Kerry Donor: Let's Give The Man Some Credit

Comments (48)

beachmom wrote on January 24, 2007 3:03 PM:

What is there to quarrel about? John Kerry was right in '03, '04, '05, '06, and '07 about the war on terror and Iraq. This is a huge loss for Democrats and the country. However, I am heartened that he will be fighting for what is right in the Senate.

RadicaLibrarian wrote on January 24, 2007 3:10 PM:

Actually, I can't give John Kerry "credit" for his graciousness. There was TOO MUCH AT STAKE for me to be grateful that he folded like a wet Kleenex withing 12 HOURS of a clearly contentious and questionable election.

At least Al Gore had the courage and sense of responsibility to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. He couldn't possibly have known how bad the Bush crimes would grow to be. John had no such excuse! He let us all down very badly. It may have made HIM feel like a gentleman, but many of us felt like we were betrayed.

Swift2 wrote on January 24, 2007 3:42 PM:

It's a sad day, but I think it's right. Most times, you only get one kick at the can. After that, you're established as "the loser." And the flap over the awkwardness of his joke showed that he just doesn't have the fine touch that, say, Clinton had, to recover after something like that. The misstatement was out of tiredness and confusion, but his angry denunciation the next day was out of a textbook, and it didn't play either. It didn't matter that he was right.

Batocchio wrote on January 24, 2007 3:48 PM:

Kerry has been a decent Senator and the good he has done, including his recent campaigning and raising money for other Democratic candidates in 2006 (before the joke), can be lost in the wash of negative feelings about the results of 2004. While the Kerry campaign certainly made mistakes, it's not as if the 2004 Presidential Election results were based on a rational, fair or wise evaluation of the candidates! There are many lessons to be learned from the Kerry campaign's mistakes, but at this point I sorta feel like laying heavily into him is kicking him when he's down. I'd prefer to evaluate each of his decisions without the cloud of 2004, and honestly, this must have been a tough move for him, but a smart, wise and gracious one.

Ross Best wrote on January 24, 2007 4:05 PM:

John Kerry was a more respectable candidate than Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, and Walter Mondale. He wasn't perfect but he was worthy of being president and we should be grateful.

cscs wrote on January 24, 2007 4:27 PM:

Well, he was still a crappy campaigner.

But he deserves credit on Iraq; he's been fighting hard.

I like Kerry...just don't want him running again 08, that's all.  

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Luigi Vampa wrote on January 24, 2007 5:08 PM:

It seems that all Democratic presidential candidates except Bill Clinton are terrible campaigners, stiff, crazy, dishonest, "inauthentic," and on and on and on. I found all these things out by reading the insightful comments from the brilliant liberal "netroots," who do an exellent job of repeating negative spin points about our presidential candidates.

dwg wrote on January 24, 2007 5:33 PM:

um... except that he voted against the war before he voted for the war, until he voted against it again until he voted for funding....

puh-leeze.

dosvedanya or however the russians go and good riddance...

from a massachusetts voter for whom kerry will have to work hard before he comes calling looking to retain his senate seat!

fake consultant wrote on January 24, 2007 5:40 PM:

May I submit that the fact that the election was that close at all is the source of much of the hostility Kerry feels today in the D community.

Lewis Black said it best: "John Kerry losing to George Bush is like a regular guy losing at the Special Olympics".

morte wrote on January 24, 2007 5:47 PM:

My take has always been that Kerry would have been a great president but ran a bad campaign for president. I don't think it was a horrible campaign, but he suffered from the Democrats' inability at that time to truly stand up to the Republicans and their auxillary organizations. Kerry needed to attack his attackers and clearly distinguish himself from the GOP. That was, like it or not, a fatal error.

fake consultant wrote on January 24, 2007 5:58 PM:

"It seems that all Democratic presidential candidates except Bill Clinton are terrible campaigners, stiff, crazy, dishonest, "inauthentic," and on and on and on..."

All Democratic Presidential candidates except Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, since I've been voting, lost.

By definition they were not as effective campaigners as their opponents.

Unmitigated Audacity wrote on January 24, 2007 6:01 PM:

What you said. That being the case, he made the right decision not to run. Where does that leave us? Hillary is so depressing with her I've-got-bigger-balls-than-Bush, bellicose posturing. She (and most other Dems, truth be told) is providing Cheney with the cover needed to attack Iran. If that is allowed to happen, whoever wins the presidency is gonna preside over hell on earth.

UA

Luigi Vampa wrote on January 24, 2007 6:15 PM:

The Republicans who lost last year were, then, "not as effective campaigners as their opponents,," but they were more effective in the years before that when they were winning. Republicans were just collectively off their campaigning games. By definition, of course.

Andy McLennan wrote on January 24, 2007 6:29 PM:

Perhaps Kerry did run a better campaign than he is generally given credit for, but if so, then Bob Shrum ran a worse one, if that is possible. Kerry is an intelligent person with good values and ideas about policy, and a genuine hero in both military service and his contributions to our political life. But a President surrounds himself with advisors and filters what they say, and in this respect I remain unimpressed, which is not to say that he wouldn't have been at least fair to middling as these things go.

cscs wrote on January 24, 2007 6:43 PM:

Or, of course, you're simplifying the netroots' critique into one-word sound bites.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Michael Bacon wrote on January 24, 2007 6:52 PM:

I'll give Kerry high marks for this decision, and I want to encourage him again to embrace his role in the world's most exclusive club, and to use it fearlessly to improve the country and the world.

But I'm not about to give him any back points for the 2004 campaign, and I won't stand for being scolded for not doing so. I was steadfastly against Kerry from early '03, and threw money at Edwards, whom I don't particularly like, down the stretch in the desperate hope that he could derail Kerry's momentum. There were so many mistakes in that campaign, it's hard to grapple with, but the framing of the '04 convention around nothing but biography was a political blunder of epic proportions.

The political environment of 2004 was a very difficult one, and not all of it was his fault. However, Kerry came from the school of thought in Congress that was perhaps most complicit in creating the environment. That was the school that was terrified of meaningfully opposing the President, for fear of being labeled "divisive." Gephardt and Daschile were a lot more complicit in this, but Kerry was walking the same line.

