TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The lesser of 9 evils?

The lesser of 9 evils?

This guy really tore Kerry a new one. If much of this is true, he'll really have to solidify has positions and defend them well. Get ready for all of the candidates skeletons to come out!

WSJ Editorial

quote:

Brainwashed? Was John Kerry brainwashed? That's what we've been wondering as the new Democratic frontrunner struggles to explain his off-again-on-again-off-again support for confronting Saddam Hussein. Some of our readers may recall that "brainwashing" is the word that turned the late George W. Romney into a footnote in American political history. In the summer of 1967, the Michigan Governor was the leading contender for the 1968 GOP Presidential nod. Then he told a Detroit television station that during a trip to Vietnam he had had "the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get" regarding the increasingly unpopular war. Romney was quickly laughed out of the race. Now Mr. Kerry seems to be concocting his own Romney-like rationale for changing his mind on Iraq, specifically on weapons of mass destruction. Back in 1991, the Massachusetts Senator opposed President George H.W. Bush's U.N.-backed effort to drive Saddam from Kuwait. But on October 11, 2002 he nonetheless voted to give the current President Bush the unilateral authority "to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." So why did the Senator later vote against the $87 billion appropriation to finish the job in Iraq (and Afghanistan), while accusing Mr. Bush of pursuing a "cut-and-run" strategy? Well, he now claims, he was "repeatedly misled" about Iraq's weapons by Bush officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell. And he is demanding an investigation. But is it really likely that this savvy Washington insider was hoodwinked? As an 18-year member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has spent plenty of time thinking about how to handle Iraq. He also had privileged and direct access to U.S. intelligence, the same data that led President Clinton into a military confrontation with Saddam in 1998, which was the same year "regime change" became stated U.S. policy after Mr. Kerry allowed the Iraq Liberation Act to pass the Senate with unanimous consent. Presumably, similar intelligence played a role in Senator Kerry's speech on October 9, 2002 that "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction [our emphasis] in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." If Mr. Kerry was misled into believing in such a threat, so were the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright and Senator Carl Levin, all of whom made similarly unequivocal statements on the matter. Nor does it appear to have been any contrary evidence that started Mr. Kerry's drift back into the antiwar camp. Rather it was the sudden traction Mr. Dean was getting with his antiwar message that led Mr. Kerry in January 2003 to start accusing Mr. Bush of a "rush to war." These days Mr. Kerry has more or less adopted the entire Dean line, decrying as "fraudulent" a coalition that includes most of our key allies from World Wars I and II. Mr. Kerry has an explanation for all this, sort of. He says Saddam should have been evicted from Kuwait but voted "no" on the first Gulf War to give the former President Bush more time to amass domestic support. He says his "yes" vote in 2002 was premised on this President Bush attracting more international help. He didn't, he told Rolling Stone, expect Mr. Bush to "f -- it up as badly as he did." Hell, we might curse too if we felt obliged to offer up such a tortured rationale. We're not the only ones who've noticed. Washington Post columnist David Broder, no Republican shill, recently suggested to Mr. Kerry that it would be difficult for him to explain to voters that "your 'no' [in 1991] did not mean no, and your 'yes' [in 2002] did not mean yes." The Occam's Razor explanation, it seems to us, is that the former Naval Lieutenant tacks with the political winds -- and not just over the course of years and months but of days. The liberal New Republic magazine recently republished two Kerry letters to the same constituent in 1991, one appearing to support the Gulf War, the other to oppose it. We think Mr. Kerry knows full well that there was no Administration conspiracy to mislead anybody this time around. Intelligence on Iraq was indeed faulty, as weapons inspector David Kay told Senators last week. But Mr. Kay was emphatic that any mistakes were not because of Administration pressure. Meanwhile, the prior occupant of the White House continues to believe the WMD existed. The Portuguese Prime Minister says Mr. Clinton told him recently "he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." All of which raises the vital question of Mr. Kerry's constancy and character. In the Romney era, at least, some sort of consistency on matters of war and peace -- or at least a plausible explanation for a change of heart -- was considered a prerequisite for would-be commanders-in-chief. Shouldn't it still be today?

I love how the media is a double-edged sword. Thou giveth and taketh away.

It rises them up and brings them back down on a hard fall.

Bye Bye Kerry .. looks like the demoncrates are running out of candiates

This article essentially starts to bring up specifics on what the Bush re-election team has been saying for a long time. Dean's the easiest candidate to beat, followed by John Kerry. Kerry's been a senator for 18 years, and has a dismal voting record when it comes to defense, taxes, and investment...and the record has been recorded for everyone to see and research over the next 9 months.

Yep, like said in a previous post. Why would I want to vote for a fool that got fooled by another fool.

I agree on Kerry's voting record. Voting for the war, but not for the $87 billion in order to support the troops. Oh wait a minute, Bush's administration said the Iraqi oil would cover the cost of the war

Anyone know Kerry's Iraqi exit strategy?

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok This article essentially starts to bring up specifics on what the Bush re-election team has been saying for a long time. Dean's the easiest candidate to beat, followed by John Kerry. Kerry's been a senator for 18 years, and has a dismal voting record when it comes to defense, taxes, and investment...and the record has been recorded for everyone to see and research over the next 9 months.

