Was Ted Kennedy right to vote against the IWR...

[CTLawGuy]

or was Kerry right to vote FOR it? These are two mutually exclusive propositions, so you cannot say they are both right.

You are either in favor of it or against it, you cannot be both for it AND against it at the same time.

So which is it?

[Zynx]

1. Why are we still having this discussion?

The primaries are over so stop trying to promote infighting.

[CTLawGuy]

3. well

because people here are trying to justify Kerry's IWR vote, and I want to express a different view of that vote.


I am voting for Kerry, but I will NEVER excuse that vote, NEVER.

I don't care what he said at the time, talk is cheap, and he failed when it came to action. He enabled a war-mad president to invade a defenseless nation.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Talk is cheap

Yes, indeed -- it is!

--bkl

[TexasSissy]

135. I agree. This is nice for background chit chat. But the fact is that we

are in Iraq now. So the subject is now how to "win" there and get out as quickly as possible, while staying away from wars with Syria and Iran.

[WI_DEM]

2. Of course Ted Kennedy was correct to vote against it

He saw the evidence same as Kerry and understood what Bush's motives are and he voted against authorizing a madman to have that kind of power. So did people like Robert Byrd and Russ Feingold. My feeling is that the vote on Kerry and Edwards behalf was partially political becuz they both knew they would be running for president.

[emulatorloo]

4. Kennedy can understand Kerry's vote. . .why can't you?

I am proud of Kennedy for his vote. Good for him

I can understand Kerry's vote too. He is against weapons proliferation, always has been, always will be.

The bushes said they needed IWR to put pressure on Saddam to disarm. They said they would do everything possible to let inspectors do their job, to get the UN on board with sanctions to get Saddam to disarm, and invasion to disarm as a last resort etc etc,

Bush was WRONG - for not using diplomacy, for not using the inspectors, for rushing to war.

[CTLawGuy]

5. what I can't understand is

how you can be both for and against something at the same time.

How would YOU have voted on IWR?

[emulatorloo]

8. Don't know - I wasn't in the Senate

I was going on the lame-o speeches of GWB, so I was extremely skeptical.

BUt if I had been in the Senate - I would have been shown the "foolproof" evidence. Even Wes Clark has said he believed Rummy when Rummy said they knew where 85% of the WMDs were.

And if Colin Powell personally gave me his word that the reasonable guys were in charge and every diplomatic path would be followed and invasion would only be the last resort, then who knows? Of course now we know Powell was out of the loop.

[CTLawGuy]

9. I wasnt in the senate either

a shocker I know ;)

but I would have said, ok, he may have WMD, so lets present this to the UN and let the inspectors find them. In fact, we should tell them where these weapons are.

Ill vote for a war resolution, only when I am convinced we actually need to use it, and NOT BEFORE.

[emulatorloo]

14. Threat of force to show seriousness, but Bush ABUSED it

basically what you are arguing for was what it was about, but Bush Abused it.

[CTLawGuy]

23. no, it was the authority to go to war

which Kerry had a responsibility NOT to hand out until absolutely necessary.

If this were a "Sense of Congress Resolution" that the UN should send inspectors in, which no war authority, I could understand his vote. But this gave Bush a blank check to wage war.

[Jai4WKC08]

101. Yes but....

"Even Wes Clark has said he believed Rummy when Rummy said they knew where 85% of the WMDs were."

Yes, but Clark knew Iraq didn't have the delivery means to threaten the US and hadn't seen the evidence that an attack on a neighbor was imminent. He didn't support giving Bush a blank check, which is what Congress did in the version of the IWR they passed.

Maybe that was the only choice Kerry was given in a Repub-controlled Senate. But you still have to wonder how much was concern for WMD and how much was about keeping happy constituents hungry for war.

[CTLawGuy]

103. it was a DEM controlled senate in 2002.

NT

[Jai4WKC08]

106. Oops. Right you are...

For some reason, I was thinking the vote was in 2003. My bad.

[sandnsea]

6. Well hell yes you can

Jesus. Kerry decided a threat of force was necessary to get the UN to act on weapons inspectors, Kennedy didn't. Different people can come to different conclusions on how to accomplish a task. It doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong, it just means different approaches.

[CTLawGuy]

7. so you can both

be for legalized abortion and be in favor of jailing doctors for performing them? Are they "different approaches" that are both correct?

No sale.

I don't care what Kerry thought. I'm sure he didn't want this war to happen. He is not a war monger. However, he was WRONG to cast the vote he did. I would have voted no, and I believe my vote would have been correct. Therefore, the opposite vote, I would believe to be wrong.

Also, did you hold your current opinion on this matter in 2002?

[emulatorloo]

10. Dumb analogy - it is not either/or

If somebody has a gun pointing at me, I can be for talking him down, or using force if that is the only thing that can be done to get the gun away.


(But of course, it turns out there was no gun. . . .and GWB broke his promises to see if there really was a gun and to talk him down if there was)

[CTLawGuy]

17. you can be for giving the president the power to wage war,

or against it.

All that talking down or using force, is pointless. I don't care what Kerry thought he was voting for. What he ACTUALLY voted for was to give the president the authority to go to war, and I believe, while well-intentioned, that was the wrong thing to do.

You cannot be both for giving the president authority and denying it to him at the same time.

[emulatorloo]

My city council authorizes the police to use force, but not to KILL FOR NO

REASON.

[CTLawGuy]

31. not the same thing

the resolution allowed Bush to do exactly what he did. A city council's force authorization does not allow for senseless killing. A police officer who did that, would be violating the law. Bush did not violate IWR with what he did.

[emulatorloo]

32. Are you sure? Because I am not so sure that Bush did not violate IWR

He certainly violated the country's trust. But you would rather blame Kerry.

[CTLawGuy]

35. I blame both of them.

If Bush violated IWR, then why is Kerry not saying so, and working for his prosecution under this law?

Stop accusing me of being Pro-Bush just because I criticize Kerry. Bush is at fault for going to war, and Kerry is at fault for letting him.

[emulatorloo]

40. You act as if they have equal responsibility, and that indicates a lack of

perspective.

If somebody lies to me, says they need a show of solidarity from me to stop a bad person from doing bad things, and then promises that in exchange for my expression of solidarity, they will do everything in their power to do the right thing, and then they break those promises, why do I bear equal responsibility for the bad things they have done?

