;-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. One more time...

B-L had requirements, IWR did not. IWR was real legislation, B-L was not.


No pics. Plenty of links to speeches and interviews dating from April, 2002. No one is arguing DK's anti-war bonafides but you; I'm not a one issue voter. Understand?

[blm]

51. But Dean still supported use of force.

And the REASONS were the same as IWR.

[renie408]

52. Are you SURE about that??

Is anybody?? This is another one of those subjects where I can't exactly figure out WHAT Dean was for.

[blm]

55. Here ya go...Jan. 23

Plus some bonus misrepresentations of the other candidates for good measure:

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml
>>>>>
I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said.

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."
>>>>>

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. You couldn't bother reading it. Shame.

It may explain your inability to understand the issue.

Your post fits perfectly with my previous post. Completely consistent.

Once again, I ask: READ!


on edit: Was referring to post #54...sorry, blm. Maybe I should read, as well.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. Dean supported force

if the case were made. He clearly staed that the case WAS NOT made. B-L required a UN vote. The IWR didn't. Multilateral vs. Unilateral.

Once again...and please read it!

GWEN IFILL: You have said that the president has not made his case for leading an attack or starting an attack in Iraq. Why don't you make your case against that for us?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy.

GWEN IFILL: Governor, you have criticized other Democrats in the race for seeming to support the president by voting for the use-of-force resolution last October in Congress, yet you say that you support... you would support... you'd be willing to support a United Nations-backed effort to disarm Saddam Hussein. How is that different from what the people in Congress voted for?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: What they voted for was to allow the president of the United States to attack Iraq unilaterally without going back to Congress. So the four folks that I'm running against who are from Congress all voted to give the president that power. The objection that I have... the greatest objection is for the folks that voted for it and then went to Iowa and California and pretended they are against the war. That doesn't wash. We're not going to elect a president of the United States but nominating somebody who says one thing and does something else, and appears to be willing to say whatever it takes to become president. That's a guarantee that we won't beat George Bush that way. We have got to stick to our guns. We've got to defend our positions, and we've got to be proud of our positions.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html


Read the whole thing. It's very enlightening. Try not to take your prejudice with you.

[blm]

62. Doesn't change the reasons.

Also doesn't change the fact that Bush DID technically HAVE a multilateral force in the eyes of Daniel Webster and the media. Dean's clinging to the word UNILATERAL like a security blanket to make his case was disingenuous and an effort to make himself sound more antiwar.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

119. Sorry I brought it up.

Dean bad. Kerry good. I keep forgetting.

[CWebster]

39. You keep missing this

First of all the country, despite all the lies, obvious misrepresentations and trumped-up Intel- was only supporting the plan with UN and mulilateral support--even during a time of rampant nationalism in a climate of fear. The difference with Kerry imposing conditions on his vote is Bush wasn't bound by them. Apart from that, in order for Kerry to run in the general, he has to win the nomination---and those photos Rummy just posted? That represents the voter base of the Left whose outrage Kerry ignored.

Kerry can't parse words or forward any technical legalize or rationalize or excuse or explain. He is just digging his own hole deeper.

[blm]

40. Yes...with stupid people who listen to the corporate media spin.

.

[babzilla]

57. I'm glad you draw the line somewhere

you won't call people hopeless, but you will call them stupid.

[ProfessorPlum]

53. Yep, THAT's what I'm pretending.

that his position is incomprehensible.

[DrFunkenstein]

63. Here's What Kerry Should Say

My imaginary MTP interview:

Listen, Tim, I am on the record saying I did not think the threat was imminent. I fundamentally agree with Bill Clinton's assessment before Operation Desert Fox:

"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."

Although Saddam had agreed to unfettered inspections at the end of the Gulf War, the UNSCOM mission played like an absurd game of cat and mouse. Clinton said rightly:

"Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors."

Throughout his nefarious career, Saddam has been dangerously loose cannon prone to the grossest and often horrific miscalculations. Throughout the UNSCOM process, Saddam did nothing but screw around. And frankly, after 9/11, Americans - including myself - were in no mood to screw around.

What I did was the right thing. I voted to disarm Saddam Hussein and hold him to the peace agreement he himself had signed. What I did not vote for was incompetence.

Bush and his Pentagon hawks can rightfully be called the Keystone cops of modern warfare. If Saddam Hussein is prone to dangerous miscalculation, George W. Bush is prone to dangerous bungling. Look at the record:

In Afghanistan, with Osama cornered in Tora Bora, Bush decided to fight terrorists with warlords, rather than the most awesome military force on the planet.

In the unnecessary rush to invade Iraq, they mismanaged the diplomatic end of warfare so badly that many countries actually believed the United States of America was more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.

