U.S., U.K. Voters Don't Care About Credibility - Helen Thomas

[ashling]

U.S., U.K. Voters Don't Care About Credibility
Times Change, So Do Values
Helen Thomas, Hearst White House columnist

POSTED: 11:03 am CDT May 12, 2005

***

I'm talking about the fact that the leaders of both nations chose to invade Iraq for flimsy reasons that were deliberately drummed up to convince their people that a third-world country was a threat to them. Didn't the Brits say Saddam Hussein could attack in 45 minutes?
***
In the case of Bush, the ill-advised war against Iraq did not take center stage in the presidential election last November. His opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., had voted for the war and delivered a coup de grace to himself by saying he would have done the same thing­ -- invade Iraq, even after it had become apparent to all that the pretext for the invasion (Saddam Hussein's imaginary weapons of mass destruction) was a mirage. Kerry blew it big time.

The war issue became irrelevant at that point, not that it was highlighted in any major way by the timid Democrats, who should have knocked it out of the park.
***
The Democrats also should have rejected the Bush policy of preemptive war, which is illegal under international law.
****
I am not surprised at the duplicity. But I am astonished at the acceptance of this deception by voters in the U.S. and the U.K.


More @ http://www.thejacksonchannel.com/helenthomas/4481363/detail.html


I was pleased to see this editorial on a link from Jackson, MS!

[TahitiNut]

1. "Kerry blew it big time."

As a Kerry supporter, I very much agree. His votes on the IWR were the straws that broke his candidacy's back ... exacerbated by his campaign (fund-preserving) "stand-down" in August, when the Swift Boat Liars crawled out from under their rocks.

About 80% of the electorate will ignore any "issue" upon which the two parties appear to agree. The callow cowardice of the Appeasement Wing of the Democratic Party regarding the Iraq War is detestable. Kucinich had it right ... and he was abandoned and marginalized even by the ideological base he represented with courage and integrity.

[AuntiBush]

2. I'm in total agreement with Helen Thomas

I too am "astonished," and "dismayed" at the total lack of care and the acceptance from voters in the US beginning in 2000 right up till now.

It goes way beyond my own simple reasonings as to why so many Americans can back all of the Bush policies. They must adore, and at the sametime avoid the two-ton pile of daily deceptions.

Yes, Ms. Helen Thomas. I too am astonished and sadly dismayed.

On Note for Edit: I still support Kerry and firmly believe the 2000 & 2004 elections were majorly rigged, even in areas across the US where we've yet to even look in to. It would not have matter if Ghandi was Bush's opponent - the election(s) were stolen. Nuff said.

[blm]

3. Kerry NEVER said he'd invade Iraq. He said he'd have let inspections work

first to determine whether an invasion was even warranted.

Where the heck did Thomas get this spin? Geez, even good journalists sometimes believe the corporate media spin, too.

[Carolab]

4. But what about when he was asked "knowing what you know now"

meaning that the intel was WRONG, would he have still voted "yes" for the war resolution? And he said he would. His rationale was that he believed Congress should support the president and that they should be able to trust the president. Pretty weak, dude.

Remember this: "The commander in chief should not send our troops into harm's way because he wants to, but only because we have to." Well, if the WMD argument was blasted to hell, and he knew it, then I guess we didn't HAVE to, did we?

[blm]

7. His rationale was that *A* president would adhere to the resolution.

The fact that Bush DIDN'T adhere to the resolution, was the problem, not the resolution, itself.

So, the resolution, as written, was still an acceptable guideline.

The other point is that Thomas claims Kerry said he would do nothing different than Bush, which was a corporate media spin job and a blatant blurring of Bush's and Kerry's positions that the Bush/Cheney campaign pulled at their convenience depending on whether it suited their purpose at any given time.

[Carolab]

9. Oh, I see. Thanks for that. n/t

[KoKo]

12. Thomas is reporting on the "Secret Memo." This is what we've all been

hoping for.

blm, your constant defense of Kerry is amazing. We all know that Congress knew Bush was going to war. Senator Byrd knew and that's why he stood on the Senate floor for hours arguing against it. Now if Senator Byrd knew what that "Resolution" really meant then tell me why Senator Kerry didn't hear the speech? Also Senator Kennedy and Senator Warner debated the Iraq War Resolution. Are you telling me Kerry just missed that debate on the Senate floor?

The reason Kerry voted for that resolution was Political. He was running for President and knew that he had to vote for it because Bush was taking us to war full speed ahead. Kerry voted against his conscience for Poltical Reasons and his whole campaign suffered because he was so conflicted.

You can parse and parse about what "Kerry meant" when he signed that resolution but why is it that other Senators who have served with him did not vote for it? :shrug:

[blm]

13. TAnd Kerry planned to BE president and would eventually use a resolution

or two himself. It was always about PROCESS, KoKo, not the political cravenness as so many prefer to view it.

Kerry has rarely shown himself to choose political expedience over principle and process over his career, and those who claim he did, have no answer when his actual 30 year record of butting heads with the DC powerstructure is considered.

You can minimize his thought process into the soundbite that he was just doing it for his political career, but, his record clearly proves otherwise.

[Journeyman]

5. I knew we'd lost the election. . .

when Kerry threw that idiotic salute and smilingly piped himself aboard the war. I did what I could for the cause, donated more than I could afford, and kept up a sustained front of optimism . . . but my head never got over the sense he'd blown it, had left himself and the party in a position to lose outright or have the results close enough to be tipped.

Oh, we in the gallery could detect the nuance, could savor le differance, but the half-connected and the easily swayed were left with little substance.

That's what so infuriated me: We lost because our candidate supported something we all opposed. Never had Puck's maxim held more truth or tasted so bitter. . .

[MasonJar]

6. There is no way that Kerry lost that election. Sure, he ran a poor

campaign, but he won. If we do not get rid of the cheating black box charade, our democracy is doomed. That is assuming that it can survive another 4 long years of Bush.

[fedsron2us]

8. People need a choice

Here in the UK the leaders of both the Labour and Conservative parties supported the war. Only the much smaller Liberal Democrat party opposed it and they never really forced the matter as a major election issue. Given the lack of real alternatives it is hardly surprising that many voters simply stayed at home. Blair's share of the popular vote was a miserable 36% and his party was only returned to power because the first past the post voting system in the UK greatly favoured them. The picture is complicated by the fact that many of the most vociferous opponents of the invasion of Iraq are actually sitting on the Labour back benches. Nearly all these MPs were returned at the General Election while many of the Blairite loyalists who backed the war were defeated. This fact alone make me think that the voters were not quite as supine as this article seems to suggest. The rebel Labour MPs now hold the voting balance in the House of Commons and potentially could block all government legislation. I do not think Blair will be going to war again in a hurry. Indeed, I think he will try to run down British troop commitments in Iraq as quickly as possible.

[ashling]

10. I think most of the replies miss the point

I only posted a small part of the editorial, and I'm not sure if anybody bothered to use the link.

Her point is that there is no accountability at the highest levels in the UK or here in the U.S.

my point in posting was that this was from the web site of a television station in Jackson Mississippi

I think that is promising.

[KoKo]

11. Exactly she's reporting on the "Secret Memo" and it's a chilling report.

She says:

I've seen two American presidents go down the drain -- Lyndon B. Johnson on Vietnam and Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal -- because they were no longer believed.

She faults Kerry and the Democrats for not bringing the "Doctrine of Pre-Emptive" strike forward as an issue to the people. And the British people for re-electing Blair with what they new about his complicty, with Bush from the leaked Memo.