Kerry: "reporting for duty"...

[Q]

Friday, July 30th, 2004
Democracy now

Kerry Accepts Nomination: Vows to Increase Military By 40,000 & Double No. of Special Forces (Includes transcript of speech)

Like the speech of his running mate John Edwards the night before, Kerry's speech could hardly be characterized as antiwar. Rather Kerry criticized President Bush for how he has chosen to go to war. The tone for Kerry's speech was set when he took to the stage, held his hand up and saluted the crowd and said "I"m John Kerry and I"m reporting for duty." - http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1510252

- What's up with this 'reporting for duty' rhetoric? Is Kerry already competing to be the next 'war president'? Why the military jargon from someone who would be a CIVILIAN commander in chief?

- I'm concerned that both parties are attempting to militarize our government and put America on a permanent wartime footing. It's also disconcerting that both parties are willing to do this without acknowledging what has gone before: lies that took this nation to war. Immoral Aggressive War. War Crimes. Slaughter of thousands of innocents. American soldiers needlessly dying.

- This all sounds and looks so very familiar to those of us who lived through the Vietnam era.

[BeatleBoot]

1. What's worse is...

Nader using Republican resources to get on the ticket in my state.

That just makes me nauseous.

[Q]

2. Nader on the ticket is more 'nauseous' than an illegal war?

- I'm tired of Democrats using Nader as an excuse to NOT talk about the important issues that face OUR party. I'll get the usual disclaimer out of the way and say that I'm voting for Kerry...but using Nader as a scapegoat simply deflects attention AWAY from the hard, cold reality that both major parties in the US are taking us to the same place when it comes to issues of 'national security' and war.

- OUR nominees refuse to call the Iraq war boondoggle what the rest of the world knows it is: illegal, immoral and unnecessary. Who indeed will be the last person to die in Iraq for a 'MISTAKE'?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. You can try to rationalize the complaints about Nader all you want, but...

...the truth is that as long as that self-centered egomaniac is in the race, he hurts the chances of the Democratic Party to restore the rightful form of government to the United States. Like it or not, he is getting funding from the GOP, and he will end up taking about 3% of the vote. That 3% may be crucial this year, and any person capable of rational thought knows that.

As to your other comments, the SOLE purpose of THIS campaign is to remove the NeoCons from power. Even some Republicans, mostly old-style conservatives and moderates,are coming to the conclusion that the NeoCons are bad for the country. Part of the strategy being employed by the Democrats is to blur the edges between the parties and to either take issues away from the GOP, or to at least neutralize them. Kerry's speech two nights ago should have been a clear signal of that course of action.

Now, you can choose to believe whatever you want to believe, but Kerry is NOT going to be able to effect REAL change until Congress is controlled by the Democrats. And unfortunately for all of us, that may not happen until the mid-term elections of 2006. The hole dug for us by the NeoCons is going to take a loit of work to fill in, and it's simply not going to be done overnight.

[Pepperbelly]

3. rhetoric vs. action ...

There is a very good chance that John Kerry will indeed have to deal with the Iraq situation. Everyone is basically, I think, in the same place.

It is a shithole. A fuck-up conjured with tricked-up evidence, lies and deceit. Our service people are in harm's way. The iraqi people are in harm's way. There is terrible destruction. The biggest de-stabilizing influence is us. We have created legions of enemies with cause, a whole new generation of people who hate us and to whom we have done wrongs. That is not a judgement call. It is a fact that the Iraqi man holding his dead daughter in his arms does not consider the bombs beneficial in any way.

Even George Bush knows this.

We are out of there. The only question is how.

The hard, hard truth is that there is absolutely no way of knowing the extent of the problem, the exact circumstances, the totality of the fuck-up until Kerry takes office. Not only will Bush have an additional 2 and a half months to fuck it up worse, the situation now is unknowable because the Bushes will cook the books, lie, and continue with massive deceits.

