A Theory On Why People 'Can't See' Kerry's Stance On The War

[Zhade]

Mind you, this is a personal, untested theory, so I though I'd throw it out to the DU crowd, see it if resonantes...

I hear a lot of people say that they can't tell Kerry's stance on the war, that he changes his mind, vacillates, "flip-flops".

To me, his support for this war has been crystal-clear, ever since he voted to give a known liar authority to go to war against a country that was obviously (even at the time) not a threat to the United States in any way. As many hardcore Kerry supporters have said on these very boards, Kerry was never an anti-war candidate.

His stance has not really wavered. Kerry says "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time", but now that b*sh has "fucked up" the illegal invasion and occupation of a country that did not attack or threaten to attack us, we have to "win the peace" by "training Iraqis faster" and "not holding back in places like Falluja".

Okay, so we can likely all agree that Kerry's been consistent in his position. I disagree very much with that position, but I would never try to say I don't understand his stance. I believe I do.

I think that many who say they can't tell his stance on the war are really not confused about where he stands, but in fact wish he had a different stance on the war. I think, with the total clusterfuck that is the illegal war on Iraq, many people who want to support Kerry have this stumbling block - they want to vote for someone who is clearly against the war, they don't see either candidate getting us out ASAP, and they're blocking themselves from realizing that, no matter who gets into office, we'll still be in Iraq for a while (the length of time depends on the winner in November). "I can't tell his stance on the war" is, in effect, a defensive mechanism against realizing that we're stuck in Iraq, and it's going to take a lot of work to get us out.

Or I could be way off. What do you think?

EDIT: Subject line

[Roland99]

1. They're just lazy

and don't want to have to actually think and listen.

They want their opinions handed to them via a GOP email.

[Zhade]

2. Even the "undecided" voters?

Like I said, I could be way off. This was just a thought I had while going to sleep, after watching the debate on C-Span and hearing callers say they "couldn't see Kerry's stance on the war".

[Roland99]

4. IMHO, the undecideds are...

people who were for Bush before but now don't want to support him but still believe the Bush campaign rhetoric about Kerry.

Or, they are staunchly anti-war and aren't hearing from Kerry what they'd hoped to hear (as they would have from Dean.)

[tedoll78]

16. That was my gut instinct.

Laziness.

It's not too hard to go online and read-up on what the candidates advocate. With even a few hours' worth of investment, a pretty good picture of each candidate can be painted. A few hours of reading can cover so much more ground than that same time spent watching cable news. These folks are intellectually LAZY. Kinda like the Chimp.

[Zhade]

3. It's all tied up! Kick for theory-testing.

Kick!

[emulatorloo]

5. 1. your analysis of Kerry's position is inaccurate, IMHO and 2. Some just

don't want to understand it because it gives them an excuse to dismiss Kerry and vote Bush.

My analysis of Kerry's position

Vote to give Bush authority to use force, which Bush asked for while promising to use the united voice of Congress as leverage to work w UN, threaten Saddam, get inspectors back in, etc- Bush promising to go to war as a last resort.

Bush broke that promise.

That's what Kerry said from day one and is still saying.

[Zhade]

6. Your analysis of my analysis is inaccurate.

:)

We disagree on the stance, but agree he is consistent.

Thanks for kicking this up!

[emulatorloo]

10. But you confuse "war as a last resort" as "support for the war"

or being "pro-war," which I just don't believe is accurate.

and furthermore you call Dean "anti-war" when Dean himself never characterizes himself that way. . . .(OOPS ON EDIT THAT WASN'T YOU WHO SAID THAT!)


At any rate, happy to kick yr thread! :hi:

[Zhade]

14. 1. Thank you for realizing I didn't mention Dean.

Coulda gotten messy! :)

2. To suggest that Kerry could not have known b*sh would abuse his authority (not that you said this, mind you, this is a general statement), when even I knew he would, is to ask me to believe John Kerry is an idiot. He may be many things, but an idiot surely is not one of them.

