Kerry has too much trust in Bush, too naive to be president.

[anti-NAFTA]

He voted to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq and supposedly didn't think Bush would take advantage of it.

But not only that! He, gave George Bush, whose surname is synonymous with psychotic trade agreements, FAST TRACK authority in 2002!

It seems to me that Senator Kerry is easily misled.

[JVS]

1. I have difficulty believing Kerry is dumb enough to be tricked by Bush.

And for that reason I believe his actions were rooted in either cowardice or cynical political calculus.

[bigtree]

11. Or rooted in the principle of multilateralism backed by military force,

which Bush disregarded as he spurned the restraint mandated in the IWR and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his rush to invade and occupy Iraq.

[JVS]

17. Ok, maybe you have a point and Kerry was just stupid.

Trusting Bush to show restraint on this issue, what a brainfart.

[bigtree]

34. Stupid to expect the president to obey the law.

Stupid to believe that the American people would recognize the difference between the provosions in the IWR and what Bush ultimately did.

Stupid to believe that the American people would not divert from the president's responsibility in his unilateral, preemptive invasion by foisting the blame on a resolution that sought to restrain his manufactured mandate.

Maybe not so stupid as you think.

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. Actually, that WAS pretty stupid

Considering this "president" and his supporters broke numerous laws to get in to the White House in the first place. Considering his father broke countless laws in his administration, which for the most part, comprised the same bunch of assholes who are in Junior's fraudministration. It could easily be said that trusting Bush to abide by the law was incredibly stupid. Criminals who consider themselves above the law on previous occasions don't change their mind unless forced to do so.

[bigtree]

42. Why pass any laws then?

Such extreme rhetoric that doesn't comport with the actual reality of our system of governmental checks and balances. Btw, It's our turn to hold Bush accountable. Don't miss.

[JVS]

45. Thanks. I cannot improve on your comment.

[Carolina]

21. cynical political calculus!

[Raya]

2. Kerry is Naive, Unprincipled, Bush-lite, Giggolo, .. We are so good at it.

Keep going.

[anti-NAFTA]

4. Don't put words in my mouth.

Kerry is either naive or politically spineless. To what else can you attribute his votes?

[AntiCoup2K4]

40. I vote for "politically spineless"

And that's as close as I'll ever get to voting for Kerry!

[HFishbine]

13. Don't forget

that his name is an anagram for Horny Jerk.

[snoochie]

3. Maybe so

But since the primary voters are voting for him, they leave us little option.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. I think it's more a question of shared interests and common goals than

naivete. And it is not really fair to single out Kerry. Most politicians have a common interest in maintaining the status quo, and they benefit, as do many in the wealthiest classes, from the prosperity afforded the defense and energy industries by US policies.

Most voters are not wealthy, although they do tend to be the top 25% income tier, there is still a very large gap between the bottom of that group and the top; even so, they also support the status quo, and while they may not have a lot of faith in bush as an individual, the policies he represents are what they believe to be in their best interests.

[boobooday]

6. Is it trust?

Or common ground?

Just asking. The whole Yale/skull & bones thing sits like a bad burrito with me.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[WitchWay]

30. ....bad burrito!

I agree...I've never been okay with Kerry's Skull and Bones membership, and I don't think that this has been examined seriously enough...

You know, back at Yale, Kerry joined skull and bones pledging his allegiances to a bunch of Bushes and Cheneys.

Funny how the "anyone-but-bush" candidate happens to have secret allegiances with Bush, hmmmmm?

[bigtree]

7. Most Americans believed Bush when he said that war would be a last resort

Maybe only anti-IWR voters should be allowed to participate in this election.

[HFishbine]

15. I sure as hell didn't

And I don't want someone dumber than me as president. Trust me, you don't either.

[Carolina]

23. yeah, that's why they joined

millions across the globe protesting.

[bigtree]

32. I protested the war.

I didn't and don't blame Kerry.

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. Now that's the best idea I've heard all day!

Even though you meant it as pure sarcasm. Those who never had a problem with the Bush agenda to begin with, certainly can't be depended upon to vote against it.

The sick irony in your sarcastic statement is that those of against the sick illegal fascist war are the ones who are NOT being allowed our true vote. Instead we're forced to vote for either warmonger 1 or warmonger 2.

What the hell kind of choice is that?