(I am still looking for the NYT interview)

[CTLawGuy]

45. if he says that and then hands you a paper which says

"I approve of giving the other person the power to commit violence against the bad person, whenever he feels it's necessary." Sign here....


Do you sign that? Does that in any way relate to a "show of solidarity?"

[emulatorloo]

59. The President Takes an Oath Of Office

Others believed he was following that oath.

[CTLawGuy]

65. If we should be able to "trust" the President

lets scrap democracy and have a dictatorship. :eyes:

[emulatorloo]

68. Don't be ridiculous. . .

The president was not holding up his end of the bargain. He's not supposed to lie about imminent threat.

[CTLawGuy]

71. did YOU believe there was an imminent threat?

I didnt...

If there was really an imminent threat, why didnt Kerry expect Bush to immediately enter Iraq to quash it? In the presence of a true imminent threat, that is the best thing to do.

the war resolution vote was premature. You shouldnt cede war making power without ASSUMING the president will use it. And you dont cede that power unless the use of it is justified at that point.

there were other ways to get the inspectors in there.

[emulatorloo]

98. No I was skeptical, You and I are starting over again!!! see post #8

:toast:

[zoeyfong]

128. Hussein had been president for 24 years, and in that time he never

used WMDs against Americans, not even during the Gulf war, and he had never given WMDs to terrorists, and he had no significant, recent ties to anti-american terrorist groups. We had no new intelligence on Iraq since 1998, and yet we were supposed to believe that all of the sudden Sadaam Hussein was an immenent terrorist threat to America, of such a magnitude that it demanded a full scale invasion and regime change. Anybody who didn't smell a rat is simply to naieve to be running this country.

[zoeyfong]

126. The "Kerry trusted Bush" line is an embarassment both to kerry and

to the people asserting it. Please, this is a president who made it absolutely clear from day 1 that he held the UN in contempt, and who made it clear to anyone willing to see that he was determined to go to war against Iraq and depose sadaam hussein, *regardless* of the actual threat, and regardless of what concessions or cooperation hussein offered. These facts were obvious to most of the civilized world outside of america, and to millions of americans as well, but we're supposed to believe that kerry didn't have a clue what bush was up to. I'm sorry; my self-respect does not allow me to pretend that i believe that.

[zoeyfong]

125. He violated the country's trust??? Most americans wanted war,

and bush gave it to them. Of course most americans are ignorant, so possibly they could be excused; our 'leadership' should not be excuse - whether republican or democrat.

[sandnsea]

12. Two different situations

You put up a black/white scenario against one that isn't black/white.

A better comparison would being in favor of legalized abortion and being in favor of jailing people who intentionally and knowingly murder or attack women who are pregnant, particularly her stomach. A fundie would think it's counterintuitive, but it's not. Two different situations that require a person to hold two different trains of thought in their head at the same time.

And in Oct 2002, I did think a threat of force was necessary to get inspectors back into Iraq, I did think getting inspectors back in there was important, and if I had to vote, I may well have voted yes. It is very difficult to stand up and say you want to accomplish something and then not vote in favor of the only path available to make it happen. Others came to a different conclusion. People of good faith can disagree. Anybody who voted yes and was prepared to go to war just for the purpose of regime change, that I disagree with and that intention would have made it the wrong vote. Joe Lieberman was wrong to vote yes because his intention was always regime change.

[CTLawGuy]

15. but the effect is the same!

Both Lieberman's and Kerry's votes had the same effect. Effect is what I care about.

[sandnsea]

18. Because of George Bush

He's the one that stood up and told YOU that there were no war plans on his desk, that no decision had been made to go to war, that he was going to work with the UN and inspections process. GEORGE BUSH SAID THAT. HE DIDN'T DO THAT. The result, war, is because George Bush lied and is also a complete disaster at implementing foreign policy and military strategy. Look at Afghanistan. He didn't implement a successful strategy there either. George Bush is the fuck-up, hold him accountable for it.

[CTLawGuy]

21. If you give...

a child a beer and tell him not to drink it, should you be surprised when he does?

Can you blame the kid himself and say "I had no idea he was actually going to drink it! Yes, I gave him the beer, but so what, I explicitly told him not to drink it."

[sandnsea]

28. George Bush isn't a child

He's the goddamned President of the United States. Never in this country's history has the President of the United States lied and bullied and pushed to war and ignored the entire world. NEVER. You keep making this election about that vote and we'll lose, AGAIN.

[CTLawGuy]

33. but Congress is like the president's parent

a parent acts as a check and balance on the child's behavior, because that child cannot be trusted with absolute freedom. Each branch of government is the other's parent, making sure they behave in a moral way. In this manner, Congress needed to keep Bush from abusing his war making powers. We have balance of powers in the constitution partially for this reason.

It was not the intentions of the founding fathers that Congress allow the president to go off on a tangent and then sit around pointing the finger at him. That's why Art. I sec. 8 grants Congress the power to declare war.

[sandnsea]

39. The CiC STILL deploys troops

A President does not HAVE to deploy troops, even if Congress Declares War. That is a President's decision completely, the when, how, where and why. All of it. The President is the Commander in Chief. When the President deploys troops, the President is accountable for the results.

[CTLawGuy]

46. Congress must be a check on the president

they have a responsibility. Separation of powers would be pointless if everyone just said "well, Ill let the other guy make an ass out of himself."

[zoeyfong]

127. Bush is responsible for his own actions; Kerry is responsible for his.

No one is saying that Bush is *not* responsible; they are just saying that those congressmembers who gave bush's war their support are also responsible.

[emulatorloo]

34. Another Thread appears to be applicable here

How Long Will Bush Voters Fall for the "Not His Fault" defense?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2010679

Somehow nothing is Bush's fault. . .

[Zidane]

141. You've just lost credibility

"Never in this country's history has the President of the United States lied and bullied"

Nixon was an angel in this regard. So was Raygun. Want more examples?

[TeacherCreature]

144. For some of us the election is about that vote

Lying about it is not helping me feel better about Kerry. The fact that some of you are willing to go all Orwellian to cover-up for Kerry's mistake makes me dispair that anything will be different with Kerry in office. At least when bush lies to me I have the option of saying he is full of shit.

97. it was not the only path available

You say
" It is very difficult to stand up and say you want to accomplish something and then not vote in favor of the only path available to make it happen."