BlueinColorado wrote on January 24, 2007 6:58 PM:

I love Lewis Black, but he was way off on that one. Which of the other candidates in '04 could have done better? Maybe Clark. And I know this opinion is about as popular as Bush in the 'roots, but Dean would have lost by ten points.

Michael Bacon wrote on January 24, 2007 7:01 PM:

And another thing. Why is Kerry always getting marks for being "gracious?" When Warner dropped out, no one called him gracious. Is it because he's always doing that irritating sigh before he says anything? Is it because he has that patrician "je ne sais quoi?"

The man read the writing on the wall, which was that about 2/3 of us were saying, "hell no!" to another run, and most of his financial backers were bolting to Sen. Clinton.

Backing out doesn't make him gracious. It means he's not completely politically tone deaf.

BlueinColorado wrote on January 24, 2007 7:07 PM:

it's not as if the 2004 Presidential Election results were based on a rational, fair or wise evaluation of the candidates!

Exactly. Half of Bush voters believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. Among people who aren't morons, Kerry won by two-to-one.

I'm glad he's not running, it's the right thing to do for the country, the party and the man himself, but the Kerry-bashing from the left is unfair.

CVille Dem wrote on January 24, 2007 8:35 PM:

What bothers me is the millions he kept near the end of his campaign. It made my mind up not to contribute to specific candidates anymore. Every time I get one of his emails I get pissed off all over again. How many people contributed thinking they were putting their hard-earned cash out to affect the last PRESIDENTIAL elections? Well, I feel hoodwinked, and I don't trust the system.

I also don't trust the fact that Hillary, who is the mega-money-raiser (despite the fact that ordinary people, like me, don't want her) is the presumed front-runner. If she wins the primaries I will know it is all smoke and mirrors, and the people don't count. The only people who want her are the monied-corruptors of the democratic party. Prove I'm wrong.

I consider myself a yellow-dog Democrat, but if she pulls out the primaries, unless I believe she really won the peoples' vote, I will have to vote against her or stay home. I am sick of money politics.

Jan Knaus

Sage wrote on January 24, 2007 10:04 PM:

"Among people who aren't morons, Kerry won by two-to-one."

Calling more than half the voters of this country morons, moron, is a sure way to get them to vote for somebody worse than any Democrat.

Sage wrote on January 24, 2007 10:04 PM:

"I consider myself a yellow-dog Democrat, but if she pulls out the primaries, unless I believe she really won the peoples' vote, I will have to vote against her or stay home."

Be sure to ask President McCain for a thank you note on January 20, 2009, jerk.

Sage wrote on January 24, 2007 10:13 PM:

"Actually, I can't give John Kerry "credit" for his graciousness. There was TOO MUCH AT STAKE for me to be grateful that he folded like a wet Kleenex withing 12 HOURS of a clearly contentious and questionable election."-- RadicalLibrarian

Actually Kerry's decison not to try to make a Supreme Court case out of Ohio was one of the few smart things he did in that campaign. It would never have succeeded with the five Justices who ruled for Bush in 2000, and it would have made it much more difficult for Democratic candidates to be taken seriously in 2006. Ask Senators Webb, Tester and McCaskill if they would have liked to have to defend that kind of nonsense with voters in their states, had Kerry done what you wanted him to do.

cavsfanatic09 wrote on January 24, 2007 10:51 PM:

Kerry backing out of the race shows why it's unfortunate he didn't win in 2004 (that and just about any action taken by the current administration). He sees the world as it is and understands that some tasks are impossible. It was impossible for him to win the nomination. He wouldn't have had as much support as Obama, Clinton, or even his running mate, Edwards, who he'll have to endorse, since he's the one who elevated him in the first place. Besides, at this point, Edwards is the candidate carrying Kerry's newly-found anti-war message.

Of course, Kerry's endorsement probably doesn't mean a whole lot to most Democrats. Not that anyone's should be taken into deep consideration.

BlueinColorado wrote on January 24, 2007 11:15 PM:

ah Sage, my favorite Liebertroll. How've you been?

So your position is that people who think Saddam was behind 9/11 are smart? 'Cause if you read what I wrote, that's pretty specifically and clearly who I was talking about. Hell, you're probably one of them. Actually, I'm okay with calling people who voted for Bush 'morons', and I'll throw in those of you who voted for Lieberman for good measure. Bet you were proud to see your boy in there spreading McCarthyite smears about people who don't support escalation.

btw, pal, there's an 'edit' function for these comments if you want to go back and put some coherence in that post, I might take what you said seriously. But based on your history, I probably won't.

destor23 wrote on January 24, 2007 11:31 PM:

Look, a lot of it is the botched joke. I remember when he told it that a lot of us here were pointing out that the joke was less botched than it was purposefully misinterpreted and overblown the way Dean's scream was in 2004. But, the fact is, he still stepped in it at a crucial moment in the midterm elections and it derailed our party for a little bit right at the moment when our opponents were looking for such a derailment and when we were fearing one.

There's no way Kerry should be defined by that, of course. But it did cement the impression that he's sometimes his own worst enemy. He shouldn't be defined as a loser from this point forward. But it's pretty easy to see why folks are glad he's not running this time.

It is sad, though. Had the 2004 election been held a year later, Kerry would have killed Bush. Maybe anyone credible would have, though. Is it too mean to say that we can do better than Kerry in 2008 and that I'm glad we're free to do so?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

fake consultant wrote on January 25, 2007 12:29 AM:

He was as good a candidate as was available, but he was unable to (except in the debates) ever forcefully express why he was the better choice.

In the end, however, it isn't a question of who was better; but why wasn't Kerry good enough?

Ragout wrote on January 25, 2007 12:45 AM:

I must say it's really bizarre that "progressives" are cheering the fact that the big money guys forced Kerry out of the race.

Even weirder is all the enthusiasm for Gore, who ran a worse campaign than Kerry's. Remember Gore sighing in the first debate, and then overcompensating in the next? Not to mention running away from Clinton.

BlueinColorado wrote on January 25, 2007 12:53 AM:

Gore's awful campaign brought him from a fifty point deficit to a popular vote victory. Yes he made mistakes, but it wasn't nearly as bad as people say.

fake consultant wrote on January 25, 2007 2:54 AM:

More or less I agree-and that's a sad critique on the D Party.

To put it in a nutshell, if you have better policies (the Ds), but still lose elections, there's a campaign problem.