I think Kerry has done a remarkable job in keeping his powder dry. We know in the broadest strokes what he intends to do. Bush has now adopted Kerry's position of internationalizing the process. Of course, the devil is in the details.

At this point, if I read you right, your concern is that Kerry will follow the example of LBJ in dealing with the problem. While that is possible, I personally do not believe that will happen. Rather, I think what will happen is that Kerry will personally visit with a number of our historical allies and throw himself, so to speak, on the mercy of the court. It will not be hard to do and I suspect that our European allies would be hard-put to refuse to help us.

I think with Kerry we will be getting out post-haste.

[Q]

6. "We know in the broadest strokes what he intends to do"

- Do we? Certainly you're not suggesting that Kerry will pull a Bush*...campaigning as a 'war president' and then suddenly reversing his positions once in office?

- Kerry and Bush* are sending signals to the 'military-industrial complex' that they'll both cooperate in the final stages of the militarization of America and continue onward in setting the stage for perpetual war in the name of 'fighting terrorism'.

- The Democratic leadership won't even dare to fully and forcefully denounce the BUSH* DOCTRINE of 'preemptive', aggressive war. These 'broad stokes' tell us nothing about how Kerry will 'resolve' the Iraq situation or answer the many unanswered questions surrounding how we got there in the first place.

[Pepperbelly]

8. War in Iraq ...

and our defense against people we have pissed-off are two different things and conflating them together is not only illogical, it is inaccurate.

I think we will get the hell out of Iraq quickly.

I think that Kerry, once in office, would be derelict in his duty to the American people if he didn't do everything he could to insulate us from the anger that Bush has created for us over the last 4 years. And yes, I realize that many of the angry people were angry about things that happened before that but regardless of what they are pissed off about, the President of the United States has a duty to protect us.

And I wish him Godspeed in that endevor.

What we will not see from Kerry is the willy-nilly adventurism Bushco advocated and in fact, produced.

Not protecting ourselves from what Bushco has wrought would be insane.

[Q]

13. I'm trying to understand your point...

...but where's the logic or common sense in continuing a conflict that's illegal and immoral?

- Yes...the President of the United States has a 'duty' to protect 'us'. But what of the DUTY to admit that Iraq and the defense of the US have nothing to do with each other? Aren't both parties participating in a lie when they insist that we must continue in Iraq to protect national security and 'fight the war on terrorism'?

- The whole world knows that the US had no national security interest in invading and occupying Iraq. They also dread that the Democratic party seems complicit in perpetuating that grand illusion.

[Pepperbelly]

32. What lie are you talking about?

What is illegal or immoral about defending one's home?

Are you still trying to conflate Iraq and national defense? No matter how justified someone's complaint might be, allowing them to commit violence against one's self is not only a right but a duty as well.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. There's not a shred of evidence anywhere that suggests that Kerry...

...is anything like FratBoy, or that he will continue FratBoy's policies. I can tell you for a fact that Kerry will have very limited parameters to effect change as long as Congress is controlled by the rightwing of the GOP.

But you're focusing on the wrong issue. Here's a little dash of cold reality to throw on your rant...nothing will be allowed to change until Congress is controlled by the Democrats. That's it. Period.

Here's the bottom line...you can either continue to whine about the situation, ad nauseum, until people are no longer interested in reading your posts, or you can help us focus on the current number one priority: Getting the Head Squatter out of the White House.

[Longhorn]

4. In one oft-repeated soundbite and salute,

he was able to draw a strong contrast between himself and Bush. He showed up when Bush didn't. But it goes beyond the AWOL reminder -- it makes it clear that Kerry is his own man -- no Cheney-like creature pulling the strings in the background.

The fact is that Kerry WILL be a war president, at least initially in Iraq and for however it long it takes to fight terrorism and make peace, and one of the biggest concerns of independent voters is whether he will be able to lead the country during a war.

