To all Democrats who voted to support the war back in 2002

[LynneSin]

You know we're angry with what you did. We wrote, we called, we faxed and we pleaded to not support this war because we knew back then that there was no justification to send troops to Iraq.

But all work fell on deaf ears for 80 democrats in the House and 29 democrats in the Senate. For many of you, your decision was based on trying to resolve the concept of "What if the information that the Bush Administration is giving us actually for real". We now know today that the information was not truthful. We know that false information was provided in order to invade a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 nor posed any threats on our country.

Fast forward 3+ years, 2000+ dead American soldiers and thousands of unnamed innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention tens of thousands of our soldiers who will be permanently scarred for life: To you 109 Democrats that supported this war we now come to a point where you can do something to make it right. Rep. John Murtha was one of those 109 democrats that supported the war; he was one of the most hawkish of the group. And yet on November 17th, 2005, Rep. Murtha recognized that he made a mistake. He not only recognizes that the war is not going well but is actually causing more insurgency & terrorism and now is the time to bring our soldiers home. Saddam is out, elections are held - time for Iraq to stand on its own 2 feet and bring our troops home now.

So to the other 108 democrats who voted for this war and ESPECIALLY for those with upcoming elections in 2006, now is the time to make amends for the decision you made three years ago. Please stand with Rep John Murtha in calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Now is the time to do the right thing!

[rainy]

1. The dems knew they were sunk if the didn't support a very

popular president right after 9-11 and right before an election. Bush was trying to present a united america and most dems needed to be a part of that for political reasons. They were in a very hard spot and did the politically correct thing but not the morally correct and truthful thing.

[PassingFair]

2. How do you explain that the majority of dems voted against

the IWR?
"most dems needed to be a part of that for political reasons"
WHAT?

Most dems weren't a part of that, period.

A slight majority of senators voted yes. Of those CURRENTLY in the Senate, the majority voted NO. Several YES voters have lost their seats (a WARNING, perhaps?).

In the HOUSE, 126 of our 207 reps voted NO.

What "most dems" are you talking about?

Just curious.

[LynneSin]

3. I was at a private function that Joe Biden hosts right around that time

Twice a year he host a lecture here in Delaware that includes a notable guest speaker. Although Biden is the host, he was late for this particular one because of the hearings going on about the war vote. (One of his sons filled in)

Afterwards a group of us were standing around listening to Biden (hell,I was standing right next to him) and he talked about the hearings, the meetings and even some of his mindset. This man wasn't voting because he could feasible lose his senate seat (he was up for re-election but he always wins with like 65% of the vote). He really came off as a man who had some doubts about the information but also had this "What if they're right and something happens to us again". I know I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

I'm just hoping that soon we'll see him come out in support of Murtha. Then again I hope all of them do

[PassingFair]

4. Don't hold your breath, Lynne.

You'll turn blue before they turn "blue"!

[LynneSin]

5. One could say that about Murtha

His seat was redistricted into another democrat's seat and many were hoping that the other democrat would keep the seat mainly because he was more "bluer"

Murtha was as hawkish as Biden is. Probably still is. But the tides are turning and hopefully we'll see more people stand up and get behind what Murtha did

[PassingFair]

6. They'll have to change the...

master plan.
They don't like to change the master plan.

[robbedvoter]

17. Hear, hear. Add Hillary and Schumer to that.

Although I don't believe their stated reson. They are afraif to be called traitors by...traitors (se BFEE dealings with Chalabi, Plamegate)

[LynneSin]

20. It was just a different world back in 2002

<<gosh and that was only 3 years ago>>

Bush was popular and the general population wanted action for what happened on 9/11. Sure, we knew that Bush was pulling the wool over our eyes but geez, we are only like 80,000 people here so factor in all the other folks who post on left-wing websites maybe you have 250-500k tops who knew that Bush was lying.

I remember reading the News Journal here in Delaware everyday and everyone supported Bush. And that's a newspaper in a liberal part of the state.

So Biden, Schumer, Clinton, et al screwed up. But remember, like another poster said in this thread, they were voting to give Bush the right to work with the UN should the UN decide war. Bush opted to go around the UN. And second, Murtha was in that same exact vote.

All I'm asking is these 109 elected officials recognize their choice was wrong and stand up & do the right thing just like Murtha did!

