Anyone have the facts re this allegation?

[Boojatta]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=209&topic_id=1714&mesg_id=4822

[TayTay]

1. It's a 'are you still beating your wife' thing

It pre-supposes the argument. The facts are contained in the speech that Kerry gave before his vote. That is how he felt. There was, in the Clinton years, various resolutions that passed the Congress that called for regime change in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an international pariah and a perpetrator of genocide. Americans did think there was the possibility that he had WMDs. He had had them before and had blind-sided America during Gulf War I when it was discovered that Iraq was further along in it's development of deadly weapons and nukes than America thought.

Clinton did bomb Iraq during his tenure as President. It was the official policy of the US to contain Saddam, not because we didn't like his cookie recipes, but because he was a very dangerous player in the Middle East. There was an argument on that side. Kerry had voted for those earlier resolutions in the Senate that condemned Saddam and that backed up Clinton.

It is a serious stretch to say that he voted the way he did because of Karl Rove. The vote itself on the IWR was a Rove creation that was designed to separate Democrats from their base. I think there is truth in that. But that did not dictate all actions. Go read the floor speech. Kerry clearly spells out why he voted the way he did in that.

[beachmom]

2. On its face I don't remember Kerry ever saying that

This site is full of statements by Kerry about Iraq, including his Senate floor speech voting for the IWR:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kvh/kerryoniraqwar/

It was more to counteract the flip flop charges, but it contains a lot of his words.

[sandnsea]

3. Considering he did attack Bush on the war

and on terrorism, I'd say the writer is an idiot who hasn't read a thing Senator Kerry said.

[karynnj]

4. Like Tay Tay and Beachmom said

he does spell out why he voted as he did.

Kerry was one of the strongest voices in the summer and early fall arguing that Bush should go to Congress and to the UN. At that point, Bush was claiming that he could attack because of the resolution given that led to attacking Afghanistan. He moved a huge number of troops to the Persian Gulf.

Reading Kerry's IWR floor statement, one thing I notice is where he listed all the changes they got Bush to make in the resolution from the original language. These changes resticted it to Iraq and took out as reasons many subsequently used. From Kerry's post 2004 comments, he took these negotiations seriously. He said that if Bush went back on his word, he would be the first to protest - and he was one of the few who did before Bush invaded and after the invasion (approved by nearly 70% of the people).

Speaking out when he did counters the cynical political motive. How do you get political points for the war when you are LOUDLY on record and called anti-war (which he was labelled in early 2003)? Rather than cynical, the opposite was more likely true - Kerry was more willing to trust that a President would not lie on a matter as serious as war and peace. Kerry himself is said to be true to his word. He wasn't naive - the fact that he added the comment about speaking out implies he realized Bush could lie, but gave him the benefit of the doubt. He likely thought this was the best chance at derailing the march to war.

The importamnce of the promises - that he would exhaust the diplomacy and that it would be a last resort go to deeply held beliefs. In the Pepperdine College speech Kerry explains his understanding of St Augustine's concept of a just war - the first thing Kerry said is that war pretty much has to be a last resort to be just. That is why he refers to it as immoral.

Putting the Pepperdine College speech together with the IWR speech and memories of phrases of 2004 and Kerry's history, it is very unlikey that his vote was made for political reasons. The closest thing I have heard - not from Kerry - but from others was that this vote - either way - was a Rove trap. (There was a comment - I think from a Kerry friend or staffer, that this was a case of choosing between a Yes, but or a No, but vote.

[politicasista]

5. But the vote is still haunting him

in some way. Not on the blogsphere, but in the real world. Every day my father hears about the troop deaths on the news and still can not understand how in the world the Democrats supported (I know Kerry didn't) and went along with some "bullshit".

And that the Democrats should have listened to people like Rangel, Conyers, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus (they are lionized here a lot) and Senate that voted no and stood up to Bush. :shrug:

I don't mention Kerry's name much at home although my father loves "these guys are the most crooked, lying group" line cause it fits Bush and his cronies to a tee.