[Q]

7. You've offered a contradiction in terms:

...when you say that Kerry will BE a 'war' president in Iraq for as 'long as it takes'. But doesn't this dismiss the FACT that Iraq and the 'war on terrorism' have nothing to do with each other? Have we fallen in Bush's* quagmire when we can't even seem to admit that we shouldn't be in Iraq BECAUSE it's not essential to the fight against terrorism?

[RetroLounge]

9. But we are there, so we have to deal with it...

The Repugs set the agenda. If we win, we are stuck with their garbage and need to fix it.

I would love if we could just leave Iraq. But we can't until we get a NATO or UN force in there for security, else there will be more mass graves than you can count, more terrorists breeding there, and more death and destruction. All bush*'s fault. Remember that.

Sorry. But that's the way it is.

Can't just replace Saddam's statue with a large peace sign, sing Kumbaya, and go home.

RL

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. How do we get NATO or the UN to send troops?

To do that, Kerry would have to surrender command of our troops to either of them. Think he'll do that?

Why can't we "just leave"? Do we have to wait until the Iraqis throw us out?

[tommilator]

51. NEWSFLASH regarding NATO

While there's no questioning the US role as the defining member of the NATO alliance, I'd like to remind you that the very nature of NATO is a defensive alliance. Now I know that Bushco tried to invoke the 'musketeer oath' after Sept. 11, and NATO did get involved in Afghanistan, but to assume that just because Kerry is president, members of a defensive alliance will jump to aid you in your aggressive wars of choice is naive to say the least. Militarism is frowned upon in many member countries and for any government to send their soldiers, people who signed up to DEFEND their countries for the most part (except perhaps the French foreign legion), to the Iraqi hellhole would be a defacto resignation at the next election if not cause of outright civil unrest in major European cities.

Defending your country and defending the interests of your country are two things I'm sure veterans of the current conflict will have many enlightened discussion about.. American and Iraqi alike.

[Q]

50. You mean we can't 'cut and run'?

- The same logic kept us in Vietnam for far too long. Thousands of civilians and soldiers died that didn't have to die because Americans can never seem to admit when they've made a mistake and take corrective action.

- No one wants to say it out loud right before an election...but the truth is that Dems are just as guilty of 'war crimes' and crimes against humanity if they support or continue an unprovoked, aggressive war.

- Democrats HAVE TO be better than Republicans or the idea of America and democracy is lost.

[Sparkly]

10. I think Iraq is now connected with war on terrorism

It wasn't before. It is now. And if it becomes a failed state, it'd be a tremendous danger as a terrorist haven.

[sandnsea]

21. People believe that or not

I guess people just don't understand that the voters have made their mind up that issue. They either understand Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or they don't. They understand what would happen if Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter, become terrorist states; or they don't. They believe terrorism needs to be combatted, or they don't.

Most people understand the complexities of Iraq and have made up their minds. Regardless of how they got there, most people understand it would not be a good idea for that country to dissolve into chaos. So we're in that war. We know from Kerry's record that he has no need to macho it out, that if there's any sort of quick, peaceful outcome, he'll find it and make it happen. But it's important to know that if there has to be military engagement, he also knows the ways of the military and isn't going to make Tora Bora kinds of mistakes either.

And as to terrorism, that's a separate war. People either know that, or not. But he has to be in charge of it, either way. So he has to present a plan and make it clear that he intends to aggressively pursuit terrorist cells as part of that plan.

People can rationalize it away if they want to. But sudden suicide attacks are much more crippling to a people than any number of auto accidents or any other types of crime. I don't understand the idea of just accepting attacks are going to happen and going back to shopping the next day.

[greatauntoftriplets]

31. "for however long it takes...."

I've heard those words before and 58,000 dead Americans later, I now have a better understanding of the old French proverb (stated in English here), "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

[Onlooker]

5. It was a dig at Bush

I think the reporting for duty rhetoric was not only for wooing veterans, more importantly it was to underscore that Kerry, unlike Bush, DID report for duty.

When Reagan won election, he did so by targeting southern racists; Kerry hopes to win by targeting veterans, who appreciate the military stuff. I trust Kerry on this because he came home from the war as an anti-war activist and, let's face it, most of the young people of that era, even those were anti-war, were not activists.