That's the fallacy.
It was not the only path available.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Put it this way

Have you ever been wrong about something you did in good faith? People disagree all the time, and everyone can't be right when there are disagreements. Since no one is always right, simply arguing that you can point out one or more cases, even important ones, where you feel others have been wrong serves no useful purpose. It serves a purpose only if you are using those instances to argue that someone's overall judgment should not be trusted, or if you are arguing that someone should not be considered overall a friend or ally because of their wrong choices etc. So, is that what you are saying about Kerry?.

I'm not saying that sorting out political decisions previously made, for better or worse, is not important. I'm just trying to view this in context. Right now Kerry - Edwards is the Democratic ticket against Bush - Cheney. This is a campaign Forum. I disagreed with the choices made by both Kerry and Edwards on the IWR. That pales beside Bush and Cheney dragging us into an unnecessary war poorly prepared and poorly executed. Let the Republicans go after Kerry about so called flip flops. I won't. I think Kerry has a much clearer and better vision of what the U.S. needs to do and not do in the World than Bush has.

[CTLawGuy]

20. Im voting for Kerry

I want him to apologize for voting for IWR. Sadly, he won't do it. However, Im annoyed that people, who back in 2002 were dead set against the war and the IWR, are now justifying Kerry's vote.

You don't need to do that in order to support him, unless it's to soothe your own conscience.

[emulatorloo]

24. In 2002 I thought IWR was an up/down vote to invade

I was really uniformed though, because it wasn't.


PS The GOP is praying for Kerry to "apologize" so they can twist it out of context. An "apology"to them will mean that Kerry is unwilling to defend the US from nuclear threat.

[CTLawGuy]

25. thats a stupid reason not to apologize

the Pugs will drag his name through the mud no matter what. they managed to turn his Vietnam service into a liability for a while there.

[emulatorloo]

27. Let me put it another way

The principal was right (defending the US from imminent threat)
The application was wrong (Saddam had no WMDs, Bush abused his power)

Why should Kerry grovel for the way George Bush abused the principal?

Kerry has given a very good answer in the NYT interview on 7/10. It is hard for me to find but I will look for it and post it in another Post if I can find it.

[CTLawGuy]

36. I agree that Kerry's application was wrong

but his intent was right (mostly. I think he also intended to shed the "Mass. Liberal" label)

[emulatorloo]

42. Bush is the one who blew the application. . .

he was supposed to pursue diplomacy, let the inspectors in to do their job etc/

If he had done those things, no WMDs. No Invasion.

Bush is the one who rushed to war, not John Kerry.

[CTLawGuy]

44. why didnt john kerry do his

Constitutional duty to stop him?

[emulatorloo]

47. Here is NYT interview

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/politics/campaign/11TEXT.html?pagewanted=1

Q.What if the vote were today?


KERRY: Look, the vote is not today and that's it. I agree completely with Senator Edwards. It's a waste of time. It's not what this is about. We voted the way we voted based on the information in front of us, based on that moment in time. And it was the right vote at that time based on that information. Period. And this president not only abused the intelligence and the information, for which he is responsible, not just Mr. Tenet - not just the vice president, not Secretary Rumsfeld - the president. You know, Harry Truman's sign didn't say, "The buck stops at the Pentagon," or "The buck stops at the intelligence agency," and the fact is that we authorized the president to use force in a responsible way, and I have said for months, you know, I have said it to you, I have said it across the country: this president abused the authority that he was given, by abusing his own promises to the country as to how he would build a coalition and how he would go to war.

Q.Did he mislead you, did he mislead Congress, you, and the American people?

KERRY: Over a period of time, there were a number of misleading statements made by the president. He certainly misled America about nuclear involvement. And he misled America about the types of weapons that were there, and he misled America about how he would go about using the authority he was given. "Going to war as a last resort" means something to me. The president did not go to war as a last resort, period. Moreover it's the responsibility of a president, if you are going to go to war, having said we're going to do all that's necessary, to do all that's necessary. He didn't. Because he had no plan for winning the peace. It is utterly extraordinary the level of miscalculation of this administration, as to what they would find in Iraq and what was going to be necessary. They discarded their own professional military evaluations, from General Shinseki and others, they disrespected professional military careers, turned their backs on their own State Department's plans, and arrogantly believed. . . . And they were wrong. And soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong. And America's paying -billions of dollars because they were wrong, and allies are not with us because they were wrong. I think there is no greater responsibility of the president of the United States.

[CTLawGuy]

48. thats nice

but it does not contain an apology for his Yes vote. thats all I care about on this issue.

Both he and Edwards stood by their votes.

[emulatorloo]

58. He won't "apologize" for a vote to defend the US from an imminent threat

Turns out the threat wasn't imminent. He is holding Bush accountable for lying about it, and breaking his word.

[CTLawGuy]

64. thats not what the vote was about

as Ive said a billion times.

It was a vote to give Bush war making powers.

[TeacherCreature]

116. ahhhhh the big lie

sat it enough and people will believe it is true. It's worked well on you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. "that's all I care about on this issue"

I don't take you literally, but that's the whole point. There IS more to care about regarding the messs in Iraq than whether one or both of our candidates "apologize" over a vote that they made in the past, no matter how important that vote was. There is how our Democratic ticket will manage the actual current situation in Iraq compared to how the Republican Administration "is". There is whether or not he U.S. finds a pretense to invade Iran or Syria in 2005. There is whether or not th U.S. makes the real efforts needed to repair our international standing and alliances fractured over Bush's Iraq invasion. The November elections will decide that. And that of course is only speaking about the mess in Iraq.

Rightly or wrongly Kerry and Edwards either don't feel an apology over their IWR votes is needed, or they don't think one would be helpful in their effort to get elected in November. I'm moving on regarding it.

[emulatorloo]

53. He's trying to Stop Bush - He is trying to DEFEAT GWB for the presidency

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

Interview: John Kerry with William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Interview

 Monday 22 December 2003

snip

But I felt my decision was absolutely consistent with the counter-proliferation efforts I have been making as a Senator for my entire career. I felt proliferation was a critical issue. I thought a President ought to get inspectors back into Iraq. I thought a President ought to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. But I knew how to do it right, and my regret is that this President proved he not only didn?t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn?t have, obviously.


