All because of his vote on this resolution, Kerry has now caused the slime on the other side to have yet another reason to use this war for political advantage. This also makes the Democratic Party look bad, because now Kerry has to backpeddle to explain himself. I am a Democrat who is not even a Senator and I knew what Bush was before he ever got installed by the USSC. Anyone who would stoop to taking the Presidency under that cloud, would lie about anything, especially Iraq. And at the time of this vote it was more important to keep our resources and our energies on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. to locate Bin Laden. How long has Kerry been a Senator? Also, please then explain why Senators then voted against it. If the evidence was so overwhelming, why wasn't everyone in the Congress, "misled?" I also tend to believe the words, "use of force" mean war (they certainly don't mean diplomacy), and I wouldn't have voted for it either. See, these are the things that get us into unnecessary battles of semantics rather than real issues that hurt us at the polls. We better start telling the truth on this, because this vote by Kerry has hurt his chances now, and has alienated many Democrats who are against this war and who also knew what this was all about from the beginning. Al Gore knew, Howard Dean knew, others knew. Why didn't Kerry know what this was all about ?
I have no choice but to vote for Kerry now, because Al Gore (the man who should have been there,) is not there. However, let's face facts: Kerry did vote for this resolution which allowed this warmonger carte blanche to maim and murder innocent civilians and our troops, and perpetuate this nightmare for years to come on us, our children, and their children. Even if Kerry trusted what Bush said, preemptive is the word that should have rang true. Kerry also said any President should have this authority...That is wrong. Bush is the last person you want to give this authority to. Other Senators saw it ( including both of mine in NJ who I am forever grateful to for their no vote), so again, why didn't Kerry see it? And why then would he say he would still do it again knowing what we know now? That means KNOWING THEY LIED. :bad: Sorry, but that was a big blow to his campaign in my view. So was then saying he was also for preemptive attacks if they were deemed necessary. What does that mean? You see, we have been through this before with warmonger/war criminal Bush, and this is not something you want to tell the American people who are suffering because of it being done before. Congress according to the constitution is also the only body that can declare war. Therefore, he should have said, knowing what we know now, I would never have given Bush the authority to kill thousands of innocents and our troops and escalate terrorism. The Democratic Party shoots themselves in the foot every time, and frankly, as a Democrat I am really getting tired of seeing it.
Our convention already proved that this Party is also playing politics with this war, and it is disgusting no matter which side does it. No peace signs allowed at the convention...people brought out in handcuffs because they dared to express their free thoughts about this war... protestors relegated to pig pens... and no, "Bush bashing" allowed? This is a Party that believes in free speech? Even during Vietnam, the people who attended the Democratic Convention had a chance to express themselves. So again, the entire party look like hypocrites now all because they want to appeal to some elusive base on the right, while alienating the true diehard Democrats who believe in the very principles this party leadership has sacrificed. Bush could lose big time if we would only really stand up to these liars, instead of allowing them to always get the upper hand. I'm still waiting for that to happen.
Jan