Consider that R policies did not change from 2000 to 2006, but the electoral results did.

Why?

I see four possibilities-Ds sold their story better in 2006, Rs could not sell their story as well as in 2004, the electorate chose new representation without the influence of the Parties, or new voters (since 2004) chose D in greater numbers that the general electorate has historically.

Of those four, a combination of the first two seems the most likely.

Further, I do believe Kerry was good enough to beat Mr. Bush, had he simply presented himself differently. I don't feel he was inherently disadvantaged, and as a result I do fault him for the loss.

Jaymay wrote on January 25, 2007 3:15 AM:

A good friend of mine's father served in Vietnam. When he was in basic training, he was given an office job assisting a high-ranking member of the brass. It was a plum job and it meant that he was given default perfect marks on his physical aptitude and skill tests. According to my friend, because of these high marks his father found himself at the top of the list to choose his assignment when he got in country -- and he shared that distinction with a young man named John Kerry.

As my friend's father recounts it, when given a choice, Kerry asked to be assigned on a swift boat, going into the thick of battle. And though my friend's dad is a staunch Republican, he has not a bad word to say about Kerry and respects him totally.

John Kerry served his country valiantly. He returned and spoke out against an unjust war. He served his country in the Senate, and he has the good graces and class to step aside now.

For all these things and more, I say that I'm proud John Kerry is a Democrat.

As for Al Gore -- well, he seems like a good enough guy, but, um, who did he choose as his running mate again? Sheesh.

CVille Dem wrote on January 25, 2007 8:52 AM:

unless I believe she really won the peoples' vote

Jan Knaus

jhaber wrote on January 25, 2007 10:05 AM:

I can't blame Kerry for Ohio at all. It took months, even years, for even most of us to realize that this was likely a stolen election, and most of America still thinks it's lunacy. It's going to be hard to convince them, too. Florida in 2000 was a slam dunk in contrast, give or take the Supreme Court. And, as already noted, that court looked even less friendly in 2004. 

I blame only Lieberman -- for convincing Gore not to go for a statewide recount, and indeed a dissent in Bush v. Gore strongly implied the inequalities between districts alleged by the court majority should have caused them to send the case back to the state court for a remedy, which would have to have been that one. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

jdmckay wrote on January 25, 2007 11:03 AM:

Zimmerman:

"The ultimate irony of it all is that John Kerry made an enormous contribution to shifting the national debate on Iraq. Some of the positions Republicans attacked Kerry for in 2004 are the same ones they hold now. His advocacy of phased redeployment from Iraq and his strategies for fighting terrorism have now become accepted thinking among even some leading Republicans.

with all due respect, these "contributions" were watered down triangulation of Howard Dean's steadfast, well articulated anti-Iraq positions. It was Dean standing alone that kicked open the doors by which, one by one, very gradually, the remaining dems have very cautiously passed through.

A retrospective on '04 dem candidates, their positions, and who proved most precient, Dean is the hands down guy deserving credit for what Zimmerman ascribes to Kerry. Kerry deserves no more credit here than did Reagan for the fall of the Soviet Union.

Additionally, the rather vicious Dean attacks, first from Lieberman w./Kerry finally bringing up the rear (not to mention dirty "ground games" in Iowa) do not leave all that favourable memory of Kerry for me.

Some of you will find things to quarrel with here, but the larger point's a good one. And as Josh says, the truth is that he ran a better campaign than the conventional wisdom will now allow.

Not in my mind.

At the point of '04 election, there was overwhelming evidence that Repub/conservative campaigning would be ruthless smearing, soundbite "swiftboating", so evident in virtually every GWB initiative since the 2k election shenanigans. Fair to say, IMO, TPM's entire existence was borne out of confronting these many obfuscation (to put it mildly) layers.

Kerry was entirely unprepared... from swiftboating, to "New Hampshire liberal", Kerry's team just was not ready. Word on the street suggested Kerry was deliberately non-responsive as a calculus to not appear "too partisan".

I think Dean's direct strategy was (and is) more appropriate. And once again, a review of Dean's record, from the beginning, looks ever more precient, as virtually entire current '08 dem hopefulls are standing upright & speaking forcefully & directly against GWB actions and policies.

AFAIC, Kerry took a safe middle road in '04, and that record looks a bit too "Johnnie come lately" today.

And lastly, Kerry never made Enron/Ca. Energy crisis an issue. That the defrauding of Ca. on so many levels, self evident from Ca's "energy crisis" beginning, was entirely aided and abetted by GWB & co. by both looking the other way and installing (among other) FERC cronies, was felonious. And this pattern has continued, in Katrina, CPA contracts and many more.

The cumulative costs to Ca. were $32b +, and entirely avoidable. Further, GWB's (in)action in this affair portended the neocon "free market" lie which they implemented elsewhere, not least of which was the CPA managed Iraq "economy". These policies, nothing more than cronyism at the peoples expense, got a free pass from Kerry's choice to ignore them.

Terrible decision... terrible.

I think Kerry's a nice guy, and his heart's in the right place. But given the "conditions on the ground" in US politics today: the rw media hit machine, the ascendancy of so many "conservative" whacko constituencies , IMO the dems need someone "special" (both in '04) and in '08.

God bless him, but to my satisfaction Kerry has not demonstrated the clarity needed to carry the day.

flavius wrote on January 25, 2007 11:34 PM:

Ironically Kerry's campaign was better for the party than for him. As others have written a challenge to the Ohio result-coming after Florida- would have caused some number of swing voters-however unfairly- to dismiss the democrats as the poor-losers party .. Maybe enough to have defeated Webb and Tester.

And the same is true of Kerry's decision that the 04 convention avoid an assault on Bush .It was "statesmanlike" and boring but consider the alternative . For example , the reaction of friends or relatives of troops in Iraq . How would they have responded , then , to a two guns blazing attack on this "war time" President ? And would that have made them more or less likely , now , to vote for democrats ?

Perhaps Obama suggests an answer.Wasn't part of his key note success precisely that he eschewed providing red meat for the already convinced in exchange for dangling some tasty tid bits before the not-so- convinced ?