[beachmom]

6. My Dad takes it a step further, and says all the Democrats

are wimps and didn't stand up to Bush. Thing is, politicasista, it pays to throw some arguments out there. Like the fact that the IWR has a signing statement attached to it that says Bush doesn't even NEED authorization from Congress. That he would have gone in with or without the IWR. That he lost the second U.N. vote (he knew he didn't have the votes, so just didn't ask for one), yet he went to war anyway. That weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country in 1998, and that had Bush used the authority the way Kerry said to, it would have been a real coup for him -- you know, "speak softly, and carry a big stick". The threat of force WORKED. Saddam allowed the inspectors into his country, and they were DOING THEIR JOB. It was Bush who broke his word, and suddenly pulled the inspectors out so he could make war. Also, don't forget the IWR was Oct. 2002, the invasion March 2003. For me, the U.N. resolutions were more important than the IWR, and the last one, Bush didn't get. He should have known right then and there to wait, but he didn't and that's why everything is a big, big mess.

To be honest, I think the "no" votes to the IWR are problematic, too. Are they saying that the possibility of Saddam having WMD is no big deal? Do they really want to protect national security, when they don't even want U.N. weapons inspectors back in Iraq? In 1991, the intelligence community was flabbergasted how far along Saddam's WMD program was -- they had UNDERestimated Saddam's capabilities. It was proper to get the U.N. back in there, and I can tell you, that Saddam would NOT have allowed them in had there not been a threat of force authorized by Congress and backed up by troops on the ground in Kuwait. That's the flip side of all these arguments. But Bush was stupid enough to think he could democratize and keep united a fractured country. Had his administration been competent, he maybe had a 30% chance. With the flagrant incompetence, he's had 0% chance.

Another line of argument I made with my Dad had to do with now. He continued to rail against the Democrats, how they need to cut off funding NOW. So I asked him, "have you called your senator?" I told him to stop complaining about it and start being an active citizen by engaging as a constituent with his elected officials. They DO listen to their constituents. I received no answer from him on that, and then I noticed he didn't bring up that subject again.

Don't think you're alone in having family members unsupportive of your support for Kerry. The point is be kind with them, but firm in why you support him. My short sentence about why I want Kerry as president is, "he is the ONLY one who will have the guts to get our troops out of Iraq". By the end of the weekend, my Dad was down to, "well, we need a fresh face and Kerry's unelectable". But he seemed to acknowledge that Kerry was the most ideal candidate.

[MH1]

7. The false notion that "Democrats supported Bush's war" *IS* the fault of Democrats,

and especially so-called "progressives" who fell right into the trap.

We see them on DU and other so-called liberal forums every day. People that say Democrats are just as much to blame for the war, because "they voted for it."

Well, duh, folks, that is how you lose votes in the general populace - make your party indistinctive from the other party on such a crucial matter.

The fact is that the vote WASN'T for war, it was to send a signal to Saddam that the Congress WOULD support war IF Saddam didn't cooperate with inspections to show that he was not an imminent threat. The President DOES have the right to order military action in the case of an imminent threat, and if the President is someone who will LIE about that, then THERE IS NOT ONE THING THE CONGRESS CAN DO TO STOP IT. And the IWR - or ANY bill - does not matter in that case!!!!!

(emphasis is for lurkers, I know that the people in this group get it.)

So anyway, the failure to grasp this simple logic, and/or the willingness to promote the rw spin because it helps undermine a Democratic rival, has allowed the Rove trap to work, and now many in the general public think "Democrats supported this war too" when that is in fact, not true.

I don't know how we fight it, when so many Democrats are willing to be used by the other side to undermine their own party.