  Put it this way: Given the circumstances we were in at the time, the decision was appropriate, but in retrospect I will never trust the man again. That?s why I am running against him. He deserves to be replaced with someone who is trustworthy.

snip

[zoeyfong]

124. So why didn't he dissent when the war started, when presumably

he thought that inspections should be continuing? Did any of the democrats who voted yes on IWR say "I oppose this war at this time" when the war started? Of course not; they were too busy declaring that they stood "shoulder to shoulder" with the then popular president.

[sunny5555]

11. It hardly matters,

Bush was going to war no matter what. Also Democrats could never have had the votes to defeat it. So what is your point?

[CTLawGuy]

13. the point is he should have stood up to Bush

even if it wouldnt have mattered, maybe support for the war would not have been as strong among the people if there was a stronger opposition.

[sandnsea]

26. Two things

Kerry consistently talked to the American people about slowing down on the Iraq situation, giving diplomacy and inspections time to work, the cost of war. He was one of the first to speak out against Bush and question his bullying foreign policy, before Howard Dean did even.

If you believe in your heart that your neighbor is abusing their children, you might hope for a course of action. You might hope the parent will get help and the family will be better off in a year because of it. You know there's a chance DFS will come in and make it worse, because that happens too. But the only hope of making it better is to call them. You've never SEEN the parent abuse the child, only seen signs of abuse. The children's behavior, suspicious abuses, gruff attitude, things like that. What do you do? Reasonable people can actually come to different conclusions. Not everything has a black/white, right/wrong answer.

And this war had more vocal opposition than any war I've seen since Vietnam. The vote in Congress wouldn't have mattered. We'd still have the same Rove Machine and the same results. Difference is, all the Democrats would have voted against the war and there's no way the country would have even considered voting people into office who weren't going to stand up against Saddam and WMD.

[CTLawGuy]

30. that's a huge assumption

that no one would vote anyone into office who voted against IWR (what you call "(not)stand(ing) up against Saddam and WMD.")

if that is true, no democrat would have a shot at winning, becuase Bush sure stood up to Saddam, boy howdy! I dont think any dem could top that.


The war is going badly, and I think a lot of people regret their earlier opinions about it. Dean would be flying very high right now, because he was right from the beginning.

[sandnsea]

37. That's NOT what I said

I said if the ENTIRE Democratic Party had voted against it, we'd have a tough time getting a Democrat into office. And "Bush sure stood up to Saddam", and subconsciously "them terrorists", is EXACTLY what we're up against anyway.

The war is going badly because of Bush. People regret their opinions because Bush lied about everything, manipulated what the intelligence actually said, manipulated the American people, rushed to war, and bungled the occupation. The only reason Kerry has a chance is because he voted to be tough with Saddam, but to do it the right way that respects American values. And he understands war and military strategy.

Dean would be lucky to have 40% of the vote, very lucky. For alot of reasons. One being Rove would have squashed him with the wishy-washy "against the war from the beginning" and "60 days or invade" comments. He got a pass on that in the primaries, wouldn't have happened in the GE.

Is that the real problem, you're still swooning for Dean?

[CTLawGuy]

43. and he won't

have Bush come back at Kerry upon his every criticism of the war with "well John, you voted for it. It was good enough for you then."

Dean was WAY more consistent on the war than Kerry was. Dean risked, and GOT, the label of "ultra-liberal" because he spoke out against it, even though he's a freakin moderate.

Dean said that America wasnt safer with Saddam gone, and Kerry (as well as the media) rebuked him for that truth.

Hope you don't mind when Democrats never oppose a war resolution ever again. Cause that's what will happen if Kerry wins. the dems will vote for every war resolution. We enable them to do it. We told them in huge numbers the war was a bad idea and to vote against it. they ignore us and we elect them anyway.

Whats stopping them from doing it again?

What will stop kerry from thinking he'll have to invade another country to get reelected?

[sandnsea]

51. lol

Yep, Dean withdrawals.

The criticism against Dean would have been that he didn't know what he wanted to do. That he played politics with America's security. First he was a hawk who wanted to go in 60 days, more radical than Bush. Then, he decided to "run from the left" and say he was against the war from the start. There's documentation about the political decision to run from the left that was made when Trippi joined the team. Dean would be all but finished by now.

And your conclusion that Dems will never oppose a war resolution is just idiotic. As well as your conclusion that Kerry would have to invade another country to get reelected. The point of electing him is to have a completely different foreign policy than what we have now, why would he have to start a war to keep the vote of people who are voting for him because they're against Bush and his warmongering. You make no sense.

I gotta' go.

[CTLawGuy]

55. a different foreign policy?

so kerry's assertion we should stay the course in Iraq, and his voting support for Bush's war is a "different foreign policy".

Ill just ignore your personal attacks.

The DLC and people like Kerry are the reason the Dems control 0 branches of government.

[sandnsea]

66. More distortions

Up above you said you were voting for Kerry. But you continue to distort everything he says, so I want to ask you, what good is your vote if you convince 50 people between now and then that Kerry and Bush are the same?

[CTLawGuy]

72. I am voting for him

but I dont like him.

What did I say that was a distortion?

Is Kerry going to take our soldiers out of Iraq?
Did he not vote to give Bush the authority to invade? (even though Kerry did not want him to use it)

My goal in this is to remind people here of the egregiousness of IWR. We must not give our guys a pass on things like that. We should not revise history to say that IWR was a good thing, just because our only hope of removing George Bush supported it.

We can hate Kerry for voting for IWR and still support him.

[sunny5555]

41. Maybe,Maybe.

Your thoughts,not mine. In Sept. 2002 Bush announced that he would invade Iraq. It was a done deal. We now know this. Nothing would stop him. The vote was just politics.

[Zidane]

142. War powers act

nt

[Hoping4Change]

22. Political expediency was probably a factor in Kerry & Edwards'

vote as they, unlike Kennedy, wanted to run for President and did not want to be labelled weak on defense by Repukes. It could be argued that both wanted to show that they, like Bush, were prepared to go the distance with Saddam each assuming the military would come up with a solid plan should military action be taken.

Even if they were aware of Bushco's true motives, they may have concurred that Saddam might easily be ousted.