I'm sorry, but I will never be able to accept that Kerry didn't know better, because I knew better. I believe it was a politically expedient vote, and I wish he'd never cast his vote that way.

That said, the time to hammer him is once he's in office - and if he governs from the center-right the way he talks from the center-right, believe me, I and millions of others will most assuredly hammer him.

[sangh0]

17. I think you deliberately misunderstand Kerry's position

because you don't want to believe that Kerry could have thought that bush* would have kept the promise he made in public to the American public.

To suggest that Kerry could not have known b*sh would abuse his authority (not that you said this, mind you, this is a general statement), when even I knew he would, is to ask me to believe John Kerry is an idiot. He may be many things, but an idiot surely is not one of them.

You seem unable to consider that Kerry, who has been speaking out about removing the threat Saddam posed since 1998, would be in favor of regime change in Iraq.

IOW, I think there's some truth in your theory

[Zhade]

19. Yeah, I mean, Kerry should trust a guy who stole the White House.

He should trust a guy who was a proven liar and thief.

Kerry's no idiot. To trust a guy like b*sh, who has a guy like Michael Ledeen - an Iran-Contra felon (Kerry investigated Iran-Contra, remember) - formulating foreign policy as a member of the NSC, is idiotic. Kerry's not idiotic.

We disagree on how we see Kerry's vote. That's fine, reasonable people can disagree. You can wrongly believe that I'm deliberately misunderstanding Kerry's position all you'd like. I respect your right to believe something you have no idea is true.

Sure, it's not polite to imply I'm a liar, but I expect that from you, so it's not something to worry about.

[arewenotdemo]

25. It WAS a politically expedient vote

He felt he had to after voting "no" back in 1991, since he planned to run for the White House.

Think about it. We all wish he had voted differently, but if he had do you really think he would be in a position to win now?

Even given the "catastrophic success" Bush's Iraq adventure has become, the Nazis would have simply repeated endlessly that Kerry would never make the tough choices necessary after 9/11 to protect America.

And if Kerry's pretzel logic regarding Saddam ("He was a threat.") is driving you as crazy as it is me, I'd suggest that we look at how the undecided sheeple may read it. To state the truth and deny that Saddam was a threat at all would trigger charges of weakness.

It's a tightrope but Kerry's walking it.

[Ready4Change]

9. And THAT is what Kerry needs to say.

When Bush asked congress for authority he promised he would exercise all other options, and gather a full coalition, before going to war. Kerry, as a good American, trusted his President and voted to give him Authority.

Then Bush Broke his promise. He exercised other options in the shallowest manner possible, grabbed a spare coalition he had handy, and threw us into combat.

Bush broke his promise to congress and the American people, thus violating our trust, and lost any obligation we might have felt to support him in the future.

[LittleClarkie]

20. Exactly. Read "A New War"

Since 1997 at least Kerry has spoken about Sadaam.

Here's another source for what Kerry was saying about Sadaam during that time on the Senate floor. The far right thinks that this speech damns Kerry. It doesn't. It shows how consistent he is.

Go here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r105query.html, and paste this "S12256" into the search field. You are looking for "We must be firm with Sadaam Hussein."

Or look at the link from my sig: www.kerryoniraqwar.com.

The point is he is not speaking for political expediency. To suggest this is insulting to John Kerry. He believes what he says, and he is speaking the truth as he knows it. What's more, he knows what he's talking about. But rather than a regime change, I believe he wanted to see Sadaam held accountable for the agreement he made to end the first war. That meant diplomacy first to force Hussein to allow the inspectors to do their work.

I've seen quotes from Kerry after the vote but before the betrayal. He was trying hard to believe the president. He went around after the vote telling his fellow Senators that he believed what the president had said, and that they had not just necessarily voted for war.

Think about it. In light of 9/11, it's almost unfathomable that a president would use that tragedy for politics. That was the ultimate betrayal in my eyes. Even now, I can't seem to get very many people to believe that the Bush administration is that evil. It defies belief.