[Q]

11. My point is that both...

...Kerry and Bush* are running as Military Presidents instead of a civilian head of government and civilian commander in chief.

- This military rhetoric gives credibility to the lie that we're in a 'time of war' because a group of mostly Saudi suiciders flew planes into buildings. It's simply impossible to fight a 'war against terrorism' and both parties know it. We're talking about a 'war' that doesn't have PEACE as its end goal and can't ever be resolved as long as there are acts of terrorism anywhere in the world.

- What we end up with is everlasting war because...like the war on drugs..it can never be won.

[Sparkly]

14. I agree, in many ways it's a "campaign on terrorism" rather than a war

Kerry did point out in his speech that it requires political, economic, diplomatic, and other means rather than military alone.

But the military is deployed, and people need to see Kerry as a capable commander in chief. The Chimp has long led in polls on that (and it's a stereotype that's decades old now that Democrats aren't "strong" or that they "loathe the military"). So Democrats are smart to address that and turn it around.

The "war" isn't a war in a traditional sense because it's not state against state. But it definitely requires the cooperation and collaboration of other governments, something that a new president -- simply by virtue of being a new president, alone -- will be able to achieve, while Chimp's political capital is spent.

[Q]

15. What the people 'need' is to see a Commander in Chief...

...that knows a lie when he sees one and will admit that Iraq was a mistake...a very large mistake in which both parties participated.

- It seems that you and others are so concerned that we fight a 'proper' war on terrorism...but can't seem to admit that Iraq has nothing to DO with that effort. Why are we even there? Why will Kerry send even MORE troops to fight in an illegal war and die for a lie?

[Sparkly]

20. I don't expect a "Mea Culpa" unless it helps him win

and I don't want one unless it helps him win. The past can't be undone; we need leadership to resolve the mess with the least futher damage possible, and the Chimp can't do it.

- It seems that you and others are so concerned that we fight a 'proper' war on terrorism...but can't seem to admit that Iraq has nothing to DO with that effort.

I'm not sure I said anything like that -- certainly didn't mean to. We need an *effective* war on terrorism, not sure what "proper" means. As for Iraq, as I posted earlier, it wasn't connected with terrorism before, but it is now. Saddam wouldn't have allowed the terrorists in who've flocked to Iraq and reside there now (and I'm not talking about "insurgent" Iraqis fighting for power and territory) and if it becomes a failed state, it'd be a huge disaster for Iraqis, the region, and the rest of the world.

[Bandit]

18. The way the wind has been blowing lately

America for better or worse has been engaged in warfare for the last few years and we need to hear that the one we chose will be able to handle the situation and do the smart thing. A strong leader is not necessarily one who shoves our military down everyone's throat. It is good to have a strong military (big stick) but it is also good to walk softly and not step on toes. Kerry will do both. Keep our military strong and not piss off anyone so we have to use it. It is a step in the right direction. He is using the tugboat strategy. A tugboat when guiding a huge ship into port does not meet the ship head on and try and change it's direction, it goes alongside the ship and gradually guides it in the direction needed.

[Q]

27. So then...you're saying we need to be THE war party...

...until there is no more threats of terrorism? We're agreeing to continue to fight an illegal war simply because it's there?

- A strong leader doesn't look for the direction of the wind...his instinct should be to do what's right for his country and people. If he's worried about 'stepping on toes' then he's more worried about the military/industrial complex than the needs of the people.

- I can see now that the Democratic party is but a mirror reflection of the GOP and they won't offer an alternative to war or admit that Iraq was a dreadful mistake and tha we shouldn't be there killing people that had nothing to do with 9-11.

[59millionmorons]

16. He got that line from Wesley Clark

That is what he said when he entered the race.

[Ready4Change]

19. Next POTUS is unaviodably a wartime President.

Even if their first action was to fully retract from Iraq, they would be taking office during a time of heavy military action.

