One more chance for Hillary, Lieberman, Schumer, et al?

[kentuck]

Admit you were wrong to believe the lies that this Adminstration told you. Admit that it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Why should a few Senators of our own Party take the rest of the Party down with them? We cannot speak the truth to the American people because we have a few respected Senators in our own Party that joined the other side in the criminal act of lying and participating in an illegal war of preemption. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. If they cannot admit their mistake, to hell with them.

[oregonindy]

1. go look up abusive relationship and you'll find you'll be giving these

idiots one more chance again and again and again...

sweep them out like the corporate war mongering whores they are and put in new blood.

[Walt Starr]

2. I've pretty much gotta agree

Reid flung open the door. Now they do it or they lose the anti-war wing of the party.

[blm]

5. Reid is supporting Kerry's Iraq withdrawal plan. So is Dean, Boxer, Leahy

Feingold, Feinstein, Tom Hayden....and I don't know how many others.

Looks like those threads were overlooked.

[Walt Starr]

7. That's what I'm saying

Reid flung open the door for the opportunity to denounce their votes in favor of the war as they were "fuped" into it.

Kerry, Leahy, Reid, have all denounced.

Schumer, Lieberman, and Clinton have not, yet. My expectation is they will reaffirm their votes in favor of war.

[blm]

9. Kerry's Georgetown speech was a week before Reid flung open that door.

And Reid opened that door last week based on the Senate Intel Committee and their failure to finish their investigation - a move that Kerry spearheaded last June when he submitted that letter of inquiry based on the new DSM information to the committee and only NINE other Senators joined him on that letter.

I'm sure you must recall that. We actuvated here at DU urging senators to sign on to Kerry's letter. It's the exact same issue for which Reid closed the session. This move should have been made after Roberts turned down Kerry's letter of inquiry in July.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Remember Kerry's DSM letter in June?

The one that called for Roberts to initate Phase II of the Iraq intelligence investigation, esp. in light of the Downing Street Minutes? The one that Roberts had promised to continue after the election, but never did? It was about 6 months late at that point.

The one that was signed by 10 Senators, counting Kerry?

And Reid was insisting on what this last week, and willing to shut down the Senate every day 'til he got it?

The initiation of Phase II of the Iraq intelligence investigation. The one that Roberts promised to continue after the election, only by now he is about a year late.

Reid flung the door open. But about 5 months ago, Kerry was pointing at that door.

If there is a Reid bandwagon, I reckon Kerry is riding shotgun.

[LittleClarkie]

8. He could set himself on fire and jump up and down while chanting

Mea culpa, mea culpa.

And someone right in front of him would still say, "When is he going to apologize?"

Mea culpa means he takes responsibility

"But I want to hear him say it in my EXACT words, or I'm sorry, I just won't recognize it."

Would you like a Kerry hand puppet? You could have him say anything you want then. Personally I'd have mine say he can't live without me. But you could have him say anything. Even stuff he's already said.

[Noisy Democrat]

36. You forgot

that he also has to be wearing a blue tie, and he must not make the statement on a Tuesday, or it doesn't count, unless it's a waning moon, in which case DUers will *surely* give him credit for it just as soon as he demonstrates that he can say "Knowing what I know now, I would not have voted yes on the IWR" while drinking a glass of water.

DailyKos people, OTOH, will simply never give him credit for it, period.

But yeah, he said it two weeks ago. Sheesh.

[karynnj]

3. Kerry already did this very clearly in his Georgetown speech

the fact that most of the RW media keep lying is pathetic. before Reid

[blm]

4. Are you saying you missed Kerry's Iraq speech two weeks ago that

addressed this and also submitted a withdrawal plan?

You're here alot, kentuck, did you really not click on those threads about it?

[LittleClarkie]

6. Do you want Kerry to do it again? Or shall I just go get previous quotes?

Again.

One of them is only a couple weeks old. One comes from our own Will Pitt.

Meanwhile, I'm left playing Sesame Street games:

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong...