[bigtree]

50. Kerry is no warmonger

IWR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Bush's Rush to War

[Scott Lee]

46. Most Americans believe Jesus appears in taco shells too

Or some iteration of such poppycock. Point is, never go trying to laud the basic awareness of your countrymen...you may find yourself trying to throw a party with no favors.

[eagler]

8. He may not be perfect, but he's got what this

nation needs now simply because he can unite something as diverse as the democratic party.

[corporatewhore]

9. as i have said he is too stupid or too spineless to be a good president

but buti thought bush wasnt gonna screw it up

[brainwashed_youth]

10. alot of people were misled

I can forgive Kerry for voting for the Iraq War. He wasn't the only one who thought Saddam had WMD's. Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy both thought Saddam had WMD's too. Hey, as long as Sen. Kerry learned from his mistake, then he'll be a great president.

[Carolina]

24. but Teddy VOTED NAY

unlike wimpocrats Kerry and Hillary.

[anti-NAFTA]

28. Thank you. eom

[TruthIsAll]

12. Look. Bush is an idiot. Don't compare any Dem to him.

ITs ABB. Period. Got it?

Any Dem would be a vast improvement over the learning disabled cretin in the WH.

[HFishbine]

16. Anybody?

Really, anybody?

[anti-NAFTA]

18. No doubt about it.

But I'm questioning Kerry's ability to beat Bush. Is there any issue - other than maybe the environment which won't get him very far - that he can say about, "I did so and so when I was in the Senate"? He brings up the war; the Pubs bring up his IWR vote. He brings up trade; the Pubs bring up his Fast Track vote (Fast Track for Bush on trade is like putting Hitler in charge of minority rights). He brings up NoChildLeftBehind; Bush brings up his vote on it.

Edwards isn't much better, but he IS at least slightly better.

[WitchWay]

31. ABB yes!

everyone, listen up! -

you must vote ABB:
A Blueblooded Bonesman

OR ELSE!

[Raya]

14. Kerry didn't trust bush as much as those who said voting Bush same as Gore

[anti-NAFTA]

19. And how would you know what I said? eom

[Monte Carlo]

20. I have some comments.

It would seem to me that Bush was going to war no matter what, and that in any case, it is he who is the Commander-in-Chief who ultimately bears the responsibility. Congress and Kerry may have made a big mistake with Iraq, but I think the whole country was making big mistakes then, and that there is plenty of blame to dish around, and doing so can be an exhausting and futile action.

Do you want to hear hard talk on Saddam Hussein? Read some of Bill Clinton's comments about him, years before Bush came onto the national stage. Read some of Kerry's at the time, too. Saddam really was a very bad man. Bush did not devise the national stance against him, he exploited it and corrupted it for his own gain, and he pushed a legitimate international cause beyond its usefulness into a baseless, horribly-executed war. Sometimes, it is not about Bush and his antics, but is also about those things that would have lived through his Presidency.

[anti-NAFTA]

26. Arguments like yours are destroying our party.

Just because Clinton did something doesn't mean that the basic idea behind it was right. I keep hearing this garbage about Bush "perverting" Clinton's trade agreements. Clinton's trade policy was written with the corporations in mind, and it was only a matter of time since they were going to start taking their toll. And don't get me started on Clinton's thoughts on Iraq. He went on Larry King and all but sabotaged the Democratic campaign with his tripe.

The "Clinton did it too" meme is straight out of the O'Reilly book of debate. We shouldn't be afraid to say CLINTON WAS WRONG.

[Monte Carlo]

33. You're welcome.

No, it doesn't necessarily make it right because of Clinton, but I'll tell you this - he was a hard-working President and has always been an incredibly bright and lucid person, and that he at least has his reasons for his actions. I happen to agree with some of them on Iraq. I don't care what Bill O'Reilly says.

And since we're talking about trade now, the enactment of globalization in recent years has been far from perfect, but the reality is that our world economy is only going to become stronger and more significant in our lives, and that holding it back would be like holding back a rising river. Clinton couldn't get everything he wanted done in his term, but his fate was not entirely of his own doing. He had a Republican Congress to deal with for 6 years, for example.

[RafterMan]

22. And Edwards?

He voted to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq because he thought it was a good policy. This mind-blowing lack of judgement does not bother you?

Talk about too naive to be president.