Objecting to how Bush chose to go to war meets how I think of this. I question the increasing the military ranks by 40,000 not because it isn't needed at this time, but because I don't think it's do-able at this time, without bringing in the draft.

[Q]

22. Can we at least concede that...

...many of the crimes of the Bush* WH were done under cover of the fog of war? They explain away their unprecedented secrecy and classification of information that may tend to incriminate them by saying they're protecting national security. It should be obvious by now that they're only protecting their own asses after starting an aggressive war against a nation and people that didn't threaten our security in any way.

- And now we're allowing this baton to be passed to Kerry. A baton that signifies lying a nation into war, needlessly killing innocent people and sending Americans to die for a 'mistake'.

- We don't need a military president. We need an honest one that leads by example.

[holly73]

24. Conceded :P

Kerry will have his hands full when he takes over the white house. His first course of action should be burrying his shoe in Bush's butt when he escorts him to the door.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi holly73!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[holly73]

30. Cheers!

Thanks :)

Happy to be aboard with like minded people!

[shraby]

37. Go read the Plame threads

and you'll see what the story is. If Kerry had not been stopped in his investigation of the BCCI by the death of a key witness, a lot of the financing of terrorists would have been stopped then. The witness slipped on a bar of soap in the shower. How many people slip on a bar of soap? Particularly when they are soon to testify in a criminal matter? Threads 14 and 15 are full of good info.

[Selwynn]

25. Possible - but I didn't get that out of it at all - I thought it was about

..contrasting Kerry from AWOL. Said like, "unlike * who abandoned his post, I'm here to report for duty in leading the nation back to proserity, democracy, etc. etc."

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just took it differently I guess.

[redwitch]

28. That's how I took it also.

And I thought it was great!

[DebJ]

26. it is a great line to pull in the votes from unhappy

conservatives though, from voters most concerned and fearful about national security. I loved the line, because to me it was a sharp set off against Bush NOT reporting for duty.

[Q]

33. Well...most conservatives believe Bush* served honorably...

...and most of them will vote for him whether he served or not.

- Democrats are fooling themselves if they think Republicans will vote Kerry or not vote for Bush*. They may hate the way Bush* screws up everything he touches...but they enjoy being in POWER and holding the WH, Senate and House. They're not going to give up power for Bush* or Kerry.

- The American media did a great job of misdirection and outright distortion of the issues surrounding 9-11 and Iraq. The Democrats helped by not making Bush* accountable.

- I'm sorry to break away from the groupthink...but Democrats have joined with the other side in the propaganda about Iraq and terrorism. They seem to believe there is no alternative to war and warmongering...competing with Bush* to see who can build the larger military machine.

- Now we know what the founders meant when they warned about 'standing armies'.

[Q]

34. The Kerry Mandate: Strong and Wrong

Published on Friday, July 30, 2004 by TomDispatch.com

The Kerry Mandate: Strong and Wrong

by Jonathan Schell

"...Military courage in war is honored; civil courage in opposing a disastrous war is not honored. Even thirty years later, it cannot be mentioned by a former President who himself opposed the Vietnam War. The political rule, as Clinton once put it in one of the few pithy things he has ever said, "We have got to be strong.... When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right."

And now the United States is engaged in a war fully as wrong as the one in Vietnam. The boiling core of American politics today is the war in Iraq and all its horrors: the continuing air strikes on populated cities; the dogs loosed by American guards on naked, bound Iraqi prisoners; the kidnappings and the beheadings; the American casualties nearing a thousand; the 10,000 or more Iraqi casualties; the occupation hidden behind the mask of an entirely fictitious Iraqi "sovereignty"; the growing scrapheap of discredited justifications for the war. But little of that is mentioned these days by the Democrats. The great majority of Democratic voters, according to polls, ardently oppose the war, yet by embracing the candidacy of John Kerry, who voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the war and now wants to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, the party has made what appears to be a tactical decision to hide its faith.

