? for Kerry Supporters

Originally posted by no1marauder
...how do Kerry voters reconcile their position against the war with voting for a man who supports it? Do you think the issue of the war is not as important as say stem cell research? Please enlighten me.

dear no1marauder,

i believe the war in iraq greatly eclipses all other issues in this campaign.

by mentioning stem cell research you're suggesting that kerry and the bush administration stand equal on this issue?

if so, i'm afraid i don't think it's quite that simple. seems like the major issue is how this war was planned and how it's being executed.
i've often wondered what the outcome would have been if the bush administration had simply waited a few more months and gained the support of the international community (including more arab countries) rather than putting together this "coalition of the willing."

from,

one kerry voter

ps. my first post on the forum!

pps.

for an excellent blog in regards to the middleeast...

informed comment - http://www.juancole.com

here's a interesting excerpt from this week in regards to cheney's criticism to kerry's 'sensitive' war comment.

"But as a historian, I have to say that Cheney's statement is bizarre and uninformed. Let me just give one example. The practice round for World War II was fought in North Africa, then controlled by the Vichy French. Dwight Eisenhower developed Project Torch, involving the landing of US troops in Morocco and Algeria.

It was essential to the US effort that the French colonial soldiers be quickly won over and convinced not to put up stiff resistance to the invasion. The original plan would have explicitly used British naval power. But the Free French objected loudly to this plan, since they did not want the British Empire's ships anywhere near their North African possessions. The French and the British had old rivalries in this regard. Moreover, there were still French bad feelings about the British attack on the French fleet at Mers al Kabir in Algeria in 1940.

So Roosevelt and Eisenhower asked Churchill to keep the British navy in the background off Gibraltar and out of sight of the Moroccan coast. Churchill agreed.

That is, Roosevelt and Eisenhower had their successful landing in North Africa precisely because they were entirely willing to bend over backward to be sensitive to French feelings.

And that is the big difference between Cheney and Bush as wartime leaders on the one hand, and on the other Roosevelt and Eisenhower. Cheney and Bush are diplomatically tone deaf, projecting nothing but arrogance and being all too willing to humiliate traditional allies. They have no sensitivity. And it is for that reason that they have the U.S. stuck in Iraq with only one really significant military ally, the U.K. (the Italians only have 3,000 troops there, and most countries just a few hundred, which makes their presence a token one). They have perhaps permanently alienated all the countries that might have lent the U.S. a hand."

Originally posted by no1marauder
According to a poll in the paper today, Americans are almost evenly split when asked the question Do you think going to war with Iraq was a mistake?(or something similar I don't have the exact wording in front of me). 9 of 10 people who were Bush supporters did not think going to war was a mistake while 9 in 10 Kerry supporters thought it was. ...[text shortened]... u think the issue of the war is not as important as say stem cell research? Please enlighten me.

Many in the US, including the elderly, care more about Health Care than Iraq. Many of the poor care more about the minimum wage and job creation and organized labor than Iraq. Many of the secular care more about removing a religious fanatic from office than about Iraq. Although the stem cell debate has been getting a lot of air time since Reagan Jr. appeared at the DNC, I don't think it's a decisive issue.

Originally posted by bbarr
Although the stem cell debate has been getting a lot of air time since Reagan Jr. appeared at the DNC, I don't think it's a decisive issue.

Agreed. The two major parties and their respective candidates have pretty much made the conduct of the war THE decisive issue.

IIRC, the resolution that Kerry voted for (and has said he would not change that vote even if he knew then what he knows now) was NOT a declaration of war (or the equivalent). It was a resolution giving the president authority (i.e., confirming his authority) to do what he considered necessary. It was sold to Congress as a way to make a statement to the world that the US was united and serious about holding Saddam Hussein responsible for his commitment to allow international inspections.

Now, frankly, I have to doubt the intelligence of anyone who could believe that a President really means that such a resolution giving him carte blanche is really no more than an international bargaining chip, but that is how the Bush administration sold it. Moreover, it seems that opposing resolutions of this type is extremely difficult for an ambitious (is there any other kind?) politician. Voting for it is clearly the "safe" course. Kerry can now (more or less) honestly say that he took Bush "at his word" in the vote. The Bush camp is, IMHO, being dishonest in claiming that Kerry's vote for that resolution was a vote of confidence for anything and everything that they have since done regarding Iraq.

Is the Iraq war really the only issue (for me)? No. I find a fair number of issues, including stem-cell research, health care, etc. on which I consider the Kerry position marginally, but significantly, better than the Bush position. I've said before that I am not "happy" or "excited" about Kerry, but IMHO, he's enough better than Bush that I expect to vote for Kerry anyway.

If he wins and is a disappointment, I won't have any qualms about "flip-flopping". Despite the Bush criticisms of Kerry, I don't see anything wrong with changing your conclusions to fit the evidence.

Best Regards,
Paul