What I don't think anyone anticipated is that the whole operation would be so badly executed right from the getgo, from insufficient diplomacy to the utter incompetency on the part of planners to deal with the post war situation. Had Gen Shenski's advice been followed and 250,000 were in place to secure the peace, the situation there now may have been very different.

[Monte Carlo]

29. I think it was more complex than that.

And I don't think mutually exclusiveness has anything to do with this.

When Bill Clinton, the anti-Bush, comes out in public for the IWR, maybe, just maybe, there's more to the story. I mean, where's his political motivation?

The IWR was more than about Bush and the war. There were many very legit concerns at the time. I don't think I would have voted as Kerry did if I were in his position, but I have read the speech he gave at the time, and I respect his decision.

Ultimately, whether right or wrong, it's tomorrow we have to face, not yesterday.

[CTLawGuy]

38. Clinton,

while a good man, is no stranger to unilateral military action. He is also not a hard core leftist, so you can't say he is the "anti-bush"

[Monte Carlo]

69. No, he is no stranger to unilateral military action.

No he was no stranger to unilateral military action, nor a hard core leftist, but I still say he's pretty much the anti-Bush. He's intelligent, friendly, and diplomatic. He was a child of the 60's.

Regardless, when a man like him comes out and says he'd have voted for the IWR, it certainly made ME think twice.

[CTLawGuy]

73. ever seen Bowling for Columbine

it shows footage of Clinton bombing hospitals and schools in Kosovo. Clinton did not shy away from taking Bush's path. (he didnt do anything as bad as the iraq invasion, however)

[Monte Carlo]

77. Yes, I own the DVD.

That's the reality of warfare. You must understand, however, the scale that a President - the single most powerful position in the world - must work on. Eliminating all civilian death and damage is not yet feasible, as our technology was imperfect. Inaction to prevent the genocide that was happening also reflects on us and the President.

[mzmolly]

49. He was right, Kerry was wrong. But considering 70% of the population was

also wrong and Kennedy is not running for President, it's prudent to understand Kerry's rationale.

[CTLawGuy]

52. I think his rationale was sad

it sad he feels he had to do that to be "electable."

But thank you for answering the queston :)

[mzmolly]

54. Were in 100% agreement here.

And unfortunately his miscalculation made him MORE electable. :(

[CTLawGuy]

56. no it didn't!

Why do you believe that? Why do you need to be a conservative Republican in this country to get elected?

You need someone who is willing to be a reasonable alternative to the guy already in office. Thats how you get votes. Becuase you and your ideas are better, not becuase they're a watered down version of the other guy. Remember Bob Dole. Remember 1996.

[mzmolly]

57. I agree with you in principal, which is why I supported Dean.

And I am still sorry he is not our candidate.

The reason I think Kerry is more electable because of his vote, is that the majority of the *ignorant* populace can relate.

*Not trying to insult Kerry supporters with that statement. ;)

However, if we consider that 70% of Americans supported the war at the time of the war vote, and that today the number has changed dramatically ... Kerry can simply "relate" to the majority of Faux News fed Americans. :(

I think the primaries indicated that?

I only hope we win with the compromise.

These are just my thoughts Darboy.

[CTLawGuy]

74. wouldnt the "ignorant populace"

just vote for Bush if they love the war so much?

Kerry needs to spent more time motivating the base who may be wavering toward Nader.

Why try to be like Bush? why be afraid to oppose him? agreeing with Bush didn't work in 2002.

[mzmolly]

79. I don't know that the Dems who supported the war "love it."

I think most people who supported the war feel had.

Regarding Kerry reaching out, what does that really have to do with this thread? Kerry can't undo the war vote, and it's clear that for some people that's what it would take. Also, I don't think most Nader supporters are "reachable" frankly. Nor do I think Kerry is "trying to be like Bush."

Nader supporters will have to look at Kerry's largely progressive record and decide if they want 4 more years of Bush or Not. I feel some prefer the lefter than thou stance ... again.

For the record, I don't subscribe to the Kerry = Bush, Gore = Bush club. ;)

[CTLawGuy]

81. if they feel "had" over the war

wouldnt Kerry win them over better by apologizing for his vote?

[mzmolly]

83. I think most other Presidents would have handled the authority given to

them quite differently. Kerry has said he doesn't regret supporting the resolution that was before him, he regrets that Bush abused the power of office.

I prefer my apologies to be sincere.

[CTLawGuy]

86. I prefer sincerity too

so I want him to be sincere about it. If he didn't want Bush to go to war in the manner he did, Kerry should have taken steps to stop that, mainly by not voting for IWR.

[mzmolly]

94. Hindsite is always 20/20. I think after Kerry is elected he'll say much

much more. :hi:

[TeacherCreature]

117. but now less than half support the war

Wouldn't it be better for Kerry if he had voted against the IWR? I think so.

[greatauntoftriplets]

50. Ted was right.

n/t

[no name no slogan]

60. The IWR vote is history-- what matters now is WHEN ARE WE GETTING OUT

Given the current situation (and the role the US is playing in the further destabilization of Iraq), we need to get the hell out of there AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Prolonging an unwanted occupation does nothing to "stabilize" the country, and only turns its citizenry against us even more.

Sending more troops is not the answer. Neither is letting US corporations do the rebuilding, when 80% of Iraqis are unemployed.

Iraqis know the consequences of the US withdrawing and "leaving a vacuum" (as so many fret), and yet a full 70% of them want us to get out NOW. Most Iraqis feel that they can handle their own affairs, occupation or no, and want us to get out ASAP. Yet even the leadership of our own party is stuck on the idea that WE are the 'great white savior' of their country, and that it's our duty to run their country for them.

The US and the "coalition of the willing" need to get out of Iraq-- NOW. The US also needs to turn rebuilding over to a third-party international organization, and quit privatizing Iraq's economy for its own gain.

Until this happens, there will be no peace in Iraq.

[clarkVP]

61. we aren't getting out

Kerry says we are staying a long time, so we need to accept it and get over it.

[no name no slogan]

100. Kerry says one thing, but often does another

Remember the $87b to Iraq, and his famous line "I was for it before I was against it."?

The Iraq plan is not etched in stone. Last year, 70% of the country thought we should be in Iraq. Now it's down to 1/2.

so we need to accept it and get over it

Some of us NEVER accepted the war to begin with, and we're NOT accepting a "Democrat" version of this war, either. If Kerry wins, he'll have a bunch of anti-war Dems on his ass, demanding he withdraw the troops within six months. Most Democrats are now against the war and the continuing occupation. The rest of the country is not far behind.