The strong and wrong position won out in the Democratic Party when its voters chose Kerry over Howard Dean in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. An antiwar party rallied around a prowar candidate. The result has been one of the most peculiar political atmospheres within a party in recent memory. The Democrats are united but have concealed the cause that unites them. The party champions free speech that it does not practice. As a Dennis Kucinich delegate at the convention said to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, "Peace" is "off-message." A haze of vagueness and generality hangs over party pronouncements. In his convention speech, President Carter, who is on record opposing the war, spoke against "pre-emptive war" but did not specify which pre-emptive war he had in mind. Al Gore, who has been wonderfully eloquent in his opposition to the war, was tame for the occasion. "Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war," he said, "isn't it now abundantly obvious that the way this war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?"

What of the antiwar sentiment that is still in truth at the heart of most Democrats' anger? It has been displaced downward and outward, into the outlying precincts of American politics. The political class as a whole has proved incapable of taking responsibility for the future of the nation, and the education of the American public has been left to those without hope of office. Like a balloon that squeezed at the top expands at the base, opposition to the war increases the farther you get from John Kerry. Carter and Gore can express a little more of it. Howard Dean, who infused the party with its now-muffled antiwar passion, can express more still. Representative Kucinich, a full-throated peace candidate, has endorsed Kerry and has kind words to say about him but holds fast to his antiwar position. On the Internet, Tomdispatch.com, AlterNet.org, CommonDreams.org, antiwar.com, MoveOn.org and many others are buzzing and bubbling with honest and inspired reporting and commentary. Michael Moore is packing audiences into 2,000 theaters to see Fahrenheit 9/11. --- http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0730-14.htm

------------------

Clinton: ""We have got to be strong.... When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right."

- Does this quote make sense to anyone else?

[T Town Jake]

35. Well, at least he didn't say...

...that he saw "light at the end of the tunnel"...that's all we seemed to hear during Vietnam, year after year after year.
IMHO, he was just trying to contrast his record with that of the opposition's, didn't trouble me much.

[Zhade]

36. Here's my question about the 40k troop increase.

I've heard, and read, that the point of these troops is not to add them to the soldiers already in Iraq, but to free up Guard and Reserves to go home.

Now, I could be wrong, but doesn't this just mean a swapping of bodies? Not a reduction in troop levels?

How does this square with Kerry's comments that he would see it as a failure if he hadn't reduced troops in Iraq by the end of his first term?

All reasoned replies welcome.

[misanthrope]

41. Well, he didn't...

...say when that number would be reached and over what time frame. He didn't say where those troops would specifically be located. Kerry didn't even say that they would all be American troops, did he?

Could he be talking of trying to expand our base of allies so that other countries would be willing to help us clean up and withdraw from Iraq? Perhaps he feels that the change in administration might prompt involvement from other nations.

[Zhade]

49. Hmmm.

While I think it is vastly naive to think other nations will jump into the fire we set, you may have a point - I do not recall if the 40,000 troops are specified as American troops or not.

Anyone know either way?

Another thing that's been bothering me, though, in the "UN/NATO troops will join in" argument is the assumption that, if we offer rebuilding and/or oil contracts, other countries will hop on board.

This kind of thinking bothers me because it cuts the largely-unemployed Iraqi population out of the picture. It's THEIR country, what right do WE have giving away contracts to other countries? We should be funding the reconstruction fully and transparently, using Iraqi firms and workers who need the work.

[ItsMyParty]

38. I smiled----didn't you get it???

Kerry is reporting for duty.......Bush didn't but went AWOL. And I think that that is exactly what the crowd in the Fleet Center picked up. He started his speech with a direct spit into Bush's face....and it was priceless!!!!!!!!

[latebloomer]

39. I found it ominous

and it confirmed my impression that Kerry has reached this level of influence by agreeing to carry out the agenda of global domination and militarism. He is on board. His will be a "kindler, gentler" brand of hegemony.

[Q]

40. The DLC calls Kerry/Edwards 'Blair Democrats'...

...so consider that for what it's worth.