PseudoCyAnts wrote on January 26, 2007 12:21 AM:

Regurgitated spin that is as asinine and deceitful now, as it was during the '04 election. On October 9, 2002, Sen. Kerry spoke for 45 minutes on The Senate floor regarding his vote for the Authorisation for the use of force in Iraq. The RNC portrayed it as if Kerry had simply said yes and bent over for Bush. As evidence, they offered a few out of contexst sound bites. The truth is that Mr. Bush violated the trust many Senators offered with their votes for the authorisation of force in Iraq. He pressed forward unilaterally, the evidence notwithstanding. Mr. Bush dishonourably abused this faith and respect for the Office of President, and recognition of the ability for the USA to mitigate with just a threat of force any roadblocks still remaining in Iraq to a thorough IANA inspection. When Sen. Kerry later said that Bush had acted deceitfully in a manner proving his unfitness for the Presidency in the way he had led America into a needless war with his lies, it was not flip-flopping. More lies from the RNC, slothfulness from mainstream media, and a pitiful short attention span public enabled this flagrant distortion of truth to be accepted without question from far too many in the electorate.

Many Americans simply ate the electioneering corn they were fed in the campaign stockyards, never questioning where it was coming from, or why they were no longer out in the pasture chewing grass. Many still have never thought about the purpose for the ring in their nose. Which role do you play in the abattoir of American politics: fresh meat or butcher?

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Senator John Kerry, October 9, 2002

 

Clay Allison wrote on January 26, 2007 5:09 PM:

I would have voted for a yellow dog in '04. I don't hold Kerry responsbile for the war, and his positions are rationale. His problem is his inability to articulate them without engaging in muddled doublespeak. Then, he endlessly quotes himself, "As I have said...". Plus, he has made a career out of running for President. He is a fine man, I am sure, but psychologically incapable of producing the kind of straight talk that we heard from Jim Webb this week in his response the the SOTU.

TJKING wrote on January 26, 2007 5:21 PM:

When during the campaign did Kerry clearly state a position for "phased redeployment" with regard to Iraq? I'd like to know.

Dean is the one that moved the debate on the war and Kerry stuck his finger in the wind and followed. Dean has been relatively consistent when compared to the pandering John Kerry.

Everyone is relieved he bowed out because He is so busy floating from position to position that he doesn't even seem to know where he truly stands on issues. When he tries to get in front of the curve like Dean did, he falls in a ditch. Dean was the rightful voice of the party and the party cut him off at the knees for the always foolish anti-war war hero strategy. 2004 proved that strategy to be a mistake, yet the party can't seem to let go of it. There must be reasons for that.

PseudoCyAnts wrote on January 27, 2007 12:12 AM:

As I posted above, Kerry was NOT, as you stated 'all over the map' in his position on Iraq. He clearly stated his reasons for his vote of assent in the Authorisation for the Use of Force in Iraq on October 9, 2002, and Mr. Bush abused this grant, and led America into a needless war. After the facts began to be known, Senator Kerry did exactly what was expected from an honourable person, who had said before the war's outset:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

Senator John F. Kerry - September 9, 2002, Senate Floor

In the September 30, 2004 Presidential debate, Senator Kerry stated without doubt or confusion that Mr. Bush had deceived America, had not truly attempted to work along with international allies, had led America into a false based upon false pretexts, and had bogged down our military there, which was counterproductive to the stated goal of fighting International terrorism:

Mr. Lehrer: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry. Colossal misjudgments. What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?

Sen. Kerry: Well, where do you want me to begin? (Light laughter.)

First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through with the inspections. In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said, You got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that -- and went to the United Nations.

Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections. We had Saddam Hussein trapped.

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who's been in combat: last resort. You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter." I don't believe the United States did that. And we pushed our allies aside. And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost -- $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors. And it's in Iraq.

And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror; the center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times. The president moved the troops so he's got ten times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was ten times more important than Osama bin -- than -- excuse me -- Saddam Hussein more important that Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.

Presidential Debate, September 30, 2004, University of Miami, Florida

For this, he was branded a flip-flopper. Kerry is a ponderous effin Yankee Wonk, but he is not indecisive, and his position has not changed. For real evidence of flip-flopping, one only need to examine Mr. Bush's revisionary WMD rationales for his War Upon Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Mr. Bush said:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

. . .

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

President Bush, White House, March 17, 2003

Mr. Bush claimed that "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed" on March 17, 2003, yet just one week earlier, Jacques Chirac, President of France had stated in an interview on French TV:

Chirac: There were two ways to disarm her(Iraq). There was war, of course, but there was also the method of inspections and exerting pressure, the one which consisted in going over there, with the UN's authority, to control these weapons, find and then destroy them. And the international community, by adopting UNSCR 1441 unanimously, took the decision which consisted in saying: "we are going to disarm Iraq peacefully, i.e. through the inspections. We are going to appoint inspectors, and they will tell us whether or not this method is possible".

Question: But after 1441, can one say that Iraq is still, this evening for example, a dangerous country?

Chirac: A country which has Iraq's past and political structure is always a dangerous country. But the country is genuinely dangerous only if it has the capabilities to commit aggression, if it has the capabilities to attack.

Question: And for you it doesn't have them today?

Chirac: The problem was to make sure that it no longer had those capabilities or, at any rate, that those capabilities could be controlled and destroyed. So the UN sent the inspectors. I'd like to remind you that this isn't a technique which is being tried out for the first time. From 1991 until 1998, there was an inspections regime which, regrettably, was halted as a result of blunders. There was an inspections regime which destroyed more weapons in Iraq than were destroyed throughout the Gulf War and which, in particular, resulted in the complete, almost complete eradication in all likelihood - at any rate according to what the inspectors say - of Iraq's nuclear programme...

Interview given by Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic, to TF1 and France 2 television stations, Paris, March 10, 2003

The day before Bush's March 17, 2003 White House statement, a Chirac interview with Christiane Amanpour was broadcast by CBS:

Amanpour: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

Chirac: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that… It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.

As for weapons of mass destruction, bacteriological, biological, chemical, we don’t know. And that is precisely what the inspectors’ mandate is all about. But rushing into war, rushing into battle today is clearly a disproportionate response.

Amanpour: You have said that inspections were working in great part because of the massive US and British force that is arrayed outside Saddam Hussein’s doorstep. Wouldn’t it be even more effective if France had sent troops also to double and triple the threat?