Kerry is angry now. You can tell, because Kerry even went and stood where the president stood in Ohio in early September when he said he would go into Iraq as a last resort, that he would have a coalition, and that he would send forces large enough to get the job done. Kerry talked about that promise, standing in that same spot, and talked about how none of these things were done.

Please, please don't hammer him as soon as he gets in office. If you believe he is an honest man with a good heart who will make the right decision, whatever that decision turns out to be based on the information he will have as president, then we must give him time to do that right thing. He has a love for veterans and the military. He won't leave those people in there a second more than is necessary. I have faith in him. I wish everyone did.

We can't just leave Iraq with the cluster fuck we created. We must try to fix Bush's mistake and leave them with some semblance of a country. It would be selfish to at this point say "See ya. Bye," because we have no stomach for what our current president has done to that country.

Even so, I'm hoping that our country can give John Kerry the "honeymoon" he will need.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Cool. In the archives I found more links.

Interesting reading for a newbie back there in late December 2003.

This is a letter to the NYT that Kerry wrote after his vote:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg95577.html

And a good thread on the subject from DU at about the same time. You may have to run your mouse over the thomas.gov links and try to see what search criteria mb was using, because the links apparently only work for a short time on that site. But still, mb wrote a good post way back then. Here's is a link to it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1895&mesg_id=1895

[Ready4Change]

7. Other: Your theory is right for the more anti-war liberal crowd.

I think there is a similar mental block those on the right are suffering from, which hinders them from understanding Kerry's position.

Their block comes from how they absolutely connect support of the war with support of all things Bush. When Kerry says he agrees Saddam was a threat, but that Bush went about removing him in a poor way, fuses fry in right wingers brains. Does not compute.

[intheflow]

8. "Other - kindly specify"

I think many Americans are afraid that if they admit this war is wrong, they will have to admit that they themselves have been wrong. And not only wrong, but morally responsible for blindly supporting what has turned out to be an immoral war. I honestly think people cannot "own" what they "broke" (to paraphrase Kerry) because to do so would put their entire self-image (and salvation) at risk.

[AntiFascist]

22. I think many in Congress were swept up in the emotion of the...

electorate, post 9/11. Recall that after 9/11 no one dared criticize the administration. This is the point in time when it became ingrained in the collective consciousness that there was a link between Sadaam and 9/11. I was highly critical of going to war in Iraq at the time that this was being discussed, but I also remember feeling that I was part of a small minority.

In a way, Kerry is lucky that he can structure his decisions along such a logical line of argument that he is taking. Only recently, when the post Iraq invasion environment began to look like a big problem did the anti-war movement begin to be taken seriously. People don't want Iraq to end up in worse shape than before when Sadaam was in control. It's not just an ego thing, it means that we let something like the 9/11 attacks get under our skin and make us do something crazy, kind of like the way Bush behaves during the debates. Kerry needs to distance himself from Bush, but he can't distance himself very well from the will of the American people.

[LittleClarkie]

27. We need to remember

the atmosphere just a short while ago.

I remember feeling like I needed to go to Canada or somewhere in 2000. Even then, I wasn't much for Gore; I was ABB. I was also lazy and hadn't felt motivated to check out both sides very closely. I just went with the normal family affiliation.

But even I tried hard post-9/11 to support the president. I appreciated it when he went into a mosque with his shoes off (as you should on holy ground) to say we had to respect our Arab neighbors in this country. I, normally something of a vague peacenik, supported him as he went into Afghanistan. When Iraq came up I, though still woefully underinformed, guardedly supported the president, swayed in part by Powell. But even then I was thinking "Okay buddy. There better be a reason for this. YOU DO NOT HAVE A BLANK CHECK DATED 9/11.

(When, in the primaries, Wesley Clark echoed that statement, he became my guy. )

My point is, though I'm sure Kerry was more informed, I think he was also trying hard to give the president the same benefit. I wonder when his particular cracking point was.

