The Bush Administration convinced most people with satelite images that there were weapons of mass destruction. John Kerry wanted to help America and their defense. He now realizes that the war is bad and now opposses it. He now is doing the right thing. Bush LIED about the weapons of mass destruction. I still don't see why people don't realize this?
You must watch Fox News (the most biast station on the network)

Oh yeah also go see Fahrenheit 911Madine

I used this quote in a similar article I wrote recently, and I think it applies here too.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." -John Kerry on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

I have no idea how someone with the opinions expressed above could fight a war against terrorists... or even teletubbies. In addition, I think anyone that comes back from committing atrocities, condemns his own behavior AS atrocities, and then 30 years later tries to bank his character on the very months he condemned... well... I think they are either too dishonest or too damned conflicted to lead anyone anywhere.

Granted your article is on Iraq specifically, but honestly I can't gauge Kerry's ideas on war in general, no matter the locale.

" John Kerry wanted to help America and their defense. He now realizes that the war is bad and now opposses it."

You can't be that i'll-informed. Kerry has never once said he doesn't support the war in Iraq, and has said over and over that he would continue the effort if he wins in November. His vote against the $87 billion was just a political ruse to compete with Dean and try and attack Bush's tax cuts.

"You must watch Fox News (the most biast station on the network)"

You must not bother to watch any news at all...

You can't blame the Bush administration for the Positions Kerry took 3-4 years before Bush took office. (Well, technically you can, but it just makes you look ill-informed.)

If anyone can find a quote from John Kerry explicitly opposing the war, please post it.

It is my understanding, from news articles and quotes I have read, that Kerry's stance is that he was in favor of "disarming" Saddam, although he feels that Bush chose poorly his methods for doing so (as do many Americans). Some interesting quotes in relation to Kerry's stance on the war in Iraq as well as other topics of consequence can be found at: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm
Additionally, Kerry has expressed a desire to international the effort and work towards a resolution. I don't read his statements as a desire to "continue the effort" as much as an intention to make things right and seek an end to the entanglement that continues to take the lives and limbs of more of our soldiers every day. Having said that, I do feel that Kerry has a long way to go toward having a specific and workable plan of action that he willingly shares with the American public.

It is my understanding that Senator Kerry will do or say anything he thinks is politically expedient at the time. Period. You need dig no further to explain Senator Kerry's position on anything.

Bush manipulated the public

How was he doing that? By converying concerns based in CIA intelligence?

Kerry has spent a lot of time touting his four months of service is Vietnam. I think it is fair, then, to look at his views on the war that he was in to see how he would deal with war in general. Granted, all wars are not alike, but frankly the things he says about the "wrongs" commited in Vietnam trouble me, and make me wonder how he would persue military action elsewhere.

"I don't read his statements as a desire to "continue the effort" as much as an intention to make things right and seek an end to the entanglement that continues to take the lives and limbs of more of our soldiers every day."

I think an "end to the entanglement" is what Bush wants as well. How each man will go about ending it is in question. I don't think Kerry has offered up a plan that will get US forces out any faster. The problem with:

"Additionally, Kerry has expressed a desire to international the effort and work towards a resolution."

is that the "international" parties in question would only be able to put up a few thousand troops each, and the US now has 130,000+ troops in Iraq. If by some miraculous means Kerry is able to convince the world to supply 50,000 more troops, which is unlikely, we'd still have at least twice as many troops there.

Leaving the new Iraqi government with less protection isn't on the plate for either candidate, imho. I'd gladly entertain proof to the contrary, though.

Another RNC exaggeration.

Not going to watch the ad right now (this computer is on dialup, it would take me a week) but here's my comment on the $87 billion.

The $87 billion was made of two parts. $67 billion for troops, and $20 billion for reconstruction. Everyone was in favor of the $67 billion. Everyone knew it would pass in some form. What was at issue were two things. One was the level of Congressional oversight of the $20 billion. Would they just give Bush a blank check? Or would they specify where, and to who, each dollar would go? Or somewhere in between? Bush wanted the blank check, Kerry and others wanted more oversight. (In retrospect, that doesn't look like such a bad decision at all, since so much of that money has still not been distributed... but this is a tangent.)

The other was whether the new spending would be paid for, through tax hikes, or spending cuts, or just be added to the deficit.

The bill didn't turn out the way that Kerry wanted it to, on both counts. So he voted against it. Kerry made it absolutely clear that there were other versions of the bill that he favored.

Note that *Bush* threatened to veto the bill if it didn't contain certain provisions he wanted. Kerry was doing the exact same thing Bush threatened to do--voting against it because it didn't contain certain provisions he wanted. And now Bush is hypocritically making political hay out of this, saying "there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops" and so on.