[rainy]

8. Most of the senate voted for it. I remember only hearing

Robert Byrd speaking out loudly against it. He kept saying the Dems. were just trying to get the IWR vote behind them and move on to domestic issues because they thought the American people were more interested it that.

Byrd was my hero at the time. He criticized the senators for "putting the senate out of business," because they were unwilling to debate it. He kept saying not to give "one man" that much power. The dems didn't listen.

Kucinich was who turned the house around, otherwise more of them would have voted for the war.

[PassingFair]

12. These Senators said NO

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

The media doesn't like to interview them about their vote.
They prefer to watch the Yes voters twist and squirm.
I'd like to see them ask Feingold why he voted no.

[Critters2]

Ain't it interesting

how few of these are in positions of party leadership?

I'm just sayin'...


:shrug:

[Mass]

24. Durbin is Democratic Whip - Boxer has also a leadership position

as does Feingold - They are both assistant Whip.

Patty Murray, Assistant Floor Leader

Paul S. Sarbanes, Chairman of Ranking Member Outreach

Jeff Bingaman, Vice Chairman of Ranking Member Outreach
Kennedy, Byrd, Levin, Milkuski, Inouye, Leahy, both have the head of powerful committees.

The other ones are either new senators in their first terms or no more in the Senate.

[Critters2]

21. Ain't it interesting

how few of these are in positions of party leadership?

I'm just sayin'...


:shrug:

[Critters2]

22. Sorry

for the double post. Don't know what happened

[PassingFair]

23. Yeah, real interesting...

Guess they didn't need the plausible deniability.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Byrd and Wellstone lead the fight

Wellstone's stand was also sort of a huge blow to the spineless dems who voted for it for political reasons, especially when his poll numbers went UP after voting against the IWR.

[rfkrfk]

9. constituents are shit, only my national politcal ambitions matter

I'm getting tired of that as a political stance

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Moral cowardice and political expediency.

Doesn't sell well to the American electorate apparently.

[LWolf]

35. uh...

I don't recall * being popular. I recall him struggling until he latched on to mass hysteria/fear after 9/11 to further his agenda.

Even then, I don't recall him being popular; I recall that people "unified" through fear, not popular support.

[zulchzulu]

7. Voting for UN inspections was not a vote to "support the war"

If you clearly look at the IWR and the resolution's wording within it, it had nothing to do with "supporting the war". It had to do with the UN having inspections and to use war as a last resort to disarm (not remove Saddam, attack unilaterally with a flimsy multinational force...)

I personally didn't support the resolution, but I can see how the orchestrated efforts and lies the Bush administration went with up to the IWR vote made it a gamble. And it appears that Bush completely went around the intentions of the IWR and started an illegal war.

I fully support the idea that all Democrats follow Murtha's (and other Democrats who have demanded a complete change in policy) intentions and ask for withdrawal and work with the UN to help get Iraq back on its feet after we bombed its infrastructure...

[rainy]

10. They knew they were voting for war without a doubt.

Bush was going and they knew it.

[PassingFair]

14. Please stick to reiteration of the "master plan" as stated...

Time for pre-planned spin trajectory.
Over 2000 americans dead as doornails and
COUNTLESS brown people who live over OUR oil
are dead, but we have "plausible deniability".

Why do you hate Democrats?

:sarcasm:

[zulchzulu]

15. Without the IWR, there would have been NO UN inspections

If you've done your homework, you'd know that both Bush and Cheney didn't want UN inspections to happen and wanted to just roll into Iraq.

The IWR was at least a chance for the UN to go back in and inspect for WMD. Add that any force to go into Iraq would have been done with the UN's involvement and large multinational forces and as a LAST resort to only disarm Saddam...not remove him from power and attack Iraq unilaterally.

Add that the WMD evidence was like a crooked gambling dealer fixing the cards and handing out the fixed deck of cards to those that voted for the IWR. Yeah, they played the same deck of cards, but...

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Okay, so the IWR was better than a declaration of war on Ira

It still wasn't good enough...

[mmonk]

11. All dems have an out now.

It will be interesting to see if those that voted for the IWR will now take it. Those that don't, I'll remain suspicious of them.

[robbedvoter]

18. They had an out yesterday. Blew it.

[President Jesus]

13. stop the canabilism, and get it right

The Dems that voted for the IWR did not vote to "go to war."