Mine came somewhere between hearing the Iraqi mission go from WMD to liberation (because it spun better), and when I starting hearing about the detainees in Guantanamo. Abu Ghairab only confirmed my worst fears.

Some of you were on the ball from the beginning. For some us political newbies, it was more of an awakening.

As often as he mentions them, I think Tora Bora and "Mission Accomplished" both played a role in Kerry's awakening. As someone more informed on this subject than I, I don't know why he chose to support the president. Did he realize just how corrupt the Bushs are?

I think he was hopeful. I don't think that he wanted to believe that anyone would consider playing politics with such a serious and emotional subject. Maybe he thought the son was more like the father. Maybe he thought the situation would bring out the better part of the boy king. Maybe he bought the intelligence too, as he said. I dunno. I think he wanted to support the president and give him a chance, a honeymoon if you will. Well, the honeymoon is over, and has been for a while.

I think he's angry as hell at this administration. So am I. When I heard a song on the radio recently that I associate with 9/11, I burst into tears. I had to go sit down. I didn't know I was still that raw about the subject. To believe for myself, and to try to tell others that this adminstration are playing politics with the worst day in recent memory for alot of us, I get looks of utter disbelief. It's almost inconceivably evil. Some days I still can't get my head wrapped all the way around it.

I do not, and will not, believe that Kerry himself is playing politics. He's trying to explain a very complex subject in terms that will play on the campaign trail, but he has NOT changed his position.

I'm just glad my guy Wesley is by his side, helping. I only wish Kerry would have been our president four years ago. He would have done the right thing, and been magnificent. Now he's got to take yet another thankless job, his latest in a string of thankless jobs, and try to clean up "Operation FUBAR." I hope that the American people will be able to support him as he does so, sickened as we are with the whole subject.

(looks up at novel/post) So, does becoming a Kerry supporter make you drone like a senator? Or do I just need more coffee?

[AntiFascist]

31. My breaking point came at the height of Gulf War I.....

I'm fascinated reading others' accounts of how their feelings evolved about the Iraq war, especially from the younger people.

I first became interested in world politics as a young college student during the Reagan years. Although I didn't much appreciate Reagan's domestic policies, I threw my support behind vitually every move he made in foreign policy which I felt, at the time, had much higher priority. He and Gorbachev ended the Cold War, and began dealing with the problem of ME roque states. I did have serious concerns about the Star Wars missile defense system and felt the Repubs had started to lose it in trying to validate its funding.

When Bush I came on the scene I gave him the benefit of the doubt. When the Gulf War started, I was working from home at the time and became glued to CNN mesmerized with the inner workings of the military and the way the stealth bombers worked in conjunction with targeting satellites. The voice of Darth Vader ("This is CNN") seemed to herald the coming of the New World Order.

After a while I began to notice something disturbing, that the Gulf War was becoming more of a demonstration to the U.S. public and the rest of the world of American superiority, than it was a means of targeting Saddam Hussein. As the infrastructure of Iraq became totally devastated I channeled my anger into a nasty letter to the president, warning him that he was inflaming anti-US sentiment in the Arab world and possibly leaving us open to future retribution. You could see the anger in mass demonstrations where effigies of "Boosh" were being burned along with the American flag. At that time, I was part of a very small anti-war minority in the US.

After the end of the Gulf War and the ensuing sanctions were put in place, up to 1 million Iraqi's died due to this disruption and the failure of Saddam to provide for his people. Saddam was totally blamed for the situation and Americans seemed to care very little.

Fast forward to 9/11/01. Like most others at the time, I assumed that there was some link between Iraq and the hijackers. My initial feeling was anger toward the Bush family and the administration, and that they should have known better...

Hope I didn't drone on too long.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

11. Other: Anglo-Saxon warrior culture

The WASP, a minority in my state but hegemonic in the national culture, evolved in the icy peat bogs of Northern Europe. His only hope of bettering his lot was to steal his neighbor's cattle or invade some gentler culture's land.

