Beatty claims he would have voted against the IWR.

[Mass]

http://politicker.com/beatty-criticizes-kerry-s-judgment

So, how is he going to reconcile that with the RSCC from which he wants money?

:rofl: :rofl:

[karynnj]

1. Note that Beatty says he attended a meeting in 2003

and was presented with the same facts as Kerry. The IWR was in 2002, not 2003 and the inspectors were in and finding nothing and Saddam had destroyed missiles by the end of 2002.

Kerry spoke against rushing to war on January 23 and was singled out by the right for doing so. Thanks to the wonderful BLM - here is a link to a National Review article by David Frum, a former Bush speech writer.

He was clearly angered by Kerry's Georgetown speech. Here are his concluding paragraphs:
"If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3358606

The idea that Obama is distancing himself from Kerry's position is nonsense - he moved TO Kerry's position from the more centrist position.

[Mass]

2. I noted a lot of nonsense in what Beatty said, starting by the fact the IWR was not a vote that had

to lead to war. The only way it had was to think the Bush was set to do that and would have done it in any circumstances. I guess that, in 2004, Beatty voted for Bush. How can he reconcile the fact that Bush started a useless war as CiC and his vote?

Also, as you noted, at the date where he saw these famous evidences, Kerry had already made the Georgetown's speech, which, as his Senate speech in October 2002, made it very clear he was not supporting military action.

I just wonder if the GOP base is so low, in MA, that he is trying to recruit lefties?

[karynnj]

4. The thing that's weird is that it could leave him with no one

His current position in Iraq is not really Obama's - this is strange.

That's a good point - he either voted for the man who started the war, voted for Kerry for President, or voted for one of the third parties - which if on the right are all far out of line with MA.

[beachmom]

3. OMG. Hilarious!! He's running on Barack Obama's coattails against John Kerry in Massachusetts?

"Really what it goes to is his judgment," Beatty told PolitickerMA.com. "He's got no room to talk. He has voted for the war for all the wrong reasons. And, given the same facts, I would not have voted for the war."

Okay, to the Left, now to the Right:

When asked about Kerry appearance on "Face the Nation," Beatty said that Obama's willingness to listen to the military before withdrawing troops is at odds with Kerry's position. In 2006, Kerry, along with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) introduced legislation calling for a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"Even right now he is still talking about his timetable to get out at any cost," Beatty said. "We can't do anything at any cost...Barack Obama himself realizes we can't get out at any cost."

Beatty said Obama's position on withdrawal is now closer to his than it is to Kerry's. "Even Barack Obama, the standard bearer of the party," he said, "has had to distance himself from Kerry's position."

Except that Obama is for a timetable for withdrawal, his plan borrows heavily from Kerry/Feingold, and really? He's really trying to run on Obama's coattails in Massachusetts?

Finally, this hilarious tid bit:

In 2003, Beatty attended a Pentagon briefing with then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the run up to the war. Beatty said he was working as a security consultant on a national anti-terrorism security program. His client was invited to the briefing and insisted Beatty attend. (Beatty could not name his client due to confidentiality agreements.)

So he was dragged screaming into meeting Donald Rumsfeld?

Now, for some sanity:

"Republican candidates," said Roger Lau, Kerry's campaign manager, "will say or do anything to avoid facing the reality that their standard bearer John McCain has a plan for staying in Iraq while Barack Obama and John Kerry have a plan for getting out of Iraq and winning the war in Afghanistan. Period. End of story."

This guy is beginning to sound like ... EOR.