- The new reality is that there's no room in the New Democratic party for peace activists or anti-war positions. The rationale for this is that we can't afford to look 'weak' on national security. But isn't it a weakness to go along with something that's wrong and illegal?

- The Dem leadership is so anxious to 'win' in November that they've adopted a pro-war platform that even MOST of the delegates are against. Lost in all the macho rhetoric is the FACT that we're agreeing to carry on a war that didn't have to happen in the first place and was based on lies and exaggerations. Will we allow all this to go down the memory hole just to compete with the Bushies?

[latebloomer]

42. also "down the memory hole"

has gone,in Kerry's posturing about his military record, the truth that he was active against "atrocities" he and others performed in what he termed an unjust Vietnam war. This is the part he doesn't care to highlight. He portrays it as noble service in a noble cause. Why is that?

I am going to vote for Kerry, because I hate and fear the Bush Administration. However, I don't want to see the antiwar movement, which mostly has rallied around Kerry, subsiding in a feeling of false security. The peace movement will be just as important after Kerry takes office as it is today.

[CaTeacher]

43. I want PEACE

I want an end to war and I want all of the troops home NOW because I care about both them and the Iraqi people.

But, I actually believe that is what Kerry will do. I think he will govern much different from how he is campaigning--and I truly believe that he will bring our troops home at the first opportunity. If I didn't believe that, it would be very hard to vote for him.

[formernaderite]

45. unfortunately yes...

...I am one of those progressives who found the convention and the party's rah-rah stance of pseudo- military speak(reporting for duty), the cloning of the thousands of american flags, and faux patriotism nauseating. Visually it represented everything I hate about the Republicans...yet these were democrats. I think I can blame Terry Mcauliffe, who's ideas over the last four years have yet to pan out. He may be the money man, but so far he hasn't gotten us votes.

[CaTeacher]

46. That is exactly how I feel too.

I hope that the Democratic party has not sold out too much. I am I am keeping my fingers crossed that it is just a ploy to obtain power--and that once the Democratic party gets the power--that they will drop this facade.

But--I get a little creeped out sometimes by the rhetoric. For example, this is supposed to be one of the most progressive, democratic boards around--but the people here can sound a whole lot like freepers.

I have seen posts from gun-nuts, pro-war activists, pro-death penalty people, people who are anti- taxes--etc etc. I find it very very scary that the discourse has moved so far to the right that the Democratic party has basically abandoned many of our most important issues.

I sympathize with your support of Nader--Nader has solid progressive values. As one of my professor friends is fond of saying--do you want to be right? Or do you want to be president? Nader is right about so many things--but I guess to be president you have to give some of your ideals up. This is very very sad to me.

Peace.

[Tosca]

44. Circumstances are so different from those days.

/- This all sounds and looks so very familiar to those of us
/who lived through the Vietnam era.

Kerry must convince people he'll be vigilant and ready to deter and strike back at terrorists. We live in a different world now, like it or not.

If you don't think the terrorist threat is real, you're a fool.

As far as the "I'm reporting for duty" opening, consider the context, after Cleland et. al.

Definitely a swipe at the Chimp, but more importantly, a statement that he is willing and able to protect the country to the best of his ability.

[Q]

53. It's the same old world...only the rhetoric is different...

...and how in the hell can the Democrats convince 'people' they'll be 'vigilant and ready to deter and strike back at terrorists' by waging a war against a nation that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11 or terrorism on our soil?

- What the HELL is going on? We can't convince people by perpetuating a lie. IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US. How can we avoid this fact and still be credible? Why are we agreeing to continue a war that slaughters innocent Iraqis by the thousands?

[Malva Zebrina]

47. Yes, it is shameful that the race has boiled down to which candidate would

be the better "war president" and that is what seems to be happenting.

It is really so sad because it perpetrates a continuance of the war mentality and the killings of the civilians, who are, apparently, at least in the Bush wars of Afganistan and Iraq, that kill thousands of them because they are a "threat" even though innocent and not a threat at all, are apparently taken with a flip and dismissive attitude on the part of both candidates.