[TayTay]

12. There is also a false argument here on moral grounds

The fight on the Iraq War did not begin and end on Oct 11, 2002. That vote was an authorization to use force if certain conditions were met. The conditions not only were NOT met, there was a 'signing statement' attached to the IWR that basically asserted the rights that have come to be associated with the legal arguments about a 'unitary executive.' Bush was determined to go to war, no matter what Congress said. He was stretching his Constitutional authority far beyond what the Founders intended. He assumed the powers of a King, and, back in 2002, there was not the popular will to stop this.

One of the saddest things about the American Left is this tendency to see everything in the prism of 'now.' We now know that Bush and his Republican enablers saw Iraq and the Middle East through rose-colored glasses. They genuinely believed that all they had to do was 'push' Iraq and the country would fall. They believed that the infrastructure in Iraq was still intact and had not degraded throughout the '90's. The Bushies believed that the Shia so hated Saddam that they would immediately rise up and joyfully welcome the Americans as liberators. They believes that Iraqi society was basically secular and that there would be no real problems swith sectarian violence as Iraq was not a really 'religious' state. All these assumptions were false.

The question becomes what do the Democrats do going forward? What is the moral obligation of Americans now that we do know the truth about Iraq and we do know that none of the rosy assumptions about Iraq were or are true. Is the vote against the Iraq War Resolution a 'get out of jail' card for anyone who voted against it? What about the obligation of people who voted against the original IWR, but have also voted against the Withdrawal Amendment that Kerry and Feingold proposed in June of '06? Does the original vote negate the need to do anything else?

There are a lot of people who make the counter-argument that because we are in Iraq that we have to stay to help the Iraqi people and that we can't get out because people will die. People will die in Iraq now, no matter what option we choose. I was re-reading Chris Hedges book, War is a Force that Gives us Meaning the other night and I came across his paraphrasing of something the great philosopher Reinhold Neibuhr said, that the moral choice is not between the moral and the immoral, but between the immoral and the lesser immoral. That is our choice in Iraq, it is between the immoral and the lesser immoral. That is where we are now. That is what America has to face, that is where Bush has led us.

[karynnj]

8. This is the best response that I have seen on that vote

Bush and Rove have done a great job in evaporating the nearly 6 months between the vote and the invasion into thin air - and the left, furious with those who would work with Bush at all, has helped them. In addition to all you said, the fact is Saddam was even destoying missles at the demand of the inspectors. It was not a war of last resort.

[politicasista]

13. Thanks beachmom

I do think I am alone. My parents aren't bloggers. My parents follow politics through cable news and newspapers, my uncle (he was ABB in 04) also follows politics heavily.

My father likes Kerry, but feels like he can't help it that he is "laid back cause he is from MA." He is hoping that the Democrats will go back to listening to people like Jesse Jackson, the CBC, and AA voters like Clinton did in 1992 and 1996 because the Democrats, he says "need us."
He also said that the Swifties damaged Kerry bad and made a "terrorist" out of Kerry with the smears in 04.

Anyway, I don't talk about races or 08 because it's too complicated. After the 04 election, he liked Edwards, Clark, or Obama, but right now, he is looking forward to watching what the Democrats do in Congress.

[sandnsea]

15. Been said 50 cazillion times

This was the approach in 2004 and the same people who manipulated the vote THEN are manipulating it NOW. They don't WANT to know and no amount of rational debate is going to change them. They're intimidated into believing the false myth that real men aren't Democrats and the worst thing you can say about a man is that he's not a fighter or doesn't have the courage of his convictions. That's how they've successfully framed John Kerry. It isn't something you can prove with speeches or words. It is something men grant each other and men are just as vulnerable to masculine insecurity as any bunch of high school mean girls.

Winning political battles does not just take place in the head, especially not the reasoned rational head. Some people respond to visual images, others to emotional appeals to guilt and greed and sometimes to giving and honesty.

Watching the reports on Gerald Ford these last days, it seems to me that he suffered some of the same unfair ridicule John Kerry did. It's amazing how much power SNL can have. Here's a football star, Yale grad, who saved an entire military ship in WWII. Yet what we know him most for is being a bumbling doof, which is obviously far from true. Sound familiar?