Clinton inherited Somalia from Bush I, and even he tried to "stay the course". But after the bodies of those dead American soldiers got dragged through Mogadishu, he soon changed his mind.

1/2 the country things we should get the hell out of Iraq now. If Kerry is a smart politician (which he is), he'll get them out as soon as he takes office, regardless of his Koch-backed DLC pals.

[JVS]

130. We're back to square one here.

It seems that on the issue of staying in Iraq we have yes vs yes

[Forkboy]

63. Kennedy was right

Kerry was wrong

YMMV

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

70. Kennedy was right and so was Levin and Stabenow

and Byrd and...well here, you can read for yourselves

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

In all 23 were were right.

Julie

[mzmolly]

85. Dayton and Wellstone from my state of Minnesota were also right.

:(

[gulliver]

75. They are not mutually exclusive, but Kennedy was wrong.

You have put your finger on the main error of those who think either Kerry or Kennedy might have done the wrong thing. People think that there is some sort of "right" answer that holds across time. If that were true, then one of the two men would have been wrong. But the premise is false.

Kennedy was justified (not right) at the time to vote against IWR. Bush had shown himself to be unreliable and reckless. Kennedy's justification turned out to be right, but I would still say that Kennedy's vote was wrong. He did the wrong thing for a reason that happened to turn out to be correct.

Kerry was justified and right at the time to vote for IWR. His justification was that any president is entitled to a presumption of credibility and good faith. Kerry was right to make that presumption, because a working defense of this country demands it, IMO. We can't have Congressmen and women simply doubting a sitting president's word, competence, and due diligence without evidence. If Kerry had evidence that Bush was failing to perform his duty to be doubly sure of war-related intelligence, then Kerry could have rightly questioned Bush and voted against IWR.

Bush's failure to make good on a United States President's presumption of competence and good faith is damning to one person only: George W. Bush.

[CTLawGuy]

78. you would have been in a tiny minority among DUers back in 2002

friend.

[gulliver]

82. That's definitely fallacious and possibly untrue.

Let's be absolutely clear. I didn't trust Bush one bit. I thought he was exaggerating the threat; I thought he was cherry picking the evidence, I thought he was doing the whole thing for political reasons. I despised him thoroughly for it. I thought he would probably do exactly what he did.

But there was not enough evidence to support a vote against IWR.

You can't assume that the president is just an inept con man with ulterior motives. That makes government impossible.

You are making a fallacious appeal to a majority of DUers that I don't believe you know exists.

If you want to make that appeal, then you can say I was wrong in the aftermath of 9/11 when I came to DU to be among the 9% of Americans who could not stand "Smirky McChimp."

[CTLawGuy]

84. you don't need evidence to vote AGIANST something

you need evidence to vote FOR it. Kerry is not wrong because a majority of DUers disagreed with him, he was wrong because I believe objectively, he didn't do what he was supposed to, in my opinion.

[gulliver]

87. There WAS evidence to vote for it.

We had the CIA telling us there were WMDs, and we had an administration telling us that Saddam was seeking nuclear material and had stockpiles of WMDs.

Bush is going to be thrown out because the evidence was wrong. The backfire of this thing is entirely Bush's fault, not Kerry's.

We can agree that Kerry possibly could have done more, but I don't know what that is. Was he supposed to say that he wanted more evidence? He was given copious evidence. It just turned out to be wrong, and the guy producing (Bush) it turned out to be reckless and to have ulterior motives.

[CTLawGuy]

88. if there was evidence necessary for a war

even though it was wrong, then why wouldnt kerry want Bush to just invade right away?


If he wanted Bush to get the UN involved, he should have forced him to.

[no name no slogan]

123. What did 20 million people around the world know that the CIA didn't know?

What about the 20 million people around the world who were protesting in the streets against a possible invasion of Iraq? How did THEY know that BushCo's war posturing was based on bullshit and bravado?

Was John Kerry really that gullible to believe the words of a known election stealer and semi-professional bullshit artist? Are you saying that Kerry, a graduate of Yale, was really that stupid?

Kerry made a very political move in voting for the IWR. He was playing the classic game of "cover my ass" because he knew damn well that his bankrollers in the DLC would cut him off if he didn't play ball.

To add insult to injury, he has done NOTHING but support the continuing BushCo plan for Iraq. The only difference between his plan and that of BushCo is that he wants another 40,000 troops, while Bush wants another 30,000. He wants to keep permanent military bases in Iraq. He wants US corporations to control the rebuilding and privatization of the country, and he refuses to put a multinational force in charge of security. He says he'll pull the occupational army from Iraq no earlier than FOUR YEARS from now-- which is 3 1/2 years too late for most Iraqis.

Kerry is no different from Bush on this very important issue-- one which will come back to haunt him as conditions get worse.

Kerry knew damn well there were no WMDs in Iraq. If he didn't know any better, then he has no right being our next president, much less a senator.

[JNelson6563]

89. Not enough evidence to support vote against?

No, there was not enough evidence to vote for it.

Using the reasoning you demonstrate here would be liek you declaring there is a god and since I can't prove otherwise it must be true.

Besides, I should think a BFEE expert (as many Kerry supporters here claim him to be) would've been able to cut through the BFEE bullshit.

Guess not.

Julie

[gulliver]

90. As I say elsewhere, there WAS sufficient evidence to vote for it.

We had copious evidence from the CIA, and we had a sitting president telling us that there was evidence of a nucular (sic) program and stockpiles of WMD. Said president also gave assurances that on the honor of the presidency, he would make war only if absolutely necessary.

Bush (who is and was president, don't forget) made a reasonable case for IWR. Kerry was right to accept that case. There was no direct evidence to suggest that Bush was failing to live up to the due diligence and care that a president must have, especially in light of 9/11.

All of the practical and moral failure of Iraq is purely Bush's. Blame Kerry, and you blame one of the victims. Is Kerry partly to blame for being conned? Only theoretically. That's not enough to take my focus off of Bush as the malfeasant. Not nearly enough.

[JNelson6563]

92. Wow.

If I wanted to see what you look like I could look up enabler. You excel at circular reasoning required for enabling.