They mismanaged the war itself with the interesting, but utterly inappropriate Rumsfeld Doctrine of small, quick forces. Knowing the major objective in the region was securing WMD sites, this tactic was wrong from the start. The results provided only inadequate artillery support to the ground troops, and thin supply lines. And, as we all know, it was completely unprepared to secure either Baghdad or the suspected WMD sites.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, is the fact that the administration was criminally lagging in getting any significant inspections team on the ground. It took over a month to get a real presence, and even that failed to account for the majority of sites a month after that. How do you fail to secure a nuclear facility if the main rationale for invasion was precisely that?

There are real questions as to why WMDs have not shown up. It remains to be seen whether they existed at the time of invasion, and if our worst fears were ironically enabled - the dissemination of WMDs to terrorists - by the criminally slow attempts to secure suspected areas.

What we needed was the fast and the furious; what we got was the slow and the spurious.



(I'm not even going into how the Pentagon systematically shut out the State Department's voices, let alone their prescient million-dollar research on post-war scenarios.)

[CWebster]

66. Sigh....lost cause

Kerry is going down.

[Fabio]

67. Not constructive.

May I ask who do you support?

[CWebster]

72. I know, but I am trying

Who I am supporting has nothing to do with Kerry. I have attacked him in the past, but this goes beyond political campaign allegiance, there is no hidden motive. I have to go back and read all of Funkensteins piece, I couldn't get past the first section.

Cut down the length Funkenstein and aim for clear concise points, or break it up in a series of posts.

[DrFunkenstein]

77. I'll Try To Get Back To Freeper Length For You.

I thought I was making clear, concise points. Apologies.

[CWebster]

78. I am sure you were

but the first paragraph was veering in that direction again, so why should I bother to plow through?

[renie408]

86. WHAT IS A FREEPER??

I have asked this before, but nobody has answered!

[Fabio]

88. Freeper =

denizen of the free republic message board, an institution dedicated to pure thought and amicable discourse.

Check it out for yourself at www.freerepublic.com.

[renie408]

95. Oh, right...lure the new kid...

Like I am going to wander over there and see things that will make me have nightmares for a month....MY EYES!!!...MY EYES!!!!!

[Fabio]

98. Its totally friendly over there.

And if you give them your name and address, you get this nice little uniform with red sleeves.

And you learn to never question authority.

And Lego once again becomes an adult toy in your mind.

Try it, you'll like it!!!

[renie408]

101. Don't freak me out right now, man

Did I mention that my book club is reading Orwell's '1984'??? I think they mention Ashcroft in there by name more than once.

[ProfessorPlum]

90. a denizen of the Free Republic website

essentially the bizarro world analog of Democratic Underground.

Or so we'd all like to hope.

[Fabio]

92. did you use denizen on your own?

that's really weird. I used the same word?
Mother, is that you?

[renie408]

97. ROFL!!

I wonder what they call us??

Or do I want to know??

[ProfessorPlum]

104. Yes,

"great minds" and all that.

Funny that we both think of freepers as denizens . . . like fauna in an incredibly horrible genetic engineering park.

[Fabio]

79. I think it is a fair question.

And I am not insisting you answer my question.

I challenge the premise, however, that one's POV (or who one supports) doesn't make a difference in these lines of argument.

For example (and trying to be current on issues of the day) -- if, on his last day in office, Clinton had passed tax reform in the form of removal of the marriage penalty, a childcare tax credit and the 10% marginal rate for low income americans...and then Bush had passed all the other (mostly regressive) tax cuts during his tenure, How many people on this board would advocate a repeal of the Clinton era tax relief?

I think very few, including Howard Dean. No, everyone would focus on the Bush tax cuts.

Yet because the modus operati of Dean has been to motivate with anger towards the Bush administration (effectively I might add), repealing all the tax cuts, under the presumed label of "Bush Tax Cuts" makes sense?

It seems to me that policy should be policy, and that point of view or ownership of ideas shouldn't make all the difference. Yet I would suggest that you are letting it. My two cents.

[CWebster]

89. What question was that?

Well, I don't benefit from the taxcuts, and if some middle and lower income people do, it should be weighed against the economic circumstances of the economy and what would be possible to achieve without them and what would have to be sacrificed with them.

My feeling is that is was a bone Bush threw to keep the pack quiet while he catered to the high end.

[Fabio]

93. I guess we just disagree

Bush doesn't through the bone. People work hard to make these things happen. If bush was so fast and loose with favors, I dont believe he would have forgotten a childcare tax credit for 12 million kids.

[CWebster]

96. Then don't allow Bush to take credit for it.

man, you got to yell this shit from the rooftops.

[Fabio]

102. That's my point

Are you more interested in credit or policy?

I dont care how gets credits as long as we get it right. It's Howard Dean who is calling them the Bush tax cuts in a monolithic way.