[kentuck]

11. I read the Mark Crispin Miller attribution..

Has the story changed again? How are we supposed to know?

[blm]

14. It was here at DU - a ONE HOUR SPEECH on Iraq with Q and A afterwards.

Haven't you heard any of the Dems speak out supporting Kerry's Iraq plan? Dean, Feingold, Feinstein, Leahy, Boxer, Reid, Tom Hayden......have all spoken supportively of it in the last week.

Kerry made the speech at Georgetown two weeks ago.

It's the media who refuses to discuss the plan as they will only regurgitate the RNC talking points that the Dems never offer a plan on Iraq.

[kentuck]

17. Mea culpa...

I did not listen to the speech and did not read your post. Obviously, very few Americans heard it? It is never reported by the "media"...

[LittleClarkie]

18. I heard it on the talk radio news (ABC I think)

and he also appeared on the Colmes portion of Hannity and Colmes, as well as NPR radio close after.

He seems to have tried to get attention for it, perhaps with limited success.

[kentuck]

20. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt --

I'll take his name off the list. Now, what about all the others?

[LittleClarkie]

25. I don't know about Schumer, but Hillary appears to be hawkish still

and so does Leibermann, so I'd say they still support this war. What has been Schumer's position.

And how did such a Blue state get such conservative Senators? And a Republican Governor. How the hell does that happen?!

[karynnj]

33. Thank you

[blm]

22. Here's Hayden's reaction to the speech...a link to the speech also there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/support-for-kerry-speech_b_9632.html

And this came from antiwar Tom Hayden.

The problem, kentuck, is that the media ignores this speech on purpose to stem any flow of other Dems inclined to support it, so by ignoring it they can hope for it to get no further as a movement. They can force the perception within the Dem party that the withdrawal plan is a loser.

The big story should be that people who supported IWR support this withdrawal plan as well as those who are pure antiwar like Hayden.

Don't expect to hear the media discussing it.

[karynnj]

31. Although it did get some coverage in the written press, it needs more.

It is being weirdly treated in the media- some continue to list him as a "supporter" of the war (although he ALWAYS said he wouldn't have invaded and was oe of the first to condemn the ivasion) others critisize him for wanting withdrawal - not explaining his plan is far more sophisticated and thought out then just withdrawal.

Kerry did email the plan and a subsequent call to demand Bush tell us his pan to 5 million people. Dean tried to mention the plan on hardball and was very rudely cut off mid-sentence. Senator Boxer mentioned it on the same show 2 days let and was able to get 2 or 3 sentences (Matthews may have difficulty cutting off women.) McCain condemned it on Imus.

CSPAN almost didn't even tape it in spite of Kerry's office saying it was a major speech on Iraq. It was played on CSPAN about 12 hours after it was given at about 12:30 in the morning. Kerry had an interview on NPR and very oddly, on Hannity and Colmes, where he was interviewed by Colmes. Clearly the major media is not helping him in any way.

Here Kerrygoddess posted the text of his speech - and within minutes some people (likely not even reading the speech) bashed Kerry. The same people complain there are too many threads on what Kerry is doing. But this thread shows that on two very important issues where he is one of the leaders (arguably the chief for at least one), his work and position is unknown. He is trying to get the word out.

If you care to help - add your name to the petition to withdraw 20,000 troops in December - unless you don't think this is woth doing. If someone who posts here as often as you did didn't know, there are likely others too.

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/20000/

[LittleClarkie]

24. Mark Crispin Miller's attribution of what? He spoke to Kerry on the war?

I thought that was just the election. And anyway, that story didn't change, only the perceptions of the two sides. But you have to admit, "You were robbed, Senator" "I know" is open to much interpretation. And party chat doesn't exactly qualify as an interview. And an author is not necessarily a journalist. I don't think a journalist would have made the mistake Miller did anyway.