I have no idea how someone with the opinions expressed above could fight a war against terrorists

First, do you think it's true? Was his statement factually accurate? I think it's hard to deny that those things did happen, and that they are, in fact, violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Second, do you think that we can allow for someone to change his opinions on the nuances of the laws of war in the past 30 years? Or maybe say that these things were wrong *in Vietnam*, but might be right in other conditions? Or any of many possible other lines of reasoning?

"And now Bush is hypocritically making political hay out of this, saying "there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops" and so on."

If it were vetoed by the President it would be because people like Kerry would use it to make "political hay" to begin with. The bill that Kerry supported added the revocationof Bush's tax cuts as an excuse for paying for the expense. It is patently obvious how politically motivated this was when Kerry was facing anti-war Dean.

"Would they just give Bush a blank check? Or would they specify where, and to who, each dollar would go? "

It's a fine balance, because if you take that far enough Congress can throttle the President's ability to do his job as Commander-in-Chief. What Kerry was doing was ransoming the effort for political gain, in my opinion. That kind of thing should not be allowed to effect the ability of the US to sustain military and rebuilding efforts.

"(In retrospect, that doesn't look like such a bad decision at all, since so much of that money has still not been distributed... but this is a tangent.)"

Does all the money left over go into Bush's pocket? If the money is being spent in a responsible way, I don't see how people can complain that we aren't spending it fast enough...

"First, do you think it's true? Second, do you think that we can allow for someone to chnage his opinions on the nuances of the laws of war in the past 30 years? Or maybe say that these things were wrong *in Vietnam*, but might be right in other conditions? Or any of many possible other explanations?"

Yes, I think the quotes attributed to Kerry weren't just fabricated.

As for his ideas for the last 30 years, we haven't heard a damn thing about them. He much more time talking about his 4 months in Vietnam than his 20+ years as a Senator. If you look at his voting record, I think it is apparant that he hasn't been pro-military or pro-war.

Don't overlook the fact that we are all having to "suppose" because we aren't given anything from Kerry to work with.

It's a fine balance, because if you take that far enough Congress can throttle the President's ability to do his job as Commander-in-Chief.

Don't you think that it might be possible to say, "hey, Bush is doing a terrible job with this reconstruction thing. Let's give a bit more guidance?"

I think you're right--it's a fine balance. But Bush's blank check is not in any way balanced. The "somewhere in between" option that I alluded to is probably best.

Does all the money left over go into Bush's pocket?

Straw man.

If the money is being spent in a responsible way, I don't see how people can complain that we aren't spending it fast enough...

Of the $18 billion, only about half a billion have been spent. This was passed in October. Yes, I'm going to complain that that's not being spent fast enough. At that rate of spending, $1 billion would have lasted all year!

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/07/31/powell_pledges_to_speed_aid_to_iraq/

"US lawmakers and others have said the administration has moved too slowly in converting $18 billion in reconstruction aid into projects on the ground in Iraq. To date only $458 million has been spent, officials said, citing red tape."

Only when the media and lawmakers put a fire under the administration for this bungling did we start seeing action.

Yes, I think the quotes attributed to Kerry weren't just fabricated.

Of course the quotes aren't fabricated. The question was, do you think that what Kerry said is accurate? Was he telling the truth? Is there anything incorrect in his statement? Anything that can be argued with?

Don't overlook the fact that we are all having to "suppose" because we aren't given anything from Kerry to work with.

Have you seen, or read, any of his speeches?

I mean if you're looking for very specific details, like "I will spend X dollars here on A, and Y dollars on B, and Z on C, blah blah blah," then of course you don't see that in his speeches. No sane politician would do that. It would put everyone to sleep. But if you're looking for general attitudes toward the military it's definitely there.

I think it is apparant that he hasn't been pro-military or pro-war

Well, his record isn't nearly as dovish as the RNC likes to suggest, but neither is it very hawkish. Nonetheless, I think there's a huge, qualitative difference between his votes on Cold War weapons like stealth bombers and the missile shield, and votes on anti-terrorism funding. I don't think dovishness on stealth bombers or increasing our nuclear arsenal translates into dovishness on terrorism.

No, it isn't a "straw man", and your next statement proves it. You are upset that we are spending less than what was asked for. The money asked for was an estimate of what was needed. If it ends up that we don't spend it all and it goes back into the system, you'll be pissed?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they hadn't asked for enough, you'd be griping, and when they ask for too much you gripe. When congress manipulates situations like this it is an effort to overcome the inherent checks and balances in the system. If they cut the purse strings then they control the ability of the Commander-in-Chief to lead. IF they do it for political effect it is treasonous, imho.

And worse, in the mainstream media when this argument is made it is posed as if the money not spent is being absconded with, or will just disappear. Let's not forget that the Iraqi government has just barely staggered to it's feet. No doubt much of that money will go to helping them help themselves, which was the purpose anyway.