People repeat lies and gossip because it serves some inner emotional purpose. Democrats were intimidated into either being silent or repeating blowjob 'jokes', until it became clear that we, and the world, needed a rehabilitated Clinton more than we needed to be liked for agreeing that Bill Clinton was a degenerate. The same is true of Al Gore, now that he is taking the lead on global warming. NOW, people will fight the unfair ridicule he received rather than snickering or silently letting the slander go unchallenged.

The same will be true of John Kerry. When people believe he has a conviction that only he can answer, then they'll rally to his side and begin to stand up against some of these smears. It's up to us to paint a picture of a man whose entire life has led him to this purpose, ending the Iraq War and putting us on the right course for ending terrorism. You don't do that nitpicking policy and speeches, you do that by driving home the man's courage and determination. And not being afraid to point out the cowardice of those who won't stand up to the lies against him like they wouldn't stand up to the lies against Gore and Clinton and Dukakis and Carter and even all the way back to FDR.

[TayTay]

17. I agree Sandy. I completely agree

There are about a million people who want to 'fix' each Democrat so they sound perfect. Problem is, there are no perfect people, nevermind Democrats. Each person needs to sound like themselves. That can't be taken away.

Sometimes I think the RW spinmeisters and liars know us better than we know ourselves. They can see what is authentic about a Democrat before those qualities are even known to other Democrats. They seek to take the real and good qualities of a person and smear them and twist them so that when the truth does come out, it looks mishapen and odd.

The only cure for this is truth. People have to be who they are. Gore is best when he is talking about his own genuine concerns, that's why he resonates when he talks about the environment. I think he genuinely cares about that issue and he owns it. The smear can't last, it is too easily seen through when properly presented.

John Kerry is best when he is talking about morality and immorality. It's not pompous, it's not above the ability of the average citizen to understand and it's not too abstract to be involving. It's a genuine reflection of the man. That's who he is, someone who sees lying and deception from people in positions of authority and tries to put an end to it. And someone who tries to do a little good in this world. That what all the smears and all the parodies try to hide by twisting what is into the pale shape of what isn't. I think it's best to fight that by being who you are and owning your own self, as you wrote.

[sandnsea]

18. Did I write that??

:silly: Gosh, it sounds so much better when you say it. :)

Here's another interesting thread urging us to use the term "Perception Management" to begin educating people about what is happening. She differentiates between spin, which is based in some measure of truth, and distorting 'unreality into reality' which is much more insidious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3007656&mesg_id=3009991

[Boojatta]

9. Does this thread deserve a few recommendations for the Greatest Page?

I hope that I can ask that without boasting. All I did was get it started with a very short question based on someone else's words. I didn't contribute anything else.

It seems to me that if the following
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3002240

deserves 10 recommendations for the Greatest Page, then this thread deserves at least a few recommendations. Of course, as the OP, I do not have the capacity to recommend this thread.

[MH1]

10. Posts in candidate groups cannot be recommended for Greatest.

Sad but true.

I don't know if that applies to all "DU Groups", but it definitely does for candidate groups.

Which is probably just as well.

[rox63]

14. I've seen posts in state groups get recommended

Seen it in the Massachusetts group, although I don't think one ever got enough votes to make it to the Greatest page.

[TayTay]

16. You don't have to donate to belong to the Mass group

You have to donate and have a star to post in some of the groups, including the groups dedicated to particular Democrats. We can't recommend posts for The Greatest Page in here because that is not the purpose of these groups. These groups are meant as DU sanctuaries and you can't violate a sanctuary just because it suddenly glows with 'goodness,' such as it is.

[beachmom]

11. I'm glad you came in to ask the question.

It's hard to keep up with what our elected officials have said, especially about something as long and complicated as the Iraq debacle. Feel free to come in any time with Kerry questions.