| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
Former Kerry campaign strategist: Kerry’s vote in favor of Iraq war was all for politics
While the 2004 elections are a memory for most people, a former Kerry strategist has written a tell-all explaining, among other things, why Kerry voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution:
WASHINGTON — Senator John F. Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 after weighing the political ramifications and being told by his future campaign manager that he would never be elected president in 2004 unless he sided with President Bush on the issue, according to a forthcoming book by Kerry’s former strategist.
The book by veteran Democratic Party strategist Robert Shrum, titled “No Excuses,” paints a portrait of an often-dysfunctional Kerry presidential campaign in which senior strategists clashed with each other.
It also quotes e-mails from Kerry’s former campaign manager that are highly critical of the behavior of Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry . An advance copy of the memoir of Shrum’s years in politics, slated for release in early June, was provided to the Globe.
Shrum, who was brought into the campaign to help provide Kerry with a strategic overview, provides a vivid de scription about the events leading up to Kerry’s decision to vote for the war.
He writes that Kerry telephoned him on the eve of the Oct. 11, 2002, vote. Shrum said Kerry was skeptical of Bush’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that he “didn’t trust Bush to give the diplomatic route a real chance.” Nonetheless, Kerry asked Shrum whether he would “be a viable general election candidate if he was in the small minority of senators who voted no.”
Shrum wrote that he told Kerry it was “impossible to predict the political fallout if we went to war.” But he wrote that Jim Jordan, Kerry’s former Senate press secretary and future campaign manager, “was insisting that he had to vote with Bush.”
Shrum wrote that Jordan had “hammered” Kerry with a warning: “Go ahead and vote against it if you want, but you’ll never be president of the United States.” Kerry voted for the war resolution and Jordan became Kerry’s campaign manager three months later.
Kerry declined to comment on Shrum’s book.
And no one is denying this happened, either, although this little tidbit that is supposed to redeem Kerry somewhat:
Kerry’s chief of staff, David McKean, said he walked with Kerry to the Senate floor before the vote. He recalled telling the senator: “Obviously a huge factor here is whether you believe there are weapons of mass destruction. He said, ‘I have no doubt about that.’ “
So to iron this all out: Kerry supposedly really did (uh huh) believe Saddam had WMD, and his real desire was to have the UN be the decider of what the US should do in response (surprise!), but because of politics and not wanting to be seen as weak, he voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution.
James Taranto called Kerry’s move back in September 2003.
Democrats: Playing politics with the war then. Playing politics with the war now.
He’s John Kerry, and he’s reporting for duty.
Related to Iraq: Did you hear there were at least three Senators who did not read the 90 page NIE report before their 2002 votes on the Iraq war? Find out who they are here.
Cross-posted at Iowa Voice, where I’m helping fill in for a vacationing Brian.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
9 Responses to “Former Kerry campaign strategist: Kerry’s vote in favor of Iraq war was all for politics”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
And that is EXACTLY why people like Kerry and the rest of the Democrats running should never be trusted with the running of this country. Instead of voting what he thought was right, instead of voting because he was convinced Saddam was a threat, he decided on his vote based on what would be best for him in the future politically. All the current crop of Dems, with the exception of Lieberman, are all guilty of the same thing. If ever there were a more blatant example of putting personal and party power above what’s right and what’s good for the country, I’ve never seen it. It’s cynically manipulative and a sign of serious character flaws, they love themselves more than they love the country.
This is something we’ve suspected for a very long time. It’s nice to finally have some proof.
Honestly, I have more respect for the people who voted against the war in the beginning and who are still against the war. At least I can believe that they voted for what they truly believed in. These people like Hillary, Edwards, and Kerry are nothing but poll watchers.
Kin aah git me a huntin license here?
That pic is like dukakis riding in the jeep with the helmet on — too funny.
Sev, liberals essentially have no moral compass. The only thing that’s important to them is gaining and exercising power over others. Anything done in the pursuit of that power is sanctioned, be it deceptive, unethical, or even criminal.
I wish I could agree with your statement, but I wasn’t surprised in the least. Just with Kerry, you can go back to the 1970’s and watch him sitting in front of a Senate committee lying through his teeth and trashing our military for one reason – to bolster his viability to run for office among the anti-American far left. Think back to Gore, before the 1991 Gulf War, selling his vote on the war resolution to whichever side would give him more TV time – and a bigger boost to his presidential hopes. The archives are full of just such dissembling.
Show me a liberal who will take a stand solely on the basis of it being the right stand, even though it might hurt him politically, and I’ll show you Joe Lieberman.
Rat,
and what did the dems to do Joe anyway? That’s right they did to him what Brutus did to Caeser, stabbed him in the back the first chance they got.
Look at the congress now the dems are in charge. That should tell you all you need to know about their moral fiber.
The dhimmirats are sure having their share of DUH moments recently. Someone must’ve paid the light bill for’em. Too bad it won’t last, as it and reality fail to provide an adequate amount of meaning to their miserable existence.
Vegas,
You got it. That’s exactly my point. Lieberman showed some moral fiber – on one issue – and the purist liberals went on the warpath against him.
The fact that Lieberman’s the only prominent example, and the viciousness of the libs’ attacks for it, show their one true guiding principle: lust for power.