Julie

[gulliver]

96. OK. Well where's the circle?

If I am engaging in circular reasoning, I certainly want to know how. I'm not seeing it. It is complicated reasoning, I guess, but that is not the same as circular.

You realize that Bush loves it when people don't see what he did. This is all his fault. That is my argument. I don't think there is a rigorous case to be made that Kerry shares any significant blame.

I think my case (against Bush) is rigorous. But if you sense a circle, please do me the favor of diagramming it. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the way I am.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. This Thread Ain't Nothing But %^**!

[CTLawGuy]

80. thank you for your constructive comments

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. You Are Welcome

NT

[CTLawGuy]

105. It's spelled...

"You're" - A contraction of "You are".

"Your" is the possessive.

Smart guy...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. I Fixed It

I thought about it for a second and fixed it...

I hope you're proud of yourself.....


Hugs,


Brian

[CTLawGuy]

111. I am,

now learn how to make cogent arguments rather than respond in useless soundbites. :hi:

Hugs back!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. You Really Are Taken With Yourself

-:)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. If It Makes You Happy Ted Was Right But Ted's Backing Kerry Now

And all good Democrats should...

If Ted was here he'd tell you the same thing...

[CTLawGuy]

114. you are quite amenable!

and I agree with your last statement.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. When Bush Pulled Out Of The ABM Treaty Gore Said It Was A Horrible Mistake

and then added we have to pick up the ball where we found it...


Where we found the ball in this instance is that Kerry is our nominee and has the only realistic chance of beating Bush...


Unlike good old Ted, Kerry was actually my third choice behind the anti IWR Clark and John Edwards.....


Also, I think your comparison of Dole and Kerry is overdrawn because Kerry unlike Dole has the luxury of running against a president presiding over an upopular war...

There's a interesting dynamic in the polls... Kerry is leading Bush and much of his lead can be attributed to Bush's prosecution of an unpopular war even though Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to prosecute the said war....

[JVS]

132. is "%^**!" some kind of abbreviation for "inconvenient"?

[MaggieSwanson]

91. Ted Kennedy did the right thing.

John Kerry did not. John Edwards did not.

I will not need to change much on my protest signs once Kerry has won this election.

And yes, at the moment I am still planning to vote for John Kerry. But not happily, not at all.

[Larkspur]

93. Kerry was wrong on 2002 IWR

Especially since two thirds of the House Democrats voted against it BEFORE it got to the senate.

Kerry voted for IWR because he was running for Prez and wanted to look tough. Scott Ritter told him directly that there were no WMD's. Kerry knew that Saddam had no WMD's, which even if Saddam had them still would not have been enough to go go war.

Only a moron, a partisan Repuke, or a political coward would not see that Bush wanted IWR to legitamize his imperial ambitions. Bush most likely broke the tiny restraints in IWR but I don't hear Kerry or any of the pro-war Dems calling for impeachment.

[Kanary]

95. This argument is why a lot of us see this country going down

rather than see hope that we will all "smarten up" and get back to what this country used to be about.

It is the business of the *CONGRESS* to wage war, not the Prez. By giving away that power, the Dems who voted for it gave away some of the power of the Constitution. Reread some of Byrd's speeches of that time. That was a clear example of turning their backs on the Constitution.

To keep defending that it was OK to do that, means that we have really lost sight of the foundation of this country. That's not something to sneeze at. We're so blase' about what has actually been done, and there are so many defending it, that it means that nothing has really been learned from all this. It has happened incrementally, so that step-by-step it has become acceptable. So, we'll have to lose it all before we GET IT. It's too bad that all of us will have to suffer this.

The fact that these votes FOR the war keep getting defended means that other like actions by Kerry and KO will also be defended, which means a deeper schism in the Party. Without that strong voice of integrity from the Dems, this country will either go down slowly, or go down rapidly, but it will go down.

It is the habit of DUers to blast those who say something they don't like to hear, rather than to think through the words and entertain new thoughts, so I know I''ll get personally raked over the coals, and I'm to the point where I really don't care any more. So, have your jollies, and blast me thoroughly....... it doesn't mean that what I'm saying isn't correct.

Kanary

[Forkboy]

99. Thank you for summing up my thinking better than I would

:thumbsup:

[Kanary]

102. ^_^

:hi:

:toast:

[Tom Rinaldo]

109. I don't defend the actions

I don't claim to be head over heels in love with Kerry or Edwards. I'm not in fact. I don't plan to go to sleep politically after we get them elected in November either. I just know that Kerry and Edwards are much better than Bush and Cheney because the current Administration is THAT BAD.

Of course someone can publicly express strong displeasure with Kerry and Edwards and then still go out and vote for them, or even work for them. I just happen to believe that now is not the time to attack Kerry and Edwards for what they have done, or even what they are likely to do. To be blunt, the main way people gain leverage now over a future Kerry Administration, to the extent that that is possible (which is minuscule for someone like me working at the grass roots level) is by helping Kerry now when he needs it most. That's how politics works. The other way is to organize a base strong enough that he has to deal with what we want. All well and good, I'm all for that. But not between July 15th and Election Day. Now I am focused on getting Bush out and Kerry in. It's that simple.

I do not believe that publicly dampening enthusiasm for Kerry for President by dragging out areas of disagreement and displeasure is value neutral in terms of the election outcome, just because you will be voting for Kerry anyway. Psychology is a very real consideration. The more I focus on what I don't like about Kerry, the less likely I am to get off my butt and go an extra mile for him. And now I think I should go as many extra miles as possible. Getting Bush out is THAT important. Talk to me again in November about what we need to do about the Democratic Party. I'll be here. I am under no illusions about Kerry and Edwards. But I will do all I can to get them elected anyway.

[lastliberalintexas]

134. I understand your thinking

But in my opinion, that path allows the DLC types to believe that they have won yet another election, when in reality it is anti-Bush sentiment driving the Kerry campaign to victory. These people need to understand that when/if they win in November, they did so IN SPITE of their rightward leanings, not because of them.

And we can't tell them that after the elction, because they won't be listening then. Heck, they probably don't care now, but our message has a better chance of getting through now rather than later.

