Would you welcome Kerry's support if he called for "near-term" withdrawal?

[welshTerrier2]

I'm talking about, if after his upcoming to trip to Iraq, he concluded that "nothing can be achieved by remaining" ... thus far, Kerry has continued to support the idea that something positive can be achieved if we "do things differently" (my words not his) ...

The question is NOT whether you would support him as a candidate ... the question is whether you would value his support, his voice, his national prominence or whether you believe the anti-war movement is better off without him ...

Speaking for myself, i would welcome each and every voice who wants to stand with those of us who are calling for immediate or near-term withdrawal ... this subsumes the political considerations ... getting the policy right means ending the war ... staying to achieve "anything" beyond the safe withdrawal of our forces and some form of short-term notification to the Iraqi government just does not make any sense ... the battle is about more than politics; it's about building a movement ... and in a movement, there's room for some disagreement but not for grudges ...

[Zhade]

1. I too welcome anyone sincerely calling for a quick end to this illegal war

Even those who supported it, should they honestly repent, are more than welcome to add their voice to the growing chorus of Americans demanding this ongoing war crime be ended, and soon.

But they also have to understand that b*s* et al MUST be held accountable for their crimes. We cannot have another pardon-fest a la IranContra.

Charges must be filed and trials must be held. But first, we must get the fuck out of Iraq.

[MercutioATC]

2. I think he hurts us every time he opens his mouth.

The right hates him.

The center doesn't trust him.

A good portion of the left is sick of him.


Silence is golden.

[LittleClarkie]

5. And then there are those who are grateful he hasn't pissed off

So oh well.

The Right doesn't like Hillary and the left hates her too. But she isn't going anywhere either.

And which would you rather:

Someone shouting about the war and veteran benefits?

or

Someone shouting about video games.

I still like his line about intelligent design. Bush is so concerned with intelligent design in schools. So Kerry asks, how about some intelligent design in Iraq.

Good question, I say.

[Eloriel]

14. Amen. Hit the nail on the head with that one. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

3. Is this sort of like the same question asked about Hillary

I know last week someone asked the same question re: Hillary. Most folks seemed to think it would be political posturing, and for the most part, that wasn't their only complaint about her.

Interesting. I was thinking about this same question for Kerry.

I think if he came out with that sort of statement, if would be after a similar revelation that he had for the Vietnam War. I think if he came out saying such a thing, it would come after much soul searching, and he'd have to get over his problem with stating the war is wrong with soldiers out there still fighting it.

A Boston Globe article made a point about that. He had a problem saying the war was wrong because of the troops in the field. The closest he could ever come to something he was comfortable with was "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place."

So yeah, if he was saying what you're suggesting, I'd know it was coming from his gut, and accept it.

[welshTerrier2]

7. "with soldiers out there still fighting"

i've heard variations of this theme from many different quarters since we invaded Iraq ...

the list includes things like:
1. it would hurt troop morale
2. it would embolden "the enemy" to hang on
3. it disrespects those who have given their lives

my view of this theme is that citizens in a democracy should always have the right to question a war ... this is true at any stage of the war ... it is true even if they initially supported the war ...

in seems inconceivable to me that, in spite of potentially legitimate concerns listed above, we should silence ourselves over policies as important as waging war ... the goal is not to harm the troops or the memory of the fallen in any way; in fact, most who are critical of war want to protect the troops from risking more deaths ...

carrying the "while they're still fighting" theme to its logical conclusion would seem to silence dissent no matter how long a war goes on, no matter what facts come to light about why the war is being waged, and no matter what likelihood there might be for devastating consequences by continuing the war ... the legitimate concerns the policy expresses may, indeed, be noble, but using this philosophy to silence ones role as a citizen in a democracy, especially an office holder in a position of influence, seems to sacrifice an obligation to represent the best interests of the country ... safeguarding the troops is of critical importance but the highest responsibility has to be with safeguarding the nation and speaking out for the best policies ...

we can disagree on just what that policy is or should be but to "lock in silence" by refusing to say "the war was wrong because of the troops in the field" doesn't seem responsible ... after all, many of us are trying to get the troops "out of the field" ...

[LittleClarkie]

9. It wasn't a theme. It was Kerry's personal decision about what HE

would say.

What I was summarizing from the article was his aide's comment on what Kerry was able to say on the campaign trail. What he was willing to say doesn't mean he expected others to keep quiet.

His silence. Not the expectation of your silence. Not a theme from on high. Just one man wrestling with what he thought was right for himself. I respect that even if I disagree.

I wouldn't equate it with the Bushite keep quiet or hurt the troops meme. It was about what he felt comfortable saying. Probably has something to do with being friends with a POW. What he felt he could say has nothing to do with what you think you need to say.

Do you see?

[welshTerrier2]

10. not sure we're on the same page here ...

to clarify, in no way was i suggesting Kerry thought his views should be imposed on anyone else ... my main point was "it seems inconceivable to me that, in spite of potentially legitimate concerns listed above, we should silence ourselves over policies as important as waging war ... the "ourselves" in that sentence includes Kerry himself ...

for Kerry to impose a silence on himself would seem to give bush, or any president, a virtual carte-blanche once a war begins ... with all due respect to Kerry's dedication to the troops, i can't ultimately see how he makes sense out of proceeding in this manner ...

look, he's entitled to form his opinions on this issue anyway he wants to ... no one should deny him that right ... the problem i have with Kerry's doing what, as you stated, is "right for himself" is 1. and less importantly, i disagree with his belief that we can achieve anything in Iraq and want him to speak out against the idea that we can and 2. more importantly, i think his refusal to speak out against the idea that anything can be achieved by remaining in Iraq is inconsistent with a strong majority of Kerry's own constituents ... i think he needs to spend much more time with "the little people" ...

anyway, i hope i was clearer this time than i was with my previous post ...

[LittleClarkie]

11. Yeah, that was better

I was afraid you were equating Kerry with the Bush folks. Sorry about that.

Eh, he's a stubborn cuss, but I expect he'll have a revelation eventually. Somehow I don't picture him as "Kerry, 1971." He's not there yet. "Kerry, 1968" maybe, still supporting the cause but starting to have doubts.

The problem is he knows about international crime. He sees a value in stopping Islamic extremists. But not this way. We're creating them, not stopping them.

[jonnyblitz]

4. of course i would. nt

[Jacobin]

6. Near term........

"The check is in the mail, I'm not married and I won't c*m in your mouth."

I've read too much of his pontifications to hold out hope with one of those lines.

[AuntPatsy]

8. Yes, the double speak leaves me to dizzy and makes it hard to think

clearly...my hope is that the voices become more direct.

[Eloriel]

12. There's not one damn thing I'd welcome from Kerry UNLESS it

followed a profound, unambiguous, total and complete apology and renunciation of his Iraw War Resolution vote. PERIOD.

After that, we'll see. But there are some Ohio 2004 election matters that could've used a LOT more help and involvement from him, so we might have to talk about that until he saw the light on that, too.

[LittleClarkie]

13. Do you call for that with all the IWR yea votes

Or just Kerry?

If it were a thread about Reid, for instance?