[DrFunkenstein]

68. Is That Why He Closed The Gap To 10 Points?

Dean's now at 31 points, down from 38.

The novelty is wearing, and we have a new flavor of the month. The silly season is over. Time for the big boys to play.

[renie408]

70. Funk, you are so EASY...

Can't you tell when you are being baited??

[DrFunkenstein]

73. Easy Like Sunday Morning

Of course I know. But it gives me a chance to lower the discourse now and then for levity.

[ProfessorPlum]

76. "chance to lower the discourse"

LOL :)

edit to add smiley

[ProfessorPlum]

69. Plus, how about

"I was wrong to trust them." (Since the Afghanistan and Tora Bora had already happened by then)

OR

"while forcing Saddam to comply with weapons inspectors is a good idea, I was wrong to entrust such a important but delicate task to this administration."

Either of those would really help.

[Fabio]

71. Well,

I rarely think it is wrong to trust someone. Maybe naive, but wrong is a tough sell. I'd prefer something a little more subtle, but similar, like

"while forcing......is a good idea, it now seems I was wrong to entrust such an important, but delicate task to this administration."

The major difference here is that JK must admit the use of hindsight to attack the administration. It's not fair to him, and its now fair in Oct 2002 to assume the Administration was going to f up so badly.

[ProfessorPlum]

75. even something as weak as

"I now regret that I trusted them to . . . " would win a lot of points with me for Kerry.

He just keeps saying, "I was right, I was right" without acknowledging that he seriously underestimated the evil, the incompetence, and the evil incompetence of this administration.

[DrFunkenstein]

83. Agreed

"I was wrong to put trust in Bush's competence."

Evil. Incompetent. But competently evil?

Everybody is good at something. I guess Bush found his niche.

[ProfessorPlum]

85. He really excels at it, doesn't he?

Hey, you never said anything about my analogy. I'm so proud of it I could pee.

[Fabio]

91. I assume you are addressing DrF

Who, knowing how his devious mind works, is doing one of two things:
1) Is damning your name over and over for beating him to the punch.
2) Is thinking of hurtful analogies to Dean's campaign and any Kevin Costner movie after Dances with Wolves. You know, like Waterworld.

Anyhow, I liked it and I am more than a JK fan. I am fan!atic!

[ProfessorPlum]

99. thanks

Dean and Waterworld . . . Hmmmm.

[DrFunkenstein]

110. I Admit It

I loved the analogy! I should have said so in my first post.

Now you must admit that my "slow and spurious" line is wincingly delicious. If that didn't make you cringe, I don't know what will.;-)

My analogy would probably be Return of the Jedi, with Dean playing C3PO to his Ewok supporters, who give him undeserved splendor based on preconcieved notions that don't really apply.

But hey, they did knock out the power shield. Now we need someone to fly into the heart of the FULLY OPERATIONAL Death Star and destroy it.

<>

[Fabio]

112. That was very funny.

I haven't thought about 3PO (my pet name for him) and the powershield for days. Long overdue.

[ProfessorPlum]

114. fast and furious vs. slow and spurious?

Most excellent.

I love the ROTJ analogy.

I've got another one for you - how about "The Man Who Would Be King" for Dean? The natives get behind what they think is Alexander the Great's reincarnation, until they find out he bleeds like other mortals? Then they throw him over a cliff. Plus, it has beautiful Indian women in it! Only I don't think we are going to throw Dean overboard if someone bites him.

You need to write for the next Kevin Smith film :)

[DrFunkenstein]

128. Great Flick!

Haven't seen it in ages. The cliff/biting gave me flashes of Suddenly, Last Summer for some ungodly reason.

Here's a pro-Dean analogy: Dean is Tom Cruise playing Maverick, Kerry is Val Kilmer playing Ice Man. I'm not sure how Meg Ryan fits into the analogy, but mostly it's the two warriors hanging out in their towels wrestling verbally. I think they play volleyball, sing some Karaoke, and one of them kills a bad guy. But mostly its about hanging out in towels.

The analogy is pro-Dean because he's probably a master of Karaoke, and Maverick is by far the better name. Other than that, it really doesn't hold up at all.

:boring:

I really shouldn't post when I'm this tired...

[CWebster]

74. The second one is really good

How about an elaboration in that vein--and damn it, stay away from the "I was misled" claim, it makes it seem that Kerry either isn't up to the task and didn't know better or is lying. Either way it instills little confidence.

[DrFunkenstein]

80. I Wasn't Too Happy When Dean Said It Either

Russert: You said in January, Governor, “I would be surprised if Saddam Hussein didn’t have chemicals and biological weapons.”

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

...

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry’s comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He’s a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn’t aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

[ProfessorPlum]

84. nobody's arguing that Bush wasn't lying through

his little, gnashy teeth about Saddam having WMDs.

