(A frequent argument on behalf of Kerry is that he would have not invaded Iraq after 9/11. He might be an imperialist but is not a rash, adventuristic unilateralist. Guess what, folks. He is a rash, adventuristic unilateralist. He might not be a born-again Christian and might favor stem-cell research, but on the burning question of the day, he and Bush are agreed.)
Kerry Defends Position on Iraq Democrat Says He Would Reduce U.S. Troops Within 6 Months
By Jim VandeHei and Mary Fitzgerald Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, August 8, 2004; Page A04
LA JUNTA, Colo., Aug. 7 -- On his whistle-stop swing through the West, Sen. John F. Kerry has been pulled into two issues he rarely touches on in his campaign speeches to the party faithful: his support of the Iraq war and his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Kerry, who is trying to focus on less divisive issues, such as health care, during his train trip through battleground states, was pushed into the spotlight on Iraq and same-sex marriage by President Bush, local reporters -- and a fellow Democratic senator from the swing state of Wisconsin.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) told the Capital Times in Madison on Thursday that Kerry and his running mate Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) were "wrong" to vote for the congressional resolution authorizing the war and later against the $87 billion to fund it. His comments mark one of the few times a Democratic senator has spoken critically of the party's ticket in the general-election campaign.
They should have voted "no against an unwise war and yes to support the troops," as he did, Feingold told the newspaper.
Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director, said Kerry "voted to hold [former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] accountable and continues to believe that it was the right thing to do. After witnessing the way in which the president went to war, Senator Kerry voted against the $87 billion because it was wrong to give a blank check to the president for a failed policy."
Bush is stepping up pressure on Kerry to declare whether it was right to oust Hussein, despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said the president would not only have still ousted Hussein, but not adjusted the strategy or timing of the military strike. "Unequivocal answer: [Bush] would have removed Saddam when we did," Schmidt wrote via e-mail.
Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "IN ALL PROBABILITY" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war.
full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48708-2004Aug7.html
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