They voted to give the president the authority to use force at his discretion...a vote whose only value in reality was symbolic, because the administration had already decided to use force, with or without "approval."

There is only ONE person on this planet that is responsible for the US being in a war in Iraq, and that is George W Bush. He alone made the decision as to the who what where when and how of the war, and it's time we all start echoing this point. This is NOT even close to being the same as, say, Senator Kerry voting 'yes' to give the president the 'authority' to make the decision. There is no equivalency.

[Gyre]

16. I agree with "stop the cannabalism"

but those "dems" who did vote for the IWR should still be in our cross-hairs: only quietly. We knew it was BS, why didn't they? Oh they did, but it would be "poltical suicide" to do the right thing. Hmmm a disingenuous argument methinks and used with certain success against us by *. The DINOs need to be replaced but now is not the time for dem house-cleaning.



Gyre

[paineinthearse]

25. Add to that list Senators whose terms are up in 2008

That's why I'm supporting Rep. Jim McGovern for Senator. A progrssive with a backbone.

[Mass]

26. I like McGovern, but will support the only senator who has a bill for

withdrawal plan in the Senate, even if it is not perfect.

[paineinthearse]

27. With all due respect to our junior senator, he is a "Johnny come lately"

Compare to McGovern's plan - withdraw now - announced in a Boston Globe op-ed co-authored with Senator George McGovern in June, 2005, and reaffirmed at a speach given at Clark University in August.

paineinthearse (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-06-05 11:29 AM
Original message
Senator G. McGovern & Rep. J. McGovern: Withdraw from Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1832445

I met Jim McGovern last Friday night. Funny, he did not mention that he had co-written an op-ed with Senator McGovern for publication in today's GLOBE Rep. McGovern was a staffer for Senator McGovern before he ran for the House (Massachusetts 3rd CD). They are not related.

Question: Which currently serving Congress people have publically called for withdrawal? I am aware of Meehan, Kucinich and now McGovern.

Mods - I called his local office and have permission to post in its entirity.

==========================================================

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped... /

GEORGE MCGOVERN AND JIM MCGOVERN
Withdraw from Iraq
By George McGovern and Jim McGovern | June 6, 2005

WE WERE early opponents of the US invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, once American forces were committed, we hoped that our concerns would be proven wrong. That has not been the case.

The United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of our forces from this mistaken foreign venture.

The justification for the war was based on false or falsified information. What had been initially characterized by the Bush administration as an uncomplicated military operation has turned into a violent quagmire. Our leaders underestimated not only the insurgency, but also the deep-rooted ethnic divisions in Iraqi society.

There are no clear answers from the administration or the Congress on how long our forces will need to stay in Iraq, what the anticipated costs in human life and treasure will be, or even what would constitute success.

Instead, many of our policymakers seem resigned to an open-ended occupation. Former Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz has told Congress that we will be there for at least another 10 years. It is common to hear even some who voted against the war say, ''now that we're there, we have no choice but to stay."

We very much disagree. Calls to maintain the status quo echo the same rationale used to keep us in Vietnam. To those who contend that we would weaken our credibility if we withdraw, we believe that the nation's standing would greatly improve if we demonstrate the judgment to terminate an unwise course.

Our continuing presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency and gives the insurgents a certain legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. We know from our own history that armies of occupation are seldom welcome.

There have been elections in Iraq, and yet it remains unclear whether the different political, ethnic, and religious factions want to work together.

One thing, however, is clear: Washington cannot determine Iraq's destiny. It doesn't matter how many times Condoleezza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld visit. It doesn't matter how many soldiers we deploy. The myriad factions in Iraq themselves must display the political will to demand a system of government that respects the diversity that exists in their country.

There are no easy answers in Iraq. But we are convinced that the United States should now set a dramatically different course -- one that anticipates US military withdrawal sooner rather than later. We should begin the discussions now as to how we can bring our troops home.

The United States should accelerate and pay for the training of Iraqi security forces with the help of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab allies. We can begin drawing down American forces to coincide with the number of trained Iraqi forces. By that measure, we should bring 30,000 of our troops home now.

President Bush should consult with the current Iraqi government and other Arab nations about the necessity for an Arab-led security force to complement the Iraqis in the short term. Again, the United States should finance this effort.

We should also work with the United Nations to solicit ideas and assistance from the international community on how we can best disengage.