[anti-NAFTA]

25. He's less wishy-washy.

The war won't be a huge issue in November, and even if it is, he at least has a platform that's more consistent with his voting than John "FAST TRACK for Bush" Kerry.

[RafterMan]

27. The war won't be a huge issue in November?

It will be with me.

Maybe you'd like Edwards to be "less wishy-washy" and stand by his Patriot Act vote, too.

[anti-NAFTA]

29. No I wouldn't.

But I thought the key issue was "jobs" or the "economy". How can you talk about that without having a consistently anti-Bush trade policy? When Kerry speaks at the convention, he'll set a platform. The question is how convincing he will be as a proponent of that platform.

[Leilani]

35. You can accuse Kerry of many things

but being naive is ridiculous.

He has a long political career, & naive isn't exactly the word I'd use to describe him.

[AntiCoup2K4]

37. Exactly. Kerry knew exactly what he was doing when he enabled Bush.

and that's why he doesn't deserve the nomination and will not get my vote.

[Scott Lee]

47. I dont usually say this, but....amen.

Why some of these people think Kerry's Bushism is an improvement over Bush-holes Bushism is beyond explanation.

[Carolina]

43. that's why cynical political calculus

is a more apt description of his actions.

[revcarol]

36. Both are too damn naive.

Bush shows up at a child care center: next week, no funding

Bush says he's compassionate toward disabled and sick: Tommy Thompson axes scientific research in a speech the next day

Bush has been a LIAR from DAY ONE IN OFFICE. They didn't SEE this??????

[littlejoe]

41. I think it is disingenuous to tout Kerry as being naiive.

I do think it is fair to say that a combination of extraordinary circumstances culminated in an unfortunate situation regarding IWR.

With more than twenty years experience in the senate, I would say that Kerry has less to prove than any other candidate.

[Carolina]

44. less to prove, more to explain

[DrFunkenstein]

48. Howard "Biden-Lugar" Dean Was Utterly Duped

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country?

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that.

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

Dean later conceded that he backed an alternative to last fall's resolution that would have allowed President Bush to wage war against Iraq without congressional approval. But he said the measure, which never passed, might have averted war.

Bush would have been required to send Congress a letter, not seek a vote of approval, before waging war, Kerry said. He argued there was no significant difference between the Lugar-Biden resolution and the one passed by Congress.

Dean acknowledged that the alternative resolution was not binding against the president, but argued that Bush would have somehow been more likely to use restraint.

"Biden-Lugar required the president to come back to Congress - not for a vote," but only to certify that a number of actions were taken, including more diplomacy, Dean said. "Had the president done that, we would not have gone to war, because then he would have been forced to certify with his word ... all the claims he made that were not true."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1211campaign11.html

Kerry said that at the time of the congressional debate, Dean was on record saying then that Saddam Hussein needed to be disarmed and had supported a resolution sponsored by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard G. Lugar that would have required Bush to report back to Congress if he failed to win international support for the war.

Kerry said Dean was "trying to have it both ways" on his position. "If you don't have to vote, you can run around and say a lot of things. But that's not leadership."

A Senate Democratic aide involved in the discussions over the competing resolutions said Wednesday that the White House had opposed the initial Biden-Lugar amendment, saying it would tie Bush's hands. Later the White House began negotiating with the sponsors, but those negotiations were undercut when Gephardt cut a deal with the White House to support their preferred resolution.

The aide said Biden-Lugar would have added an additional requirement for Bush to satisfy before going to war unilaterally, but added that a president determined to launch military action probably would not have been deterred by the alternate resolution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54585-2003Dec10.html

One of those alternatives -- offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana -- authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat.

This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy.

Lacking votes, the Biden-Lugar proposal was never formally introduced. Instead, the negotiations with Democrats produced the resolution that passed. It authorized force for several other offenses beyond prohibited weapons (including ballistic missiles, which Iraq had), but also encouraged UN involvement. The differences between the two were not huge, and each authorized war, including unilateral war.

After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later. He also said Bush should be taken at his word that Iraq constituted a threat.

As a result of Congress's resolution, the Bush administration went to New York and secured unanimous Security Council passage of a new resolution demanding new inspections and threatening serious consequences for disobedience.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped /
articles/2003/11/23/deans_negative_tilt_in_iowa/

[MurikanDemocrat]

49. *yawn*