Kucinich, Mosley Braun, Sharpton, and Dean would have been much easier targets than Kerry.

The main thing about Kerry's senate record I feel could hurt him is his stance on gun control, but it's also a stance shared by many Northeastern Republicans. I'm a person who would always stand up for the rights of hunters, but the question is, do you need an AK47 to hunt with? I think it's fucked up anyone can go to a gun show and buy a gun without a background check. That must be where most felons and psychos get their guns. The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow people to own rocket launchers, and I think it's reasonable to set some limits. The only question is what those limits are.

His record in Vietnam is going to blunt most any Senate vote on National Security, but his voting against the first Gulf War could also hurt him some. In my opinion, Bush's credibility on N.S. has been eroded quite a bit, and that's basically the only issue he has to gain reelection.


As for Southern States, I think Kerry has a reasonable shot at Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida, which are mostly democratic states.
I imagine he will be campaigning in those states quite hard.

Mathematically, Kerry would just need one extra state like Missouri or Arizona in the Electoral College over the usual blue states, and could win without any Southern states. I'd hate to see any candidate write off an entire portion of the country that has probably suffered the most economic hardship though.

Georgia used to go blue sometimes, but has recently been taken over by Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson's clan. They are now trying to ban the word 'evolution' in the public schools.

My prediction is that basically if all the millions of people who lost their jobs and healthcare coverage in the past three years go out and vote, it almost won't matter who Bush is running against, or how many gay bashing ads against his opponent he runs. I think it's around 60,000 textile-manufacturing jobs that have been lost in South Carolina alone in the last 3 years. I was watching C Span the other day, and there was a conference of (White) textile mill owners and workers in South Carolina. They were asked if they had voted for Bush last election to raise their hands. All of them did. They were asked if they would vote for him again; only two out of many dozens raised their hands.

That's very telling.


Most of the liberals in the Senate (including Hillary) voted for the IWR. They all had the same bad intelligence, and I believe McCain when he says he doesn't think anyone intentionally misled about WMD. There also seems to have been some room for diplomacy even within the resolution. Bush and Cheney have misled the American people about the link between 9/11 and Saddam however, and don�t tell me they didn't because I watch the news media.


This is quite funny to read in hindsight:

quote:

Senate approves Iraq war resolution Administration applauds vote Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice." "The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must." While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature. The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed. Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days. The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate. The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. "If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said. The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq. Resolution sharply divides Democrats The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage. Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment." Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse." Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote. Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution. "This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal. "Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said. In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution. Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations. "I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure. But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration. "All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq," he said. "All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."

Here is the IWR:


http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArt...article_id=2686

quote:

As for Southern States, I think Kerry has a reasonable shot at Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida, which are mostly democratic states. I imagine he will be campaigning in those states quite hard.

Uhm,no actually.That's not true. I used to live in Florida. Florida is mainly a conservative state,because there are a whole bunch of military bases located there...and military is mainly conservative. So, I don't know about Louisiana,and Arkansas..But I def. know that Florida is not mostly democrat.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Uhm,no actually.That's not true. I used to live in Florida. Florida is mainly a conservative state,because there are a whole bunch of military bases located there...and military is mainly conservative. So, I don't know about Louisiana,and Arkansas..But I def. know that Florida is not mostly democrat.

Not sure you're 100% accurate on your conclusion. Florida is also a haven of elderly people who can swing either way, but their votes are closely tied to health care and prescription drug benefits, as well as a lot of cubans and people of latino descent. The state's kind of a mess to be honest!

Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Missouri will decide the winner in 04.

Most of the rest of the South except maybe Clinton's and Clark's Arkansas is now off the table with this Mass. Supreme Court ruling.

I doubt even typically democratic West Virginia will vote for Kerry.

The South has been the hardest hit of any region by Bush's trade policies, yet I suspect many of those unemployed will still vote for him.

Nellie, Florida gave a left-wing mandate in 2000 (counting Green Party votes), but it was of course very close. It's certainly a swing state.


The old people vote is a very large constituency in Florida and Arizona, and I think Bush pissed off a lot of old people with his prescription drug "benefit" that bans old people from buying drugs from overseas, and actually decreases coverage for many senior citizens. Arizona has a 30% retiree population for example. The House leader who helped author the bill is now retiring from the House to take a high paying position in the prescription drug industry, so that certainly looks very corrupt. I'd say that issue almost equals in magnitude for Bush what gay marriage is for Kerry simply because of all the people nearing retirement age, and already retired.


If many people are still out of work (and therefore have lost their healthcare coverage), I do think they will hold it against the man currently in power whether that is justified or not.

It's going to be too close to call for any of us, but right now even with all the damning testimony against the Bush Administration from many former Administration officials, I'd still bet on his reelection simply on the gay marriage issue alone.


Kerry and Edward's position on gay marriage is the same as Dick Cheney's, but of course that's not what the TV ads will say.

Doesn't Dick Gephardt also have a gay daughter or something?

The ticket will probably be Kerry/Edwards, or if Edwards can manage to catch Kerry, Edwards/Kerry.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.