Here's all I got to say to John "Blood-Soaked Hands" Kerry:

http://tinyurl.com/4j6g

kali, you are right that he voted to go in, but so did pretty much every other democrat. The dmocratic party is a pro war just like the republicans, most democrats arent even saying that the war was wrong, they are just criticizing the way the war was executed. My point is, while your criticism is valid, it does no one any good to say that Kerry has blood on his hands because there is no one with clean hands left. Beyond that, do not forget that Bush mislead the congress as well as the american people. Both parties thought that by giving Bush the power to fight was the right thing to do in light of 9/11. Do not also forget that both parties, to this day have the power to take this right away from the president.

He authorized the president, if necessary, to go to war, George breached that trust. Is Kerry responsible for Dubya's lie that he would only go if necessary.

October 9, 2002 US Senate Sen. JOHN KERRY:

Let me be clear. The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that's what--

If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots. And we will be less secure, not more secure. at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

I thought Kerry had way too much makeup on and seemed unconvincingly when he tried to seem Senatorial in his responses, plus his timing was off when he attempted to be funny.

Please don't allow Kerry to think he can be the Democratic candidate again.

That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, and gone down taking all hands with it.

I wish Kerry hadn't made the vote to go to war. I was against the vote at the time. But it was not a declaration of war. It was a vote to back up threats with force. The authorization vote is not inconsistent in the least with an anti-war position. Anti-Iraq war means anti- this war, this time, this place, this way, not an opposition to military threats in general.

I would have no prolem with Kerry being the nominee again. That's against a lot of conventional blogger wisdom, I know. But most of the people being talked about for the nomination have never really faced the kind of political heat Kerry has. The reason you nominate an Arkansas governor rather than a Massachusetts governor for president is not because the latter is too liberal. It's because the former has gone toe to toe with the right wing and won. Clinton knew how to kick Republican butt. Kerry didn't win but he faced Bush and did many things right. Kerry can go into the next election and hint at the fact that if he had won things would be been a lot better. 60% of the country is going to believe him. Just about every other candidate out there has not faced the same heat. Obama is the worst example (on this count)--he's never faced a real political test in his life.

"He authorized the president, if necessary. to go to war, George breached that trust. Is Kerry responsible for Dubya's lie that he would only go if necessary."

Since it was common knowledge that Bush was lying, yes.

Jesus, man, please, PLEASE get a %#@&ing haircut!

"He authorized the president, if necessary. to go to war, George breached that trust. Is Kerry responsible for Dubya's lie that he would only go if necessary." Since it was common knowledge that Bush was lying, yes.

Give me a break.

The use of force was passed with 77% for and 23% against in the congress. That's a damned good majority that voted for the use of force, but you're going to come on here and blame John Kerry for the current mess in Iraq?

That's just nuts.

We didn't know that the Bush administration was lying about all of the WMD intelligence until we got in-country.

That's why they lied about it. They knew that they could get away with it for the short term, and I really think that's all they wanted. They just wanted a reason to justify getting forces into Iraq, even if that justification was based on lies.

It is the Bush administration that has taken us to where we are now, not John Kerry.

Kerry was complicit in this. You can admit that or not, but it doesn't change the fact.

By the way, how do all you Kerry apologists square the fact that Kerry said during his 2004 campaign that, even knowing that Bush was lying, he still would have voted the same way. Just curious.

cant speak for the others, but Im not apoligizing for him at all. As i said, Kerry is pro war, as is every other politician in the two parties. That should not be so surprizing when you consider where the political funds come from.

Even though I usually think that emotionalizing the political debate is a disaster, since it is part of dumbing down politics and voters, I can only say: Ira Glass is right. He did a story on this american life (NPR) that Kerry bungled his big chance to throw out a highly unpopular president, mainly because his unconvincing and too wordy style (I have to admit that Kerry could control that somewhat during the debates, but otherwise ...). Is this just a conservative talking point? Yes, but unfortunately, it is maybe the only accurate one ... before the 2004 election, I hated Saletan (slate) for starting to collect and publish "Kerryisms" (to complement slate's Bushisms) ... now I have to admit that he was right, but at that time, I wanted Bush to loose so badly .

Al Gore was unfairly badmouthed to be boring and longwinded, but in fact he is a convincing and knowledgeable speaker ... just look at his preinvasion Iraq speech at the commonwealth club. He deserves another chance ... or Feingold, maybe Clark or Clinton. But Kerry - never again.

Gore / Clinton '08

So, Kerry wants to drive down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and "Kill that bird with one stone" huh?