Chirac: I have said that it is indeed thanks to the pressure of British and American troops that the Iraqi authorities and Saddam Hussein have changed their position and have agreed to cooperate with the inspectors.

So I would say that the Americans have already won, and they haven’t fired a single bullet.

Chirac Makes His Case On Iraq, CBS News 60 Minutes, March 16, 2003

Did Mr. Bush lie, or is he just an intelligence failure? On June 9, 2003 Mr Bush answered a few questions at a White House photo op. One question and answer was:

Q: Sir, is U.S. credibility on the line over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Bush: I'm not exactly sure what that means. I mean, Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program. The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful and the world is now more peaceful after our decision; the strong desire to make sure free nations are more secure -- our free nations are now more secure; and the strong desire to spread freedom. And the Iraqi people are now free and are learning the habits of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom.

I read a report that somehow, you know, that there is no al Qaeda presence in Baghdad. I guess the people who wrote that article forgot about Al Zarqawi's network inside of Baghdad that ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen named Foley. And history will show, history -- time will prove that the United States made the absolute right decision in freeing the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.

Remarks by the President in Photo Opportunity After Meeting with Cabinet, White House, June 9, 2003

This statement was of course when Zaqawi was still the al Qaeda member who had received treatment for his amputated leg in Baghdad, before he had morphed into the arch al Qaeda villain. Again, was Mr. Bush dancing around the truth, or just being Dubya, the intelligence brief beyond belief? Mr. Bush had gone from stating that evidence "Leaves No Doubt" of Iraq's WMD program; to his being "absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program", but just the same was starting on the freedom for Iraqi people routine as a back-up. By early in 2004, the flip-flop was complete:

"We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictatator's (sic) weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims, terrified and innocent. The killing fields of Iraq -- where hundreds of thousands of men and women and children vanished into the sands -- would still be known only to the killers. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place."

President Bush, State of the Union Address, United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., January 20, 2004

The revisionary cause for War Upon Iraq was now "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"? In the Clinton Presidency, right-wing pundits called this 'aspirin' and 'baby formula' factories. The Iraq torture chambers were at that time still filled, not with Saddam's victims, but with American victims, and the White House had already been handed preliminary reports regarding the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The fine compassionate situationalism in Bush's conservatism needs to be emphasised also. His anxiety that nonaction with Iraq would have been wrong because then Security Council Resolutions "would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations", as opposed to exactly what by this appointer of the staunchly Pro-Internationalist, J. Bolton to be UN Ambassador? His horror that America might discover in his reelection year that his causes for war had been lies, that the War Upon Iraq was counterproductive to the war against international terrorism, that bin Laden along with the bulk of al Qaeda leadership had escaped from being taken to ground in December of 2002 up at Tora Bora in the Afghan/Pakistani frontier, that they had escaped because of his hammerheaded intention to wage war on Iraq, the truth notwithstanding?

Flip-Flop...over 3,000 American service people are dead, along with an uncounted number of Iraqis that if rounded out annually and thrown up next to Saddam's killing field figures, makes Hussein look like a piker in comparison, whilst our true enemy metastasises and spreads day by day.

PseudoCyAnts wrote on January 27, 2007 1:26 AM:

This is as good a place as any to lay down my diatribe against the weaslie self-denying withering during the '04 campaign. and you know what pard'ner, you probably don't even deserve what's coming, cause it's been building for a time, and the recent netroots BS brought in one hell of a stormfront of memories past, but this is simply where i sit when the levy breaks. Any of the rest of you who this would be better aimed towards: pretenders, you know deep down.

You blame Kerry for his flat-footed response against the Swift Boat nastiness. I am not a Democrat, but at that time was working hard trying to convince Americans he was clearly the better choice. When the Swift Boat Attack first hit, The Democratic Party's response was a collectivist intake of breath, and silence. The only others I encountered at that time who were actively defending against the evil defamation were other independents like me.

Maybe it's no wonder, given that many of the old guard codger-left who evaded back when, weren't motivated from a true act of conscience, but because as me-first boomergoomers, they couldn't find the time from their simply marvelous experience at being miserable failures in their multiple vacuous attempts to be hip, so naturally they wouldn't have one god damned clue why someone else may have hard wired their reflexes, tweaking them down tight to no action when responding to insults coming from a long ago bro, because it was hard to tell just how far into the darkness the war sickness had taken him, and it wasn't right to be a cause for the pain bleeding out all over again.

And the fogeyist-left with their limp-wristed hand-wringing inner doubt, taking them to an entranced inaction zone, conjured the nightmare forth into being, that Lt. J effin Kerry had tried to defeat with his speech in congress 3+ decades ago:

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, April 23, 1971

Yeah, so he was a little off, and it was 33 years out, so what? Still the DNC rank sits and places blame for Bush's '04 reelection, anywhere but where it properly belongs. Vain and Arrogant poseurs never able to look into the mirror at the only times real value could be derived from the gaze. Damn fools, who never once realised the simplicity of it all; that it was desire to be hip that was the obstacle impairing a break on through into transcendence and and on into being hip. A predominant reason, that even given the foul manifestation which passes for present day conservatism, and my primal repulsion from it, I remain an independent, unaligned to party.

Yet this far forward, I still have gratitude for John Kerry, who long ago, had the courage enabling him, to carve out the time it took, to compose the words of a speech he gave on a day that he stood and spoke truth to the power for so many of us still struggling and flailing, attempting to finish our duty, and make America aware, so we could go home again.

TJKING wrote on January 27, 2007 6:03 PM:

I appreciate your extensive links, but Don't take my word for it, virtually every major democratic strategist in 2004 were beside themselves with frustration over his remarks about Iraq. If he had a firm position, he definitely did not state it clearly. The month of August of 2004, the month after his "reporting for duty" convention, is now considered a text book "how to" on how to kill your own "bounce". Here is just one of many reports on Democrat campaign veterens pulling their hair out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3587-2004Sep7.html?nav=most_emailed .

