Kerry's Long Standing Opposition to Bush's War
I haven’t gotten around to watching yet, but from on line reports I understand that the latest anti-Kerry talking point on today’s Sunday news shows is to claim Kerry is opposing Bush on the war based upon the polls. Such accusations totally ignore Kerry’s long-standing opposition to Bush’s policies.
In criticizing Bush, Kerry is doing exactly what he warned, as quoted in Walter Shapiro’s book, One-Car Caravan:
“My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I’m voting for you to do what you said you’re going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process. If you go unilaterally, without having exhausted these remedies, I’m not supporting you. And if you decide that this is just a matter of straight pre-emptive doctrine for regime-change purposes without regard to the imminence of the threat, I’m not going to support you.” –John Kerry, October 2002.
Add to this the warnings included in Kerry’s Senate floor statement on the IWR, his pre-war talk at Georgteown urging Bush not to rush to war, his call for regime change in the United States in his protest over the invasion at the time it occurred, and multiple other anti-war statements.
posted by Ron Chusid at 11:37 AM
2 Comments:
Although, like many other people who admired John Kerry for blowing the whistle on the Vietnam War, I would like to believe that he also, as claimed on this website "consistently opposed Bush's war," the truth is that he did not make his opposition at all clear during his run for the Presidency. The truth is that he vacillated, tergiversated, appeared (as he is now somewhat belatedly accused of doing) to be guided more by polls, focus groups, editorial positions, than by his own conscience. If this imputation of consistent opposition to the war presages a second go at the Presidency, I think he is mad. Democratic voters who waited in vain for Kerry to show one ounce of backbone during his campaign for the Presidency, are thoroughly disgusted with him, and would sit out any election in which the choice was eiher Kerry or the next zombie put up for election by Karl Rove. I certainly would. The Democratic Party must be taught that it can not depend on people voting for its candidates merely because "they are not as bad as the Republican opposition."
You are confusing Kerry's positions with what others said about him.
Kerry was clear on his position in opposition to the war from the beginning. This became unclear during the primaries when Dean distoted Kerry's views as he realized he had to differentiate himself from the other northeastern liberal in the race to stand a chance.
This almost worked for Dean, but the voters in the primaries saw through it. Most opponents of the war voted for Kerry.
The Republicans, as well a much of the pro-Republican media, continued to distort Kerry's position on the war despite multiple clear statements from Kerry on the war during the campaign.
If Democrats are going to win, we need people like you to stop helpingl the Republicans by spreading their talking points. Kerry showed plenthy of back bone in attacking Bush--having done so before other Democrats were brave enough to do so.
The Republcans have stayed in power partially by conning people lie you to spread their taling points and possibly even sitting out elections. Then a new candidate is chosen and they do the same to the next.
Post a Comment
<< Home