tom_thinks

"Get it together man! You can't keep playing these games. People's lives are at stake." -that's what I'd like to say to Kerry if I got the chance. Kerry's reluctance to condemn the war in Iraq as wrong is killing him. This is where the outrage lies. Many people feel that there's something wrong with the war in Iraq and Kerry's support for it will cost him votes. When John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, I believe he voted for it because he believed it wouild further his political ambitions. It may have helped him attain the status of Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, but will he be able to win in November by supporting George Bush's biggest blunder?
When the primaries began there was a sudden shift in the media, they were constantly talking about John Kerry's "electablity." He wasn't too outspoken on any controversial issues, he was a war hero and a long term Senator AND he voted for the war in Iraq. The DLC certainly wasn't into Howad Dean's message, and many people of power in the party weren't ready for his type of grassroots participation in the process. So naturally they would rather have Kerry than Dean. But they weren't alone, I believe that many people were fooled into thinking that John Kerry was a safe bet, because his vote for the war would take it away from Bush as an issue. So they voted for Kerry. But I think were wrong. I do not want George Bush to win (or steal) this election, I very much want John Kerry to win. However, there are people out there who aren't voting because both candidates have taken a position on this war that they cannot support. There are many more people that are simply swayed to Bush's side by Kerry's failure to oppose Bush's position. If you think things are going bad in Iraq, what would make you think Kerry's gonna do a better job? He's saying we should "stay the course," isn't he? That's what seems to be Kerry's message lately. Check this out:

He was asked a simple question. Would he meet Bush`s challenge and answer yes or no to the question of whether he still would have voted to go to war in Iraq, knowing what he knows now?"I'm ready for any challenge," Kerry responded, "and I'll answer it directly. ``Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."To many, including his Republican opponents, that sounded like he was saying that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have gone to war.But Kerry had, during the Democratic primaries, characterized himself an "anti-war candidate,"as he felt the heat from the then insurgent candidacy of Howard Dean. And again, last week in Cincinnati, he called the U.S.-led attack "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."In the same speech, he railed against the cost of the Bush war, "$200 billion (U.S.), but they tell us we can't afford after-school programs for our children, $200 billion in Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford health care for our veterans, $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford to keep the 100,000 police officers we put on the street."Yet, just over a year ago he was asked by NBC`s Tim Russert whether spending on the Iraq war should be reduced."No. I think we should increase it," Kerry said."By how much?" Russert asked."By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win," the Democrat replied.Kerry has promised to reduce troop levels in his first term, then within a year, then within six months. Yet, when Kerry marked the 1,000th U.S. death in Iraq last Tuesday — a milestone seemingly tailor-made to give his campaign some traction — he appeared to have bought into the Bush-Cheney mantra that war in Iraq was war on terror. He honoured the dead who gave their lives "on behalf of freedom in the war on terrorism.''

I'm still supportingr Kerry, but he needs to seperate himself from Bush, not only because it is the right thing to do, but the right thing to do to win.