But I did think we were talking about Iraq. There is the Will Pitt article on Truthout. If you google "The Trial of John Kerry" and Pitt's name you will find it. In it he says he made a mistake in trusting this administration, and that he was sorry.

In his Georgetown speech, he goes a bit further, and apologizes for his part in us going to war, and then suggests a timeline for getting the troops home within the next year.

And then there is also Cindy Sheehan's page on Mothers for Truth, I think it is. He's on her hall of fame for speaking to her, and saying that if they can't accomplish their goals in Iraq, he doesn't want any more soldiers to die for it. He also told Cindy that she was saving lives.

[kentuck]

27. He spoke about the election results in Ohio...

But was he being honest about that issue?

[LittleClarkie]

29. He who? Miller or Kerry?

I'm lost. What are you talking about? The conversation that Kerry and Miller had at a party that Miller talked about on Democracy Now?

Which dishonest "he" as you asking about?

For me, I will chose that the one being somewhat disingenous is Miller. I don't say he lied. I only say he blew a very small comment all out of proportion. "You wuz robbed" "I know" is not enough to go gaga over.

I think Kerry is being honest about what he's doing about the fraud AND the suppression, though I don't think it was fair for Miller to go around saying words that did not come out of Kerry's mouth.

I think Miller was trying to drag Kerry into the spotlight. And I think it was a jerky thing to do.

But no. The story never changes.

[longship]

12. Mea culpa is only a first step.

Kerry's mea culpa is excellent and I would encourage others to take the same first step. Unfortunately, admitting you were wrong to vote for this insane war is insufficient. It must be a first step in a program of revamping Democratic politics or else it will accomplish nothing other than to give the Repugs yet another flip-flop talking point.

If Kerry, Leahy, and any other latter day anti-war congressmen do nothing else to hold * accountable for his deceptions the mea culpas will be meaningless. The only responsible framing for this recantation is the following.

ChimpCo deceived the Congress, the world, and the citizenry to take us into an unjustified war. Acknowledging this, they have renounced their previous position on Iraq. But that is not sufficient. It is now time for this Congress to hold an accounting of this situation and determine if there are grounds for taking action against this administration.

Furthermore, this same foul stench is also all over its entire body of policy. The time has come to call an end to any and all cooperation with the monolithic cabal which is running this country to ruin. It's tough love time for the Republicans. They have a clear choice to work with Congressional Dems to solve the country's problems. Those who do will likely survive. Those who don't are headed for perdition.

[karynnj]

21. Kerry wrote the letter demanding the investigation

into whether the intelligence was manipulated (it referred to DSM - you may remember that for 3 weeks or so as he was getting signatures he was bashed because he hadn't done it yet.) This was 5 months ago (incidentally Reid didn't sign) Kerry was the first or second Senator to mention it at all.

Incidentally it is Roberts signed letter on Senate letterhead telling Kerry that there would be NO (underlined in letter) investigation into how the intelligence was used that stopped the Republican lie that the Democrats knew it was already in the works. Kerry put his letter and the response up on his Senate website. (Calling a senior Republican Senator a liar).

These comments in NH should make you happy. Kerry was asked about the closed session and he gave great answers.

"It is impossible to hijack an institution by its own rules," Kerry said. "And so the Republicans are whining and crying to try to once again hide their unwillingness to tell America the truth. All that we tried to do was hold them accountable, to have the investigation into the intelligence that led America to war that they promised us. And just as they didn't tell us the truth about that, they haven't lived the truth with respect to that investigation."

From the Manchester Union-Leader - (Kerry was there supporting a
mayor up for re-election on Tuesday.)


http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=62761
.

[LittleClarkie]

26. June 22nd I think. Toward the end of June anyway

and I'm glad that Reid has Kerry's back now on the issue.

The Stormin' Mormon is a good man to have in your corner.

[kentuck]

13. Is it "we" or "they" that are dividing the Party on this issue?

Surely the sinking polls against the war in Iraq must give them pause...

[blm]

15. DSM letter of inquiry to Roberts was 5 months ago.

.

