Let's get one thing perfectly clear....

[kentuck]

When the talking heads talk about "no difference" between the Iraq "plans" of John Kerry and George W Bush, they need to be reminded that John Kerry has not changed his initial plan calling for UN and international help in the crisis. It is Bush that has changed his plan to match Kerry's. Just a small point.

[mike_c]

1. neither has Kerry repudiated his IWR vote....

In January it'll become Kerry's war unless he changes his mind.

[Alerter_]

8. Kerry has mostly been pro-war

but he did vote against Gulf War I, and has always seemed to be a foe of the Bush/Cheney/Nixon criminal group. I remember the last few years and I'm not going to hold the IWR vote against the Democratic nominee.

But Kerry will be suceptible to "bipartisanship" (meaning Republicans desperate to keep Congress and dump Bush), "moderation" (meaning keeping those 14 new military bases in Iraq to control the oil) the "Jewish community" (meaning AIPAC and Likud).

The left will need to keep Kerry on track.

[Vickers]

2. Oh, another difference: we wouldn't be in this mess if ANYBODY but Georgie

would have been president.

Remember? We went there because they had nukes/were tied to Al Queda/had other WMDs?

AND ALL THAT WAS BULLSHIT?

Yeah, that part is another little difference. Kerry didn't have some horseshit revenge-for-my-daddy chip on his shoulder.

/rant

[PretzelWarrior]

3. umm...he won't invade another country whereas Bushie wants to

so bad he's peeing his pants. THey want Syria more than they want Iraq I'm betting.

Kerry is going to stabilize the situation in Iraq and then work like a REAL leader to show how to lead through example and through persuasion and yes, by force at times.

Kerry has a very big toolbox whereas Georgie only possesses a hammer with which to strike things.

[Sinistrous]

11. Syria, maybe. But keep your eye on the Sudan.

Fair amount of oil and lots of oil company positions hanging fire because of the current regime. And that humanitarian catastophe taking place in the western part of Sudan could be *'s excuse.

[Sparkly]

4. Another point is, as Gore pointed out,

it'll take new leadership to regain credibility, and to bring allies together to form an international organization of any sort.

The Chimp says we need to "encourage other countries to assist" but he does nothing to that end... (Kerry says he's not trying, not leading, but in fact I think they're trying and being told to get lost.)

There was a difference from the start in what the Chimp said he'd do, what Kerry said when he voted, and what the Chimp actually did.

[welshTerrier2]

5. bush has alienated the whole world; Kerry hasn't

i'm so sick of hearing people make this statement comparing bush's Iraq plan to Kerry's ...

it completely fails to take into account bush's hostile relationship with the international community ... and it fails to understand Kerry's commitment to diplomacy ...

it's like saying that two opposing pitchers have the same game plan ... "i'm going to try to strike out lots of guys" ... even if bush now wants to internationalize the crises in Iraq, he won't be able to do it as effectively as Kerry will ...

[Honest_Abe]

7. Bush started burning bridges ...

after his inauguration, when he started talking about ending the nuclear arms treaties so he could play with his Star Wars toys, and over three years he's burned them all. Now be wants to get back across the river, and he has no way back.
This president will never get the support of the countries he's thumbed his nose at.

[welshTerrier2]

9. Welcome to DU Honest_Abe

bush can't get back across the river because he poured oil in it and set it on fire ...

[monkeymind]

6. it is still illegal and immoral

to occupy Iraq.

[dweller]

10. Give credit where it is due.

The candidate that proposed much to the disdain of many here to bring the UN in, and take the US out of Iraq,
was Dennis Kucinich. It was always a part of his platform, and still is.

" We are now past the one-year anniversary of the invasion. Last year, I stood on First
Avenue in New York and looked out at a half a million people who were protesting what
was then the prospective involvement of the United States in Iraq. Since then, we have
seen that there has been nothing but a trail of lies that led the United States into its
involvement in Iraq. That Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with
Al Qaeda's role in 9/11, nor with the anthrax attack upon this country. Iraq had neither
the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. Iraq was not trying to get
uranium from Niger. In fact, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
It was wrong to go in, it is wrong to stay in. We need to get the UN involved and bring in
UN peacekeepers. We need to turn over to the UN control of the oil to be handled on
behalf of the Iraqi people until the Iraqi people are self-governing, control of the
contracts so there will be no more Halliburton sweetheart deals, no more privatization of
Iraq, and no trying to run the government of Iraq by remote control. We need to help
rebuild Iraq to the extent that we destroyed it, pay reparations to the families of
innocent civilians and noncombatants who have lost their lives, help to rebuild Iraq, help
to pay for a UN peacekeeping mission, and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.
BRING THEM HOME!"
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/iraq.php




peace,
dp