kerry's philosophy seems to be "never trust a man who means what he says." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/03/EDGVG5CFUG1.DTL -- Kerry's complicated exfoliation Debra J. Saunders Wednesday, March 3, 2004 ©2004 San Francisco Chronicle IT'S AN ODD campaign gimmick, but Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., often tells voters that he was "misled" and that's why he voted for an October 2002 resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. Kerry says he believed the resolution tied President Bush to promises to build an international coalition, to work with the United Nations and only go to war as a last resort. A disappointed Kerry now says Bush failed in all three venues. Kerry's story only works if you don't know that the resolution didn't bind Bush as Kerry said. A month before Kerry's "yes'' vote, Bush went to the United Nations and said the following: "Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times. Not once, not twice -- 16 times he has defied the U. N. The U.N. has told him after the (Persian) Gulf War what to do, what the world expected, and 16 times he's defied it. And enough is enough. The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out.'' When Kerry met with The Chronicle Editorial Board on Friday, I had the chance to ask the senator how he could have expected Bush to behave differently in light of what Bush had said. Kerry's answer reminds me of the angry customer in the Federal Express ad, who, clad only in a towel and a loofah mitt, calls a company to complain that FedEx delivered his package as scheduled, which he should not have expected, and by the way it inconveniently interrupted a "complicated exfoliation." Kerry's answer was that Washington insiders believed that Bush didn't mean what he said. "I think that you had a hard-line group (then Pentagon adviser) Richard Perle, (Deputy Defense Secretary) Paul Wolfowitz and probably (Vice President Dick) Cheney. But when Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker (former advisers to the first President Bush) weighed in, very publicly in op-eds in the New York Times and the (Washington) Post, the chatter around Washington and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell in particular, who was very much of a different school of thought, was really that the president hadn't made up his mind. He was looking for an out. That's what a lot of people thought." What about what Bush said to the U.N.? That was "rhetorical," Kerry answered. And "a whole bunch of very smart legitimate people" not running for president thought as he did. "So most people, actually on the inside, really felt that (Bush) himself was looking for the way out to sort of satisfy Cheney, satisfy Wolfowitz, but not get stuck." Kerry continued, "The fact that he jumped and went the other way, I think, shocked them and shocked us." So Kerry was "misled" because he believed that Bush didn't mean what Bush said. Talk about your dirty tricks . . . Kerry also downplayed the importance of his Iraq vote when he told The Chronicle, "Moreover, we didn't give (Bush) any authority he didn't have. (President) Clinton went to Kosovo without Congress. Clinton went to Haiti without Congress." And: "What we thought we were doing was getting him (Bush) to a place where it would be harder to go to war." The scariest part is that Kerry looked as if he believed what he said. He had noted that all of his fears of where Bush might err turned out to be right. At the same time, Kerry asserted that his vote for military force made it "harder" for Bush to go to war. There are a few ways to interpret Kerry's statement. One is to believe the Kerry spin that the Vietnam War vet is a reluctant warrior, who only sends other mens' sons off to war under the most dire circumstances, and Kerry somehow believed that a Senate vote authorizing force would make it harder for Bush to send U.S. troops to Iraq. Or you can believe Kerry is a reluctant warrior who voted for war, even if he opposed it, because he was running for president, and the war polled well. Or you can believe that Kerry strongly believed in the war, but now poses as a reluctant warrior because he is running for president as a Democrat. Or you can believe that you shouldn't believe a politician who complains he was misled because another politician had the cheek to mean what he said.
I love the FedEx comparison. Cudos to the writer. And I think it's a reasonable argument -- very logical. I've already confronted this cavil, and it doesn't come anywhere close to changing my vote. There was enormous pressure to vote for the resolution. Not everyone is a Waxman. I think the polls rule the day for most of these chumps, including both of these candidates.
et tu? You're going to vote for GWB no matter what, correct? That's fine if it's true. I just wish we could vote already. The months of negative campaigning, bile-filled AM radio, nasty negative threads will serve what purpose? To further divide the nation and to decrease voter turnout. That's all we'll accomplish. Actually, Lieberman made a nice speech in Congress yesterday appealing for less brutal campaigning for the good of the country. It's the first sensible thing he's said in years, and I applaud the sentiment.
personally i wish we could just cancel both conventions, outlaw campaign ads until after labor day, then each week until nov 2 hold a debate on a different issue. oh yeah, close the d&d until halloween...
Sometimes it's a curse to have a good imagination. It's all too easy to imagine what the next several months will be like, with bile and spittle flying in all directions the closer it gets to the election. Gird yourself for it.
Wow... Maybe we could come together and form a third party on these fine principles alone. Everyone but media members would join and we could crush both parties!
Well ideally, we woundn't have the Repubs outspending the Demos 2 to 1 so that both sides could compete on the level of ideas not who can spend the most money on ads. Ads work. That is why billions are spent annually advertising products.
This would actually be great thing. Of course, it will never happen - campaigning and "fundraising" (collecting bribes) are as much a part of current political culture as pasta is a part of Italian culture. The whole culture needs to be changed if anything is going to change. Third parties, where are you?
