If any Democrat ever has to answer again the pivotal question

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

that took down John Kerry:

Knowing now what you know today, would you vote to authorize the War in Iraq? Say NO, NO a thousand times NO. Say, I was blinded but I see the light.

Do not slay yourself with the stupid semantic sword that you only voted to "authorize" the President to use force if it were needed.

Everyone in America knows this was a mistake.
We all know that we were all lied to. It was all about WMDs all the time.To say you only voted to authorize if necessary is a distinction without a difference. Follow Gephardt's lead. Say you were wrong. Say you trusted the Administration. Say if you had to do it all over again, if you knew then the kind of lying, pocket-lining weasels, they are, Hell No you wouldn't vote the same way. Get over it. Stand up.

[babylonsister]

1. Stand Up! YES!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[misternormal]

2. No then...

No now...

[globalvillage]

3. Like this?

<snip>
Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. great great link! but even so

But even so, America does not understand nuance. That's why a simple question "knowing now . . .blah blah blah " does not call for justification of your initial response, because the question pre-supposes that NOW WE ALL KNOW WE WERE WRONG.

That's where Kerry gets it wrong and that's where everyone still gets it wrong. We don't require justification for past stupidity, we want an acknowlegement that we(you) know we(you) were wrong and that WE(you) WILL RECOGNIZE IT IN THE FUTURE!!!!

If you can't recognize it now, then you are lost, lost beyond all redemption.

[LittleClarkie]

6. What sucked is that he was asked that at the Grand Canyon

and he lost half the question in the wind. He thought he was getting the standard question and was giving the standard answer. So sayeth the Boston Globe. The aides didn't want to correct the mistake for fear of making it even worse.

But then I've heard a different version of the story that has the Globe pulling the quote out of context, so I'm not completely certain. But considering Kerry's not an idiot, I figure SOMETHING goofy happened.

[Mass]

5. To think this guy could be president

if the media had reported correctly his campaign.

BTW kudos to Gephardt. Given he negotiatied the deal with Bush and supported it totally, it is probably very difficult for him to say he was wrong.

[MrModerate]

7. I never trusted Bush, so I wasn't laboring under the same . . .

misapprehension that Kerry was: that Bush was an honorable man. Kerry IS a nuanced person, and the declaration WAS to authorize force IF NECESSARY.

Well, it wasn't necessary, and democracy-at-the-muzzle-of-a-gun is a repulsive concept, and they FUBARed the whole thing anyway.

However, the posters here are right: 'Murricans don't do nuance very well, which is why you need someone like, well, Clinton, to marry nuance and emotion in a way that the people get it. Kerry -- for all his notable virtues -- could never do that.

The "Bush fucked me over and I'm mad as hell" response ought to work pretty well by now.