If we look at his "stated" positions on Iraq it goes something like this:

1991- He opposed the UN mandated Persian Gulf war. That being said, We know now that Saddam could have easily manipulated any sanctions regimen and remained in Kuwait. He had his troops massed along the Saudi border and in the absence of any resolute stand by the International community, In days his tanks could be parked on beaches overlooking the Red Sea and the city of Elat in Israel. He would have control of the Gulf States of Qatar, UAE, Bahrain and a virtual monopoly of the World's oil supply. He would not have to fire his Scud missles on Israel, Egypt or any other country that might oppose him in the region, He could fire Bio chem artillery shells from cannons. By then it would be too late for them to fight back. If we chose to send ground forces, where would they stage? He controls the entire peninsula. This was just one of the possibilities to Kerry's tendency toward endless negotiations and sanctions. That tactic is the one that Middle eastern thugs count on America to depend on and that is one of the biggest lessons Saddam taught the world in the 90s. If you start sanctions, you have to have a plan to escalate if that fails and emboldens your enemies.

1998 - Kerry sends a letter urging the President to strike Saddam militarily and speaks out often in favor of Desert Fox. Many Democrats such as Solarz and Levin are discussing a more vigorous campaign to oust Saddam completely, but are reined in by promises to pass the Iraq Liberation act.

2002 - I will reference your quote only although I could provide my own. Here is the last paragraph of your Kerry quote and I think he is making a reasoned statement: "...The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions...."

He is explaining how he does not want to have his support for the Iraq action be construed as a green light for Syria and Iran. He says that several times for emphasis and that is an important responsibility as a member of congress. He makes several other priorities clear. He is concerned about WMDs, but not ready to base his whole argument on that (other statements at the time conflict with this). He wants every effort at building a broad coalition exhausted (consistent with his 2004 criticism). We now know that the allies that Kerry most wanted on board in the coalition were taking bribes from Saddam through the corrupt UN Oil for Food program and had enough secrets to hide about their complicity in Saddam’s evasion of the very sanctions that Kerry had relied upon throughout the 90s.

Your later references to Chirac are very revealing. Chirac's Chief of staff was receiving cash bribes at the time as was the head of his party and many of his corporate allies. Chirac not only did not offer assistance to Clinton's Desert Fox, he opposed it. In your quote, Amanpour asks why if British and American Threats of force worked to legitimize sanctions, why doesn't he also offer similar pressure. In your quote he sidesteps the issue. It is apparently not because he fails to understand that threats without backup are worse than no threat, but that he had conspired with the Germans to blindside the Americans which is what they did on January 20th at the security council.

Chirac’s Foreign Minister Villepein had given assurances to Powell that if we agree to their two step approach of inspections and then force, that France and Germany can not sign off on the first and then bug out on the second. Villipein had agreed that Force was the next logical step in 1441. Later, on January 20th Villipein gave assurances inside the chamber to Powell, then walked outside to a secretly planned Press conference and stabbed Powell in the back. Powell and Armitage were stunned. They later admitted that they had been set up. We now know why. The French were not acting as our allies, they were acting as competitive economic rivals and too a certain extent Strategic rivals in the fact that they were willing to maneuver themselves clandestinely in ways that would obstruct and weaken American security in order that they may gain a competitive advantage. This is quite different than being an enemy. In a post 911 world they would model their relationship with the US on China rather than the old Cold War ally model regardless of who was the President. The French and the Germans were on the take.

If Kerry was waiting for them to make the broad coalition of countries legitimate, that ended when Villipein stated that they would unequivically veto any use of Force. What was left was Kerry's first priority and that is to use force because they were in material breach of UNSCRs and had repeatedly thwarted the system. Kerry had supported a finite time frame in the past and he stood by that by supporting the invasion at the time of the assault. The French at this time admitted that their intelligence led them to believe that Saddam had some stocks of Biochem weapons but no long range delivery systems so why worry. Which is true there were some stocks, but more importantly he WAS in breach by possessing long range missles in violation of UNSCRs. In the Duelffer report Tariq Aziz and others admitted that this was their strategy, to keep stocks low, acquire long range delivery systems and focus on cultures that could be rapidly expanded once they had waited out the sanctions. Long range missiles take time to acquire, biochemical cultures do not. Kerry did not agree with the French on the assumption of their capabilities, or their minimized concern regarding the delivery systems. Again Kerry was for an end to the unlimited patience but wanted to push for a more ideal context for war. He also wanted to make clear the limits of his mandate regarding other countries being invaded. Kerry had a choice to support Bush in Spring of 2003 or risk giving the French and Germans the capability of torpedoing our last opportunity to contain what he saw as a need for a limit to Saddams manipulations as he had supported in the Iraq Liberation act and in forceful statements for nearly a decade.

2003-Meanwhile there were groups that had always opposed any action in Iraq in the radical left and saw Democratic congressman like Levin, Biden, Kerry, Clinton and even Kennedy as hawkish. In 1991, Antiwar groups like the IAC and UFPJ had all agreed that they were against the Gulf War, but some were for Sanctions, whereas others considered that an act of war. Many of these groups protested Gulf war one and continued their oppositon to sanctions. In the 90s, they opposed Kerry and Clinton and when the bribes started rolling out of the Oil for food program, Corrupt European officials found ready allies in these groups to push to lift sanctions in groups like CASI and EPIC. Kerry and Clinton had withstood the pressure from the far left that would have given Saddam what he had worked hard to achieve and that is to outlast, outspend and outmaneuver the Sanctions that made the ceasefire and no fly zone possible. Then Howard Dean changed everything. The Dean campaign had been considered 12th by ABC News, but succesfully rallied the groups on the far left that had rumbled against Clinton, Kerry, Bush 41, and now raged at GWB as well as new frustrated Liberals and they were putting up huge sums of money. It was the money that changed everything. The DLC and Clintonites had enjoyed a stranglehold on the machinery of the Party and Dean had come up with a way to bypass the DNC smoke filled rooms and solidify his position as a front runner by cutting off the far left from any of his more moderate competitors and had rounded up $50 million dollars.

2004 - It is common today to hear people claim that Republicans used the "scream" to destroy Dean, when in fact the Republicans had been salivating at the prospect of facing front runner Dean. Dean had criticized ALL of the Democrats that had supported Bush, supported the war, or had ever talked tough about ejecting Saddam. He was basically making fools out of a majority of the Party hierarchy and rolling around in piles of cash as he did. It was the DNC establishment and their 527s that were scared enough of Dean that they would have done anything to stop him and Kerry joined in along with all the rest. More importantly Kerry along with Clark, Gephart and everybody else in the field, realized they needed to pick up the pieces of Dean's Machine and Kerry immediately went in search of a message. That's just politics.