There are no guarantees that militarily withdrawing from Iraq would contribute to stability or would not result in chaos. On the other hand, we do know that under our occupation the violence will continue.We also know that our occupation is one of the chief reasons for hatred of the United States, not only in the Arab world but elsewhere.

Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of. After two years in Iraq and the loss of more than 1,600 American soldiers, it is simply not enough to embrace the status quo.

We are not suggesting a ''cut-and-run" strategy. The United States must continue to finance security, training, and reconstruction.

But the combination of stubbornness and saving face is not an adequate rationale for continuing this war. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is time for lawmakers in Washington -- and for concerned citizens across the nation -- to demand that this sad chapter in our history come to an end and not be repeated in some other hapless country.

The path of endless war will bankrupt our treasury, devour our soldiers, and degrade the moral and spiritual values of the nation. It is past time to change course.

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee for president, represented South Dakota in the US Senate. Jim McGovern (no relation) represents the Massachusetts 3d Congressional District.

Senator McGovern is also the recipient of the the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award - see his full biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern

Prior DU posts of note:

Sen. George McGovern is keynote speaker at Princeton University conference - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ?
az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3226708

my meeting with Congressman Jim McGovern - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

welshTerrier2 (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-15-05 02:44 PM
Original message
Congressman McGovern will speak on Iraq at Clark - August 8th
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=158&topic_id=5589

*08/08/2005 Congressman McGovern on Iraq at Clark*

6:30 pm for networking. 7 pm for speaker
Johnson Auditorium, Clark University, Worcester
Congressman McGovern will speak on his trip to Iraq. This is an opportunity to discuss what is happening in Iraq with someone who has been there, and in particular, Congressman Jim McGovern.

Clark University, Johnson Auditorium, first floor of the Sackler Science Center

The overall address of the campus is 950 Main Street, Worcester. There will be signs to direct people to the program. The individual buildings on the Clark campus mostly don't have separate addresses. The best way to describe Sackler is that it is the building across Maywood Street from the Maywood Street Parking Lot, about 100 yards north of Maywood Street.

welshTerrier2 (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-11-05 06:17 PM
Original message
McGovern: you can't build movements around candidates and election cycles

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2002366

no other way to describe it: just totally blown away ...

Monday night, DU'er paineinthearse and i attended a meet-up for Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), a former staffer for Senator George McGovern (no relation), who was speaking about his recent trip to Iraq ... it was great to finally meet paineinthearse (he isn't, btw!!)

McGovern handed out an article he had co-authored with former Senator George McGovern entitled "Withdraw from Iraq" ... here's a link to the article published in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/06/withdraw_from_iraq

McGovern is not just a good speaker; he's inspirational ... not only is he passionate about this country and fighting for change, but he's brutally honest ... you know when you're listening to him that he's telling you what he really thinks ... he doesn't just spout the party line or peddle some watered down version of the truth ...

with all deference to Jack Nicholson's "you can't handle the truth", here is a summary of some of McGovern's comments:

McGovern said "you can't build movements around candidates and election cycles" ... he emphasized the need to get involved, stay involved and get everyone we know involved ... we can't just sit around until the next election season rolls around ...

Jim was asked about the "we're stuck there" position that some Democrats have advocated on the war and the occupation ... he said that this "rationale was more about 'saving face' then about any kind of rational, sensible plan" ... McGovern said that he could not see that any progress had been made in Iraq at all ... the situation is a total mess ...

He asked an American General he met with whether there was any evidence the US was making progress in Iraq ... the General pointed out that whenever he flies around the country in a helicopter, he constantly sees the Iraqi people waving to him ... he asked McGovern "didn't you see the same thing??" ... McGovern responded that he assumed "they were waving at us because they were signaling for us not to shoot at them."

On withdrawal, McGovern made the following statement: "We need to end this NOW ... we need to begin an orderly withdrawal NOW; not in 6 months; not in a year ..."

He said Karl Rove seemed smart enough to find a way to save face but still get us out of Iraq NOW:
1. we could just say "we won" and then just leave or
2. we could get the Iraqis to ask us to leave and then thank us for helping them out

"The real problem we have in the movement to end the war is an undeniable lack of protests ... let's face it, people are not out in the streets demanding an end to the war ... and i have to tell you that most Congressmen are receiving very little mail on the subject" ...

"We have to teach citizens to act like citizens" ...