NO ONE REFERS TO THE SLAUGHTER OF TEN THOUSAND INNOCENT PEOPLE

IT IS AS IF IT NEVER EVER HAPPENED-WE THINK WE ARE SO PATRIOTIC "SUPPOTING THE TROOPS" WHO DID THIS AND THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS AN INDICATION THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DENY THAT OUR TROOPS ARE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY MURDERED THESE TEN THOUSAND INNOCENTS-==WE WILL SUPPORT THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY DID THE DEED-IT IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM THAT NO ONE CANDIDATE DARE MENTION.


AND IT IS THE SHAME ALL INFORMED AND AWARE, AMERICANS MUST LIVE WITH. iN SPITE OF THE FACT THE 80PERCENT OF THE POPULATION CONSIDERS ITSELF CHRISTIAN.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

[latebloomer]

48. Powerful!

Thanks for putting this in its true perspective, Marianne.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. Here's another true perspective...unless we remove FratBoy and the....

...NeoCons from the centers of power, those 10,000 (actually much closer to 50,000, IMHO) will be a drop in the global blood-bucket compared to what the NeoCons have planned AFTER the election is over.

Iran is in the crosshairs, and we're talking about a country that has NOT been weakened by 12 years of sanctions and a previous war against the U. S. We're also talking about a country almost three times the size of Iraq, three times the population (65,000,000), and a much better military. Based on what's happening in Iraq, what do you think will happen in Iran? How many innocents will be killed in that country, and how many Americans will die for yet another senseless war based on yet another pack of lies?

Yes, all of those people in Iraq are dead, and yes it was based on a pack of lies. How much does the ordinary soldier know or believe of this? How much does the average American with zero access to the Internet know about this? The information is not getting to these people because the mainstream media is controlled by the NeoCons.

So, here's the situation as I see it...if we fail to elect Kerry/Edwards by a margin impossible to overcome by vote fraud, we are in for some awfully bad times. Possibly much worse than even I can even imagine.

It all boils down to whether or not you believe that Kerry would continue to carry out the exact same policies as those implemented by FratBoy. If you believe that he will, then for you, all hope is lost.

Think about that for a while.

[Q]

54. This is not about whether we vote for Kerry...of course we will...

...it's about Bush's* Big Lie that Democrats can't expose for fear of exposing their complicity. It's about an illegal, immoral war that America shouldn't be fighting and that neither party should be supporting.

- It DOESN'T boil down to Kerry's 'better policies' in Iraq or elsewhere. What it boils down to is that both parties are living a lie. We're not in a 'time of war'. The war against terrorism is no more credible than the war on drugs.

- We're not allowed to debate this in the national forum with logic and common sense. 19 (mostly Saudi) INDIVIDUALS fly planes into the WTC and the Pentagon and we respond by attacking poor, third-world countries and killing untold numbers of innocents that had nothing to do with terrorism? Think about THAT for a while.

- I'll vote for Kerry...but refuse to live the lie that the 'war on terrorism' is anything but a rationale for the type of aggressive war that Hitler used to wage.

[Q]

55. Do Democrats now agree that...

...attacking/occupying Iraq is essential to the 'war on terrorism'? This is how America seems to perceive the GOP / Dem agendas.

- Do we just forget about the lies and deceit that brought us to war? Forget about PNAC? Forget about the ever-changing rationale for the need to attack? Forget that it was individuals and not a nation that hijacked planes on 9-11?

- Can we go on condoning an illegal war and a phony war on terrorism? Why can't we be STRONG and truthful?

[Q]

56. By taking Iraq 'off the table' and removing it from public debate...

...Democrats risk marginalizing many important issues such as war crimes, rape and torture, children prisoners, mass murder and violations of the Geneva Conventions.

- Democrats...please don't participate in the lies. Fight for the truth and don't allow the revisionism to stand.