[upi402]

16. "sorry" dead troops, now you can get up!!! "sorry"

:rant:

[laureloak]

19. Admit it, then what? DUer's attacking them for supporting it

at the onset. Please, for the sake of the Democratic Party and DU, LET IT GO! If you don't want to support them fine, you've had your say. Now, for the sake of progress....LET IT GO!

[kentuck]

23. OK...

I let it go. Feel better? Oh, still sticking around, is it? Shoo! Go away! Leave us alone. We don't want to talk about you...Shoo! Get away!

[kentuck]

28. The point is :

If this issue, which is so vital to our country, cannot be discussed because we have people on the side of the criminals, then we should just forget about it. Don't talk about it. It will only divide us. Take your losses and forget about it. It is a losing issue for us. Concentrate on other issues and forget about those that have died and continue to die. Otherwise, we will just further divide our Party. Is that what you want?

[LittleClarkie]

30. No, but please remember who's administration was in charge of

falsifying intelligence and promoting the war. We spend more time obsessing on who is or isn't supportive on our side, when I think the focus should be on who started the war and continues to defend it.

That would be George W. Bush.

No one is saying what you are saying. "Who cares about the soldiers, we just don't want to divide the party." I have never once seen anyone say that here. They may agree with Schumer, Clinton, Biden or even Leiberman. But I have never seen anyone say "don't talk about it."

I have seen some say, as I have just said, could we aim our cannon at the enemy for once instead of at those in our own party. We'd rather attack Democrats than Republicans. And the Republicans are the ones in charge.

"Why don't the Dems do something?!" some will ask. Because they are not in power. This FUBAR belongs to George W. Bush. I don't want to see it diluted.

And I've noticed lately that Republicans are starting to try and do just that.

Do you want to see them deflect blame on to the Dems? Will you agree with them when they do? "But the Dems didn't stop us!" they seem to be saying, first with Brownie, and now some with the war.

Oh no you don't, Republicans. You created the atmosphere where disagreeing with the president was treason. It is YOUR albotross, not ours. And no, we don't want to share. The miserable failure is all yours.

[karynnj]

32. I agree that it should be discussed.

Although I think it should be discussed in the context of what we should do going forward.

1) We need the investigation into the intelligence. (Also it may give you a clue that Kerry was honest in 2002 as he is the Senator who has fought earliest and hardest to get it.)

2) We need a plan to get out. There is likely not one plan for all Democrats. On the non-pro-war side, Kerry has a proposal that many are behind and Feingold has an bill that (I think) is a sense of the Senate piece of legislation that calls for withdrawal as well. (These are compatible - not in conflict) Feingold lists Kerry, Kennedy, Byrd and Levin as the Senators leading on this.

I think the media near black out of Kerry is because the media fears him as a person who could get sufficient force behind this side. He has the gravitas, eloquence and ability to create a plan after input from the military and some Iraqis.

Rather than type diatribes against politicians, shouldn't we be lobbying politicians to take a stand or at least find out where they stand. I know where Kerry stands and I know where my Senators stand on the investigation (they both signed Kerry's letter), but although I assume they back a plan like Kerry's to get out - I don't know.

The problem with the IWR was it was a trap for Democratic Senators. I think we need to let that go - most of those Senators weren't voting for war but for inspections. At any rate, we can't rewind history and we need everyone we have to hae any chance on this.

[laureloak]

35. self delete

[laureloak]

34. self delete

[OneBlueSky]

37. EVERY Democratic Senator and House Member nows KNOWS, . . .

beyond a shadow of doubt, that they were lied to and that their votes were indeed based on those lies . . . therefore, ANY member of Congress who DOES NOT stand up and admit that invading Iraq was a colossal mistake (or worse) -- and pretty darn soon -- is not worthy of any further from support anyone . . .

not admitting to the mistake is, to me, prima facie evidence that that particular Democratic official has something to hide . . . something bad enough to allow them to make fools of themselves by continuing their support of the war . . .