McGovern was asked what we could do if the Democratic Party just will not cooperate with us ... he said that "if they continue to refuse to represent our views, they need to understand that we will run candidates against them in the primaries" ... he was very clear that we cannot just continue to go along with the status quo and we must fight to have our voices heard ... he spoke passionately and articulately about the need for citizens to understand that our democracy is at risk and that we cannot continue taking it for granted ... citizens have got to be more involved ...

Finally, Congressman McGovern (D-MA) was asked about Senator Kerry's call for more troops in Iraq ... McGovern said he and Kerry are friends but that Kerry is just plain wrong on this issue ... He literally shook his head in frustration regarding Kerry's position ... then he said "Kerry could have won last year if he had taken a bolder stand against the war."

McGovern's main message was: If we want to see change, we all have to get involved ... there's no other way ... truer words were never spoken ...

Speaking just for myself, I would love to see McGovern throw his hat in the ring against Kerry the next time he's up for election ... that would give Democrats in Massachusetts a real choice instead of just another rubberstamp ... I doubt he would do it though ... and that's too bad ... of course, it wouldn't hurt to ask him, would it??

link to DU McGovern meetup thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x5589
link to DU McGovern/McGovern Op Ed on Withdrawal:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=158&topic_id=4964

paineinthearse (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-10-05 12:10 PM
Original message
LTTE Worcester T&G & Boston Globe - Jim McGovern

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=158&topic_id=5845

This letter was inspired by Rep. McGovern's speech Monday night at Clark University.

=======

Editor,

Citizens of the Massachusetts 3rd Congressional District are priviledged to have Jim McGovern as their Representative in Congress. He is our voice of conscience. Over the past week,

Rep. McGovern...joined Rep. Barbara Lee's "Resolution of Inquiry in Regards to Downing Street Minutes. Bill # H.RES.375". If passed, it will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq." This information is needed to determine the truth about Bush and Blair administration policy decisions leading up to the Congressional resolution granting President Bush authority to use troops in Iraq, to date at a cost of 2036 US, British & allied soldiers killed, 13189 US, British & allied soldiers killed wounded, (source: http://icasualties.org/oif /), plus thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and wounded, all at a cost in excess of $300 billion.

Rep. McGovern...at Clark University, met with >200 members of the Worcester Democrats meet-up group and spoke about his recent trip to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, meeting with speaking candidly with Massachusetts soldiers and calling for US withdrawal now.

Rep. McGovern...co-signed Rep. John Conyers' letter to President Bush, calling on the President to meet with Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq and is protesting outside Bush's Crawford ranch. In the words of Rep. Conyers, "It is not that hard for an elected official to take his time and energy and try to demand accountability from a President. It is what I was elected to do and it is my job. For a mother who recently lost her son in a war based on lies to turn her grief and anger into action and courage is a heroic act." Sixteen Democratic House members are calling on President Bush to meet Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq and is protesting outside Bush's Crawford ranch.

Dear Mr. President:

We write to respectfully urge you to meet with Cindy Sheehan and other relatives of fallen soldiers who request a meeting to discuss their deep concerns about the war in Iraq. We also request that you help ensure that Ms. Sheehan and her colleagues are not arrested as long as they continue to wait for a meeting with you at their location in the peaceable and legal manner that they have maintained thus far.

Since the loss of her son, Ms. Sheehan and other families have been committed to helping family members of other soldiers who have been lost in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan, in fact, founded Gold Star Families for Peace, a support organization for families of fallen soldiers. For several days now, she has been waiting outside your ranch, hoping to meet with you about the loss of her son and the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan has indicated that she is planning to continue her vigil for the entirety of your vacation at your Crawford complex if necessary.

Given the recent tragic loss of American lives in Iraq, and the many deaths and injuries American troops have sustained since the beginning of the war, we hope that you can appreciate why the family members believe it so important that they exercise their rights as citizens to petition their government. We believe it would send an unfortunate message to other relatives and soldiers if grieving parents were arrested while exercising their constitutional rights.

Thank you very much for you assistance with this matter. We hope that you will be able to make time to meet with Ms. Sheehan and her colleagues and also ensure they are treated fairly while awaiting this important appointment.