Kerry's oppositon to the war would start out with criticism of the handling of the war. A critique of Bush's competence but not the decision to go. This later gelled as "Tora Bora/took your eye off the ball". This made him seem consistent. The other angle was the "Unilateral/no coalition" argument which translates to Bush is a reckless cowboy that is making enemies and shooting up the place. This also sounds consistent with his 2002 warnings to the President, but is insincere, because Kerry knew the background of the European sabotage and would struggle to defend this position throughout the campaign. He either believed as he had argued for a decade in a distinct time table to stop giving Saddam chances or he did not. He claimed he could have created this coalition, which was the "force of my JFK charisma/I am the worldly international citizen" which he also knew was not possible for reasons I have already mentioned. It also created a caricature of himself that Dean would have avoided. He believed these statements could allow him to summarize his position by saying "I was for the war before I opposed it". When in reality he was not like Dean who fully opposed the invasion under any circumstances. His argument was that he was for "a war" just not the time, tactics or circumstances that Bush had chosen. His statement that he opposed “the” war was not the same as Dean’s.

Then on what to do now, he disagreed with the Dean followers in saying several different plans that all seemed vague and infuriated Dean's people and frustrated the Moderate Clinton veterans. He said he would begin a "significant reduction" with in 6 months but he also said a significant reduction by the end of his first term and then he said he would completely pullout by the end of his first term, which he eventually backed away from. As I stated in my previous post, he did not use the term "phased redeployment" during the campaign and if anyone wants to characterize these positions as such he never clearly stated which of those positions was his "final answer". In fact long before his August implosion, he trotted out his "Shinseki strategy" where he tried to simultaneously argue that he would have sent more troops than Bush, which is a variation on the "Bush was right to go, but incompetent" strategy, but then he doubled down by stating that as President he would support what is now call a "surge". Kerry also used his "Guns or butter" argument against the war which was also insincere, because he still argued that he would have gone to war just not like Bush, so arguing that $200 billion could have gone to big government domestic programs back home was also disengenous.

I am not going to restate all of his years of statements about Saddam must not possess WMDs because I think he was sincere and right to support Clinton and at other times in his stance. He also made firm stances against Al Qaeda at times. Your remark about Zarqawi seems to imply that prior to the war, he was reclining in post op and not an active terrorist. Bush was right in stating that from his headquarters in Iraq, prior to 2003, Zarqawi had sent a team of assassins to kill American Diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan. One of the assassins upon being apprehended admitted being paid $27,858 by Zarqawi to murder the US government official. There is a time a brazen assassination by Al Qaeda of one of our Diplomats would have raised eyebrows.

Kerry might have consistent principles in his head, but did he clearly state them during the campaign? No. Has he clearly stated them after the campaign? No. His 6 months/end of first term/surge/ partial/total pullout messages during the campaign were also overshadowed by the now discredited tactic of relying too heavily on a 40 year old military record to inoculate yourself from the “anticipated” criticism of being weak on defense and security. Bill Clinton could have run that campaign, been against the war, and never need to use the Military record to do it, and that is the problem. Clinton has set the bar quite high for subsequent candidates the same way a Bob Dole would suffer in comparison to Reagan. If you can't maneuver with some agility that is a close second to what the former President was capable of, the electorate will notice, your party will notice and the Party leadership will pull their hair out.

After his defeat, he has tried to get out front of the curve the way Dean did. There were reports of him wandering around telling people he had won, which just makes him sound unpresidential to even his own party faithful. Nine months ago he argued for what was the equivalent of an immediate and total pullout to be completed in full by end of 2006. With Kerry not running, it injected itself into the campaigns of others that were trying to construct a successful campaign to win back both houses. His proposal lost 83-16. There were murmurs that Kerry was not being a team player. A few months later he set a date of July of this year. Troops would have to begin moving heavy equipment in October of 2006, at the height of the campaign. Then the Botched Joke and the failed coverup. Blaming it on an inadvertent snafu by a low level staffer, then it was out of context and then that it was a "botched" joke, and then that it was not "botched", but it was a joke that everybody understood except for his opponents that were lying that they didn't realize it was a joke. Then the non apology that he was sorry that people didn't get it. All of this focus on "me, me, me", while Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Shumer were within site of the finish line.

I think Kerry has done some things in his lifetime that I think are irresponsible, but in the past he has for the most part made an effort to be responsible regarding national defense regarding Iraq. To borrow a phrase of his, he took his eye off the ball in 2004. He tried to thread the needle and build on his past positions and make them look like Dean's. It didn't work. One of the first rules of a campaign is be yourself. Kerry came across as someone who didn't know who he was. Dean did. Dean was taking the party to where they are now. A place I don't agree with, but the DLC/Clinton camp/moderates were willing to back Kerry before they would accept Dean, and they carry as much responsibility as Kerry himself for 2004. Now the party is all in one place so to speak and it just happens to be in control, and now comes the line from Robert Redford at the end of the movie, “The Candidate”, "What do we do now?"

Well, apparently they got one thing right. Someone got the message to Kerry that they were no longer in need of his services, at least on the Presidential level.

I appreciate your extensive links, but the debate about Kerry's departure is not among Republicans, it is among Democrats. He did not give a clear message of his positions and he failed to maintain control of his image and because of that he not only confused others, I believe he confused himself. Then he fell down.

flavius wrote on January 27, 2007 10:37 PM:

Congratulations to you and pseudo-a on a
grown up exchange. It's a pleasure to read a post , nod in agreement and then read a rebuttal and do the same.

That said I doubt whether Kerry's defeat stemmed
from any of the factors either of you explored.
He's the same John Kerry who lost his 72 primary because he couldn't connect with Joe Lunchpail in Lowell . And didn't connect with him in
04 either..

Sadly , if Bush and Kerry had swapped roles in 04 : Bush as our candidate reading the campaign speeches Kerry gave , and vice versa , it would have been a democratic landslide.

It's becoming unpopular to say this but Bush
won because he looked like someone JL could
have a beer with. Not true but that doesn't matter.

It's not that policies don't matter. They do , to many voters most of whom correctly vote for the candidate who fits their bias. But that's not how the election gets decided .