[democratreformed]

136. It is now my opinion that the "DLC types"

do and will know exactly how they have won. By that, I am referring first to "winning" the nomination. The have seen how well "fear" controls the masses. Fear has been used within our own party to control us. "Fear of Bush" (I guess it could be anger or hatred too but I really think FEAR is the overriding issue) has been the talk of each day this whole season. Who is most electible? Who can beat Bush? What will happen if we have four more years of Bush? I am sick to death of hearing all those things. I refuse to be cowed by fear by either party.

HOWEVER, now that we are where we are (with our nominees), I have made a conscious choice, fully aware of the things I do not like, to support this ticket. And, yes, I do believe that we will become a force that will absolutely refuse to be heard - AFTER we win.

That's my plan for now.

[Pastiche423]

121. Hear Hear!

It seems to me that I am watching the frog and boiling water analogy happen in real time here at DU.

Little by little, some here are moving rightward (maybe?) w/o realizing it.

I've become aghast at what I hear weekly coming from the mouth of the presumptive Democratic? candidate. IMHO, tall bush is morphing into short bush, whilst some here apologize for the morpher.

What does the Democratic Party stand for today? Hell, what does kerry stand for today?

And there is one thing I simply do not understand. Why is now not the right time to question/criticize kerry? I hear - I hope he will... I believe he might... He would never...

Why not find our NOW what he might, what you hope, what he would never, etc BEFORE it's too late?

Why not tell kerry what Democrats want now?

[RafterMan]

107. Thanks, darboy.

If people want to vote for Kerry, vote for Kerry.

But I'm tired of the apologists. It was the wrong vote.

[CTLawGuy]

108. you are very welcome, sir

:)

[TeacherCreature]

119. Posting here is kind of like living in the novel 1984

Oceania was at war with Eurasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia

[FrenchieCat]

118. Kerry's vote....

was Politically Expedient, period, end of conversation. he voted the way that he did because he was going to run for President...and he had already voted "No" against the 1st Gulf War.

John Kerry and John Edwards are the type of politicians that we need to get rid of after they win the election. They vote based on polls and external pressures....not their convictions.

I will vote for them....but am not too happy about what they really represent.

So they can take Iraq off the table as an issue, and maybe cause us to lose an election that we really we should win...since they will never admit to having voted for political expediency...which is all that their vote represented.

Maybe Edwards wanted to go to war....since he co-sponsored the IWR bill along with 15 other Senators.

I will not try to act like what happened in 2002 didn't happen. It did...and is now causing somewhat of a handicap during this election.

It's the card that we've been dealt (thank you Media and the DNC)....so we just have to do with what we have.

Here is Michael Moore's Playboy interview....in where he discusses this IWR, Kerry, Clark, Hilary and much more....
http://frenchiecat.forclark.com/story/2004/7/17/204821/184

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. All Successful Politicians Are Trimmers....

I can't think of one successful politician who never took a position or cast a vote out of political expediency....

[FrenchieCat]

122. So there....

The fact that Political Expediency cost 200 Billion, 880+ U.S. lives, 16,000+ U.S. casualties, uncounted Iraqi lives, hatred for America around the world, and untold new recruits for Al Queda.....

Guess success comes at a high price!

Thank God for politicians!

[fujiyama]

129. I would say

Ted Kennedy and those that voted against it showed better judgement than Kerry.

Kerry, either was trying to do it for political purposes, or he really did believe that the resolution would be needed as leverage to get the inspectors in Iraq. I'd like to believe it's the latter, and I would trust that he wouldn't have actually had the country in this war. It is a nuanced and arguably a convoluted rationale, but I hope it's sincere.

In this way, I must say that Bob Graham showed very good judgement voting against the resolution and was very effective in his criticism of Bush, especially because he was on the Intel Commitee. In that way, it's tougher to excuse Edwards's vote for it, because he too was on the commitee.

Kerry has shown himself at times, to be somewhat calculative of political costs, but he has shown some courage as well. He was one of few senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, that too in a year he was facing his most difficult election ever.

[JVS]

131. Kennedy was right, Kerry was wrong

[genius]

133. Kennedy was right. Kerry was stupid. At least Kerry isn't evil.

[Nicholas_J]

137. It depends

You can be right for voting for ort against it depending on whether yoiu expected Geprge Bush to abide by the terms in the resolution.

First point is the very misnomer, IWR. No IWR exists. There is no resolution which as passed in the last five years that can be called the "Iraq War Resolution" The act does not authorize war. No declaratoin of War Against Iraq ever passed during the current Bush administration.

If you expected Bush to follow the points madein the resolution which only authorized use of force in Iraq WITHOUOT United Nations approval, if and only if it was found and oriven to Congress that Iraq constituted an imminent threat to the United States, OR if the United Nations was found to be completely unwilling to enforce the resolutions it has voted against Saddam Hussein after the end of the Gulf War up until Resolution 1441.

You can read the resolution from beginning to end, and not find one paragraph or section of the resolution which allows use of force in any situation except the ones mentioned above. The prime reason that no congressional authorization to go to war occured upon the invasion was that Bush knew that he would not get one at that point. He was required to exhaust all diplomatic peacefully efforts within the constraints of the Security Council before Congress would approve of use of force. There is no war in Iraq, but constitutional definition of the term "War"

As notedm the name of the act is not "The Iraq War Resolution". It is the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq Act of 2002.

Terms are set within the act for use of military foce. All these terms revolve around completely exhausting peaceful means, or the existance of a situation whi hshows that the U.S> is in imminenet threat from Iraq.

[TeacherCreature]

143. War is peace

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[DemocratSinceBirth]

138. The War Was Wrong.... The War Was Wrong.... The War Was Wrong.....

Now let's work together to get the cabal who started it out of the White House....


Go Dems.....


Brian

[John_H]

139. LOL! Are people who lamely try to divert and divide

on Democratic message boards self-absorbed jackasses or just plain idiots?

[CTLawGuy]

140. so, just because I point out a complaint about our candidate

I'm a jackass or an idiot?

Must we have Nazi-istic loyalty to Kerry? Or is voting for him enough?

[ACK]

145. Kennedy was right and Kerry is wrong

Kerry f*cked up on three votes that I care about in his entire freakin' career and one vote for the welfare "reform" nonsense he was being a good Dem and not stabbing Clinton in the back Sam Nunn style.

The rest of his voting record on the environment, women's rights, government reform and about everything else is pretty much gold.

To Hell with it, I like the man. I have since the start. He is as Hillary said a serious man for serious times.