Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

John Kerry to S.F.Chronicle Editorial Board: Bush lied! He did what he said he'd do!

by Paul C / March 5, 2004 1:22 AM PST

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...

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 ****) 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."
(Say what? pfc)

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 we're still in Kosovo...and still in Bosnia...and we're back in Haiti. BTW, does anyone remember any Democratic outrage at these actions of Bill Clinton? How about the 1998 resolution authorizing force against Saddam? Didn't think so...pfc)

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.

Seems that the only person being untruthful here - mostly to himself - is John Kerry, and that's what is truly scary, IMO!
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: John Kerry to S.F.Chronicle Editorial Board: Bush lied! He did what he said he'd do!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: John Kerry to S.F.Chronicle Editorial Board: Bush lied! He did what he said he'd do!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
If people just listen to Kerry's own words...

they would immediately notice something rather significant.

If his lips are moving he is LYING!

Collapse -
Sounds like Kerry is either deluded or an idiot.

Really reassuring in a major party's candidate for the Presidency!

Collapse -
Re: He did what he said he'd do! -- Your post totally misrepresents Kerry's points

Hi, Paul C.

Bush said that war would only be a last resort, and that there'd be international cooperation. Bush then takes that to mean Britain, Australia, and some hangers-on -- the intent of the resolution was a truly international coalition as in Gulf War I. Further, Bush et al. kept raising the bar on what "cooperation" with the inspectors meant. Youre post is clearly intended to try to do to Kerry what Romney's "I was brainwashed" statement about VietNam did in destroying his campaign against Nixon. Hopefully the American public won't be played for fools yet again, but only time will tell.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Did you read this piece?

Also from Ms. Saunders' column:

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.'' (Emphasis mine)

President Bush said that at the UN, Dave. There's no way Sen. Kerry (or you) can say that he (or you) was somehow blindsided by the invasion of Iraq. The President spoke a month before Sen. Kerry voted for the resolution, for God's sake! He can't possibly say that he didn't know that we might act without UN sanction if the UN failed to step up to the plate and accepted its responsibility to enforce its previous 18 resolutions.

At best, Sen. Kerry is being completely disingenuous. At worse, he's either being completely dishonest (real bad, IMO), or displaying the intellectually laziness as the Bush haters so like to attribute to the President (even worse).

Collapse -
Re: Did you read this piece?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 5, 2004 12:46 PM PST

Hi, Paul C.

I gave it the attention it deserved. IOW, I scanned enough of the first paragraph to identify it as partisan republican drivel, then addressed some particular points in what you chose to post.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Sounds about right for an educated scientist...(research? What is that?)..(NT)
by Edward ODaniel / March 6, 2004 1:36 AM PST
Collapse -
Re: Did you read this piece? P.S. OTOH, I did
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 5, 2004 12:49 PM PST

carefully follow the debate and wording of the resolution itself when it was introduced (and unfortunately passed) those many months ago -- and there's passing little relationship between that resolution and Ms. Saunders' revisionist exegesis of same.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Not so, but your post indicates you are trying mind reading again...

If you READ the article Paul had represented it quite accurately.

It is you who are not doing so.

Collapse -
Rule number 11. You did have 10 didn't you Bo?

11. When confronted with unpleasant or uncomfortable history, rewrite it to fit the interests of the Democrat Party and/or its nominees.

Collapse -
I only had 6, KP
by Bo Boggs / March 5, 2004 6:39 AM PST

4 of which I swiped from Neal Boortz. You modified #4 and I have seen some others suggested.

Someone needs to compile them all and periodically repost them so we don't forget.

Along with things like;
When you see that your candidate is a sleaze and cannot win, jerk him and substitute another after the deadlines have passed (the Torricelli Rule)


Collapse -
No, Kiddpeat, yell Nixon....
by J. Vega / March 5, 2004 9:32 AM PST

He yelled "Nixon" this morning. Wow, a 2 Nixon day, and the day is not over yet.

Collapse -
Do I have a bid for a Watergate?
by Kiddpeat / March 5, 2004 1:58 PM PST

There must be one there somewhere.

Collapse -
You read minds, Kiddpeat...
by J. Vega / March 6, 2004 1:17 AM PST

You read minds, Kiddpeat. It's now the next day, before noon, and he switched to "Watergate" in the Martha Stewart thread. Well, when he was talking about the problem being lying, obviously he would ignore the last administration and run to something over 3 decades ago.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!