While the rest of us go, huh? the most powerful ethnic group in the country are swelling with race-memory when they hear the shrub touting dogged determination and demanding heroic sacrifices from them. Yes, you heard it in Hitler's speeches, but it's older than that. It's the same cant that sent Danes over freezing seas just to slaughter peaceful Irish monks.

Sorry if I seem to be offending your ethnicity--I am willing to talk similar shit about any of my ethnicities if it will make you feel better.

[Zhade]

13. A very interesting answer!

And no need to worry about offending my ethnicity - I'm pretty mixed, so you'd have to specify which ethnicity you were offending. ;)

[cheshire]

12. My thought when I'm faced with someone who is doing something

wrong (in my opinion) is they are ignorant or blind, hateful, or whatever fits the situation. There is a reason they will not see.

[Disturbed]

15. Bush broke his promise to congress and the American people,

Kerry believed that Saddam must be removed. He knew that Bush would invade Iraq. To say that he trusted Bush is to have us believe that Kerry is gullible, naive or just dumb. We know that Kerry is none of those. Kerry made a bad judgement call. Now the issue is what is to done about the Iraq debacle. I don't feel that Kerry's plan at this time is workable but I would rather have him grapple with Iraq than GW Bush. In six more months things in Iraq might be a whole lot different than they are now.

[ogsball]

18. It's a repub talking point simple nt

[Bullshot]

23. Part of it is that they've heard Bush say what Kerry's stance is for weeks

and now, when they have the opportunity to see and hear Kerry tell it himself, it's different than Bush's version, but they want to believe Bush, so they just concede that they're confused.

Another percentage just doesn't want to hear the other side. They'll vote for a Hitler/Stalin ticket if they're Republican.

[TexasSissy]

24. No. I think they really don't understand it. It's a nuanced view..and

Kerry has not done a good job of communicating it. He hasn't used the right, brief, strong words to clearly state his position. I've gathered what his position is by watching him do so many stump speeches (and with a little help from Al Franken), but the average person doesn't do that. I understand why others don't understand it. It's not an anti-war or pro-war easily understood position. It needs explaining.

His answer about he'd vote again the same way, given what we know now, is also not contrary to his view that he would not bomb Iraq now, given what we know. I only know this, though, because Franken explained it. Kerry has not bothered to clearly enunciate this. You have to listen to his statements VERY carefully to get it, and most people don't (even me).

[LittleClarkie]

26. I wouldn't say he hasn't bothered

Kerry's problem is he wants to tell you everything so you will have some idea of where he's coming from. He almost knows too much on the subject.

Voting for the authority to give the president a strong position from which to negotiate is not the same as saying go and bombing Iraq. The Republicans have such a hard time with this, but it ain't that deep. Holding Sadaam accountable doesn't have to me going to war with him. Reaching that stage is a failure, not a success.

Kerry wanted there to be muscle behind the president's words. He would want any president to have that strong position from which to negotiate, including himself.

He expected the president to do what he said he was going to -- go in as a last resort, go in numbers large enough to get the job done and go in with an actual coalition.

My favorite anology so far is that Kerry gave the president the keys to the car, expecting him to use the vehicle of state in a responsible fashion. That the president chose to wrap it around a tree instead is not Kerry's fault.

[tblue37]

28. The media keep telling them

they can't understand Kerry's "excesssively nuanced" stance on the war, so they assume it must be incomprehensible and don't even bother looking at it.

[spooky3]

29. I largely agree w you--same goes for their views toward Edwards'

stance. The only thing that I don't know if I agree with is how clear you think it was that Bush was completely and knowingly lying about critical conditions in Iraq in advance, how different was the info Kerry had before had versus what he now has, etc.

[DjTj]

30. No, everyone who says "flip-flopper" supports the war...

...I've never heard anybody who is against the war say they won't vote for Kerry because he's a flip-flopper.