We now live in a country where the concept of killing the President is let go like its nothing. Where is the left wing media on this statement? Why isn't this story on the front page of the NYT?

This is twice now that democrats have pondered the death of a sitting President...while having orgasms over the prospects of a film being distributed that actually plays it out.

What a shameless bunch of socialist dirtballs! Had a Republican made such a comment it would be painted all over the media. Kerry says it....nothing.

Republicans have no shot at winning anything any longer becuase the DNC finally got their machine organized....the American Media. They've kicked truth aside and replaced it with political correctness.

They have no solutions to anything....just Robin Hood the hard working successful rich to feed the dregs and worthless corner hangers.

Go ahead....vote one of these dirtball leftists into office and you can start sawing the crosses off gravestones in America at ACLU gunpoint while radical Islamists are sawing the heads off your families because some nutjob thought diplomacy would work with savages.

But Mike, anger made you veering off republican talking points. Let me help you: The mainstream media was always left wing, especially the NYT (I am sure that you, Mike, certainly don't worry about the NYT pre Iraq war coverage, or the Gore coverage 2000). "feed the dregs and worthless corner hangers" - you may want to rephrase that. "you can start sawing the crosses off gravestones in America at ACLU gunpoint" - unfortunately, the ACLU rather advocates to restrict the use of firearms (ACLU:"Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected"). But, Mike, what about armed liberal activist judges?

It is saddening to see someone with so poor judgment being so engaged ... but you are right in one respect; if we both heard Kerry right, it is an incredibly cheap shot. But still obviously a joke (a failed one), coming from a usually quite civilized person. And that is why it is not covered by the press.

"Had a Republican made such a comment it would be painted all over the media."

You mean like when Jesse Helms told Bill Clinton that his personal safety wouldn't be guaranteed if he visited North Carolina?

What "liberal media" do you refer to, Mike? The NY Times, which knew about Bush's illegal wiretap program before the 2004 election but sat on it until a year later to ensure it wouldn't hurt his reelection chances?

Kerry publicly joking about killing the President should make him ineligible as a Democratic candidate. He should at the very least be reprimanded by Congress. Cheney would become President, don't forget that even if you agree with him. As a lifelong Democrat and someone who thoroughly enjoys OGM I find it hard to believe that people on both sides of the political spectrum didn't find his comment utterly reprehensible. Despite the damage Bush has done to our Democracy, the office of President still means something. Kerry is not fit to run for President and I will not vote for him. Just because he said it as a joke does not make it all better.

"As a lifelong Democrat . . "

Right. One of those "lifelong Democrats" who voted for Bush twice, no doubt.

With regards to "Right. One of those "lifelong Democrats" who voted for Bush twice, no doubt."

I entered that post aonymously by accident. I thought I was still signed in : /

Anyway, I want to respond. I am a lifelong Democrat like I said and I voted for Bush NEITHER time and despite my misgivings I still supported Kerry in the last election. In all honesty my vote was against Bush and not for Kerry, a sad state for me to find my vote, I must admit. For what it is worth I support Democratic candidates I believe in with political signs in my yard and I have gone door-to-door during caucuses or primaries even in the worst weather to try and get people out to vote. I made my post because I wanted people to see that there are Democrats out there who will not support Kerry and I am hoping the Democratic party will realize that he is not fit to run as our candidate in the next election.

As an aside, if I as some simple citizen were to joke about going somewhere to assassinate you-know-who, you can bet that I would not be surprised to be under immediate surveillance, investigation and probable arrest. Where does Kerry get off joking about something like this. He is not fit. I will not vote for him. I am not some Democrat in name only but I am dismayed by the leaders this country has had to choose from for president. Here's hoping the next president is someone we can all be proud of.

Guys, "killing a bird with a stone" is a metaphor.

You might want tyo read the latest post by Jon Kerry on huffingtonpost:

Mistakes and Responsibility

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/mistakes-and-responsibilib31482.html

Four years ago today, the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.

There's nothing - nothing - in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

It's not enough to talk about the incompetence and immorality of this Administration in the conduct of this war. It is not enough to point out that we were grossly misled...

I thought he was funny and not too stiff.

Once again (like Gore), if he had been like this when he was running for President, he would have won.

I agree that he was funny, not too stiff, and with the Gore comparison comment. The candidates' handlers may not be the only reason the last 2 Democratic party presidential candidate looked so tired, campaigning is exhausting work plus the constant jet lag. Of course, if you are not GW, being President is exhausting work as well.