We know now that Bush was lying to an unprecidented degree about the threat that Saddam posed - and people believed him to a greater or lesser extent. And that's what Dean is talking about here.

But I'm talking about Kerry being misled that Bush would do the right thing and act responsibly with his little green army men.

[DrFunkenstein]

106. I Still Believe He Had Them

And they were either given to or taken by groups with interests in illicit WMDs. Like Kerry, I didn't believe it posed an imminent threat, but I thought they existed.

I can't say I'm entirely shocked that they didn't show up. Especially after reading a series of articles by David Corn detailing the half-assed job Bush did securing and inspecting the suspected sites.

[ProfessorPlum]

111. See that's what is weird

doesn't it seem that Bush, at least, didn't believe they existed? Else why would he be so cavalier about them? Especially when he had the opportunity to parade through the streets with captured drums of VX or whatever they were going to find.

[DrFunkenstein]

120. Act Of Criminal Negligence

I just cannot for the life of me figure out why he hesitated for so long to get an inspections team on the ground.

These are two of the most politically damaging articles I've yet to read on Bush. I even heard Tucker Carlson say on Leonard Lopate - yesterday I think - say that if this is really the case, he would have real issues with Bush.

Highest recommendations for these two must-reads.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030519&s=corn

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030602&s=corn

[CWebster]

94. yes, but

Dean isn't politcally suffering to the same extent on account of it.

Dean made a lot of headway in his challenging stance. Kerry used to be able to confront power with truth.

[ProfessorPlum]

82. I agree

that is his dilemma. I don't wish to see him get gored on those two horns - he needs to head it off at the pass! I'm out of western analogies.

[CWebster]

100. hehe

I used alot of 'em today over at the general round-up.

[CWebster]

81. What it misses

the entire thing was a fraud.

[Fabio]

87. What was a fraud?

The Saddam killed innocent civilians?
That he had used WMD in the past?
That he was in violation of various UN resolutions?

Those things weren't frauds. They may not have been grounds for war, but that's another issue. Certainly, everyone on this board, except for the occassional surfing freeper or diehard Lieberman fan, didnt think Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat.

But, I live in Tribeca, six blocks from ground zero, and was here on Sept 11, so you'll excuse me I seem jumpy.

[CWebster]

103. Why, why, why

you sound just like the chimp.

Hell, the anthrax was mailed from about a mile away from here and all our mail comes through that post office. Funny thing though, I never much cottoned to the idea that Saddam was behind it.

[DrFunkenstein]

105. Way To Answer The Question Champ

And who the hell said Saddam was behind the anthrax scare. Not that it was on anything resembling the scale of the WTC attacks.

[CWebster]

107. Oh...sorry

I thought all Muslim Iraqi Arabs were all the same tewwowist.

[DrFunkenstein]

113. Well That Part Is True

Which is why I support Kerry's promise that if elected, he will nuke the place for morbid. It's the only way to be sure.

[ProfessorPlum]

115. . . . let god sort 'em out.

Yeeeeehaaaaw!

[DrFunkenstein]

116. Not Saying We Wouldn't Get Our Hair Mussed...

<>

[renie408]

108. 70% of Americans polled

think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I just heard that on NPR this morning. Bush was doing his level best to say, "Gosh, I have NO idea where they got that from!" But it makes me wonder how all those people who got the idea from Bushco are going to feel now that he is backpedaling.

I know this has nothing to do with anthrax, I just thought I would throw it in.

[Fabio]

109. That was your answer?

Are you in preschool?
Do you work for Saddam's PR company?

People who cant understand that Saddam Hussein was a bad man DESPITE that fact that George Bush Jr. thinks he is a bad man dont do it for me.

But thank you for ruining the thread. I have to report back to the elders on Free Republic and tell them that our ploy to fragment the democratic base with the IWR vote is working perfectly...

[CWebster]

123. "Teddy Kennedy says Iraq War Case a 'Fraud'"

"The case for going to war against Iraq was a fraud 'made up in Texas' to give Republicans a political boost, Sen. Edward Kennedy said Thursday...

The Massachusetts Democrat also expressed doubts about how serious a threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States in its battle against terrorism. He said administration officials relied on 'distortion, misrepresentation, a selection of intelligence' to justify their case for war.


'There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud,' Kennedy said."




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030918/ap_on_go_co/kennedy_iraq&cid=512&ncid=1480


:hi:

[Fabio]

126. I agree with that statement.

I think almost everyone left of center does. So does John Kerry. But that doesn't mean he thought that saddam hussein shouldn't have had to live up to his obligations he signed at the end of the Persian Gulf War.

[DrFunkenstein]

129. Isso Mesmo

Exactly.

"Saddam's deception has defeated (UNSCOM's) effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

...

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."

-Bill Clinton, 1998.