That happens because of Joe Lunchpail ,the 30% of the electorate which votes based on gut feelings about the two people who are running.

I'm droning on about this because I think it's important that we don't let smart guys like you and pseudo-a con us into thinking that we can win in 08 if only we have the right policies. Policies , smolicies we'll only win with a candidate who appeals to Joe Lunchpail- who won't have a clue about their positions but thinks McCain looks better at the lecturn than Hillary. End of story.

TJKING wrote on January 28, 2007 2:41 AM:

Thanks for your compliments and your insight, Flavius. I hope you didn't think I was conning anyone into thinking policy alone wins elections. In my extensive,..ahem..post..I covered alot of ground regarding electability. As a person, that agrees with democrats very little, I complimented Kerry for at one time in the past making a firm stance on defending our nation with force after acknowledging I dislike his behavior as a antiwar protestor, I almost compared Clintons dexterity and charisma to Reagan, I alluded to Bush's adherance to heartfelt principles which many on this board refer to as stubborness and others will say he is being controlled by a bat cave beneath the white house, but Someday, Historians may remember him for one thing, that he focused his entire Presidency on Defense and security as a response to 911 against whithering opposition. Steadfastness, Charisma, wit, mental dexterity, of the Presidents I mentioned, all of those traits are valuable and can be recognized by Joe sixpack. A policy can be typed out by a commitee. Thats why we have a congress and on the second of the three legs of the stool we have a President. Joe Lunchpail always decides these elections. And he should, its his country, it always has been and he's done a pretty good job so far. Paraphrasing Churchill, Democracy is mean, nasty, slow moving, inefficient and its the worst type of government there is,...except for all of the others. You could say the same thing for Joe Lunchpail's presidential choices in the last hundred years. Not bad for the best nation in history.

TJKING wrote on January 28, 2007 3:25 AM:

Here we are discussing why Kerry got thrown under the Bus and now we are discussing the former Vice Presidential candidate who not only got booted from the DNC Presidential hopeful list, he was officially thrown out of the party. Does anybody get a second shot in this party?

flavius wrote on January 28, 2007 10:40 AM:

Not bad for the best nation in history

Having lived 20 years in other countries I'm not sure this is even the best nation now never mind in history.

I wondered if I'd get away with con . You caught me.

TJKING wrote on January 28, 2007 1:39 PM:

Kerry unleashed! Domestic pariah calls US International Pariah

I wondered if I'd get away with that "best nation in history". I would have thought I'd be flamed into the pizza oven of enlightenment by now.

I enjoy residence in another country. When I leave the US, I don't fly a flag, I don't wear red,white and blue and I don't engage foreigners in discussions about the merits of our country. I have spent a great deal of time outside the US and have found there are some people that do certain things better than us and there are some countries whose government came up with a good idea before ours. When immigrants come to our country, I make note of some of those things that I admire and have high hopes that they bring with them some of those positive traits.

We are not perfect in people or government, but there has never been any better nor is there now. I know that draws fire to say that and people consider it chauvenistic, but at this time when we are under attack for the very nature of American and western civilization, we need to do some analysis of who we are and what makes our nations great.

The Islamo Fascists explain in their videos, that they can destroy an entire civilazation if that nation and people do not believe enough in their own ideals and culture to defend it.

That's us. Can one Constitution be better than another? Can one culture have better values regarding the treatment of women? Is it better to have a Nation that allows more freedom in daily life than another? Are the philosophies of democracy and individual identity that the Greeks defended at Salamis important concepts for a culture to emulate? Can an American practice self analysis of his countries place in the scheme of things in the realm of what we do best, or is that analysis only allowed nowadays for criticism?

That brings me to the Subject of this thread, John Kerry. By now you have probably heard Kerry's newest image enhancer for his party. He was in Davos, Switzerland where he stood on a stage with Iran's former leader Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami. When asked about America's treatment of Iran, he launched into a series of crticisms of our country, our people, and our perspective. For him to stand next to the same leader that ran hezbollah and now encourages the Shia incursions into Iraq, both of which kill Americans and call the US an "International Pariah". He did this "drive by" on soil that if not for the determination of American Soldiers and the will of our people would not allow any type of freedom of speech.

What if during the Kosovo War, Bush 41 stood on a stage in Europe with Slobodan Milosevic and when asked about how we treat Serbia, former Pres. Bush in reference to Bill Clinton's strategic decisions said, "America is now an International Pariah". While Slobodan smiles and chuckles. Maybe even use the phrase "Great Satan", that's catchy!

Well, get ready for the media to run to the defense of the International man of mystery. They will defend him publicly, but privately say they are grateful he dropped out. Yet, now he seems to feel liberated to blabber about how America needs to have the "global test" graded by the ayatollahs now. The DNC is thinking Kerry is like one of those Friday the 13th movies, where you were convinced the monster was gone and you were safe, and then "Kerry is Back!".

Are the headlines going to be "Pelosi visits troops in Afghanistan", ...No, its going to be "Kerry defends Ayatollah from Running Dog Yankee imperialists".

This guy is so tone deaf its scary to think how close he came to getting behind the steering wheel. Kerry criticized what he called the "unfortunate habit" of Americans to see the world "exclusively through an American lens."

Why is he on that stage? He is not there because he married into a Ketchup fortune (well, maybe it is) or because he can ski past his Swiss Chalet. He is there because he is an American government official. What if someone said, he has an unfortunate habit of supporting legislation that benefits Massachussets. For god's sake, the oval office is reserved for an occupant who protects AMERICAN interests.

Just as Jimmy Carter will never forgive America for not choosing him, Kerry will fester in the arms of another country and stab at us for not loving him enough.

I'm sure when the Ayatollahs are planning ways to incinerate every Jew on the planet, I bet this Kerry quote made them giggle with glee, "..We should be less engaged in this 'neocon' rhetoric of regime change and more involved in building relations and living up to our own values so that people make a different judgment about us."

Why won't they like me?

We are the best country ever, but apparently not good enough for John Kerry. How will we ever sleep at night?

fake consultant wrote on January 30, 2007 3:19 AM:

John Edwards, maybe.

www.fakeconsultant.blogspot.com

limewire wrote on December 22, 2007 7:50 PM:

Thanks boys
259720d967e46d0542d310ba97109444

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)