Sincerely,

Reps. John Conyers; George Miller; Maxine Waters; Corrine Brown; Dennis Kucinich; Carolyn Maloney; Jim McDermott; Jim McGovern; Barbara Lee; Zoe Lofgren; Peter Oberstar; John Lewis; Bernie Sanders; Bob Filner; Micheal Honda; Raul Grijalva

Thank you, Rep. McGovern.

Thank you for your recent action, Mr. Kerry but I am sorry, I cannot support your "Johnny-come-lately" opportunitistc bill. Instead of leading, you had to wait, yet again, for the wind to change direction, switching positions from, during the election campaign of INCREASING US TROOP COMMITMENTS to this latest position. What will your position be tomorrow?

[Mass]

29. Thanks god, we have you to repeat RW talking points.

I prefer McGovern's bill, but SHOW ME A REFERENCE TO KERRY CALLING FOR MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ. I have seen a ton of people making this claim, but not so surprisingly, it disappears when we ask a reference.

As for Kerry, his positions have been totally consistent from the beginning. You dont like him. Fine for you. But get over it. We need to be united, not divided.

[paineinthearse]

28. The positions of Jim McGovern vs "Johnny-come-lately"

This is inspired by some by http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2260272&mesg_id=2264780, advocating support of Kerry's latest position.

Jim McGovern has been advocating US troop withdrawal from Iraq since June, 2005, when his op-ed, co-authored with Senator George McGovern, appeared in the Boston Globe. He has never voted for one cent of funding for the war on Iraq.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x7224

[Mass]

30. Nobody said that McGovern did not come to his position earlier.

nor that he is not pushing toward an IMMEDIATE withdrawal, which Kerry is not.

Jeez, get a life. You anti-Kerry people need to get over it. Murtha came to it late as well, and because he thought we needed more troops in Iraq to win. Do you hate him as well.

Can we focus on getting Patrick in office, or have you decided that hating Kerry was all that mattered.

[LWolf]

36. I'd like to clarify something.

I am not an "anti-Kerry" person, and I suspect many that you have been battling are not, either.

For the record, I submitted, admittedly with discomfort and disappointment, to Kerry's nomination. I donated to his campaign. I voted for him. I defended him vigorously against the swiftboaters. I do not dislike Senator Kerry.

I also don't see anything wrong with saying, right upfront, that I disliked his "I believed GWB" excuse during the primaries for his IWR vote. If I could see the bullshit, I expected any presidential campaigner to be able to. I did not like the "I'd do it the right way" campaign. I don't think there is a "right" way to further the bush agenda.

When you see me, and perhaps some others, expressing disagreement, it might be that we would like some truth. We would like Democrats to say right up front that since others came forth as leaders much earlier on, Kerry's conversion should be welcomed, but not as our leader. As a follower. I would like to see the real leaders get the appreciation and respect from their party members that they've earned by being on the front lines from the beginning.

A simple thing; to put Kerry's words, actions, and positions into context. To appreciate them for what they are, without treating them like they are more signficant than those front runners.

That's not "hate," or even disrespect. It's reality. It's truth.

If I respond in opposition, it is to the way the message is framed, not the message itself.

[sandnsea]

31. Did Murtha renounce his vote?

Huh huh did he?? Did he say he was wrong? Did he say it on the house floor at noon with the entire country tuned in? Did he say he was duped by Bush? Why would anybody support someone who was duped? Why'd he trust Bush? Huh huh huh? Did he say Bush lied? I won't support anybody unless they say Bush lied. And he's not "out now"? He wants 6 months. Why so long? NOW NOW NOW.

We could have been at this point 2 years ago if some people had opened their ears and eyes.

[Mass]

32. He did so this morning on MTP

Said he did not believe that Bush misled us, though and was shown quotes during the last two years where he opposed withdrawal for all the bad reasons. The important thing is that he changed his mind and calls for withdrawal. Everybody who talks is welcome. Discussion is welcome. Ultimatum are bad.

Also said that the troops should be redeployed to the periphery (not sure what he meant by that) and that he thought they would be out of Iraq in one year.

[sandnsea]

33. Those weren't real questions

I don't care what the man said or didn't say. I'm just pointing out that nobody went on any of those kinds of rants with Murtha and just took the media's word that he was calling for a complete withdrawal. Any progress to ending the war is good progress, hopefully we'll do it in a way that calms the violence in Iraq at the same time.

[Mass]

34. But! But! The media said so. Is it not true?

:sarcasm: