NPR: John Kerry Lays Out Plan for Iraq Pullout

[kerrygoddess]

NPR: John Kerry Lays Out Plan for Iraq Pullout
December 8th, 2005

In a follow up to his speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations, John Kerry read an essay on his Plan for an Iraq Pullout, on NPR’s ‘All Things Considered’ this afternoon.

“Our troops in Iraq are among the finest American’s who have ever served, and they’re doing so heroically. But frankly it’s long overdue for those troops to have civilian leadership equal to their sacrifice.”

Listen here - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1347

[smoogatz]

1. Who cares? Seriously. Who gives a good goddam what Kerry says?

He's totally irrelevant, IMO.

[Mass]

2. Some do. May be you could just skip the thread.

[smoogatz]

7. Or I could respond, express my point of view, and you could either

deal with that or ignore it. How's that work for you?

[Mass]

10. Had you said "I dont care". I would have done that.

I answered to you "I care". Others did the same thing.

But I dont care at all what YOU think anymore than you care about what I think.

[smoogatz]

33. To which I can only reply: whatever. nn/t

[second edition]

34. Why wast your energy posting something negative ? Looking for

attention? No one listening to you?

[smoogatz]

38. It worked on you, apparently.

Let's see--I'm trying to imagine DU with no "negative" posts on any subject. I see a giant, empty wasteland, throbbing with unused bandwidth. Not very interesting, is it?

[ProSense]

39. So you're playing devil's advocate?

DU with no "negative" posts would be a place booming with constructive discussion, weighing the pros and cons.

Try to imagine DU with only useless comments. Now there is your wasteland.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. If you don't care, why did you enter this thread?

If Kerry doesn't matter to you, fine. Nobody's asking you to care. But plenty of others do and are happy to hear him speak.

[smoogatz]

6. What, I'm not allowed to express an opinion? If I think Kerry's

a vacillating, irrelevant loser I should just shut the fuck up so you don't have to be troubled by my point of view? Is that what you're saying?

[liberalpragmatist]

15. Saying Kerry is irrelevant is one thing...

Having a rational debate is one thing. But that's not what you did. All you're trying to do is antagonize Kerry supporters and admirers. And what's the point? You're not debating policy, you're not presenting any kind of opinion on something substantial. You just decided to be a dick.

Are you the type of person that barges into a group of people after a movie they liked and tells them "how much that movie sucked and how they're all morons"? Are you the type of just insults other people's likes and dislikes? Do you go a concert for a band you hate and then start bashing them to fans?

I just don't get what you're post added to this discussion. It was posted for people who might be interested in hearing what he had to say. If it didn't concern you or interest you nobody was making you do it. You have a right to say whatever you want, but others have a right to be pissed at you if you act like an asshole.

[smoogatz]

31. Nothing like trotting out the personal attacks

when someone disagrees with you or your beloved candidate, liberalpragmatist. Way to engage in "rational debate." Here's a rational thought for you: Kerry LOST. He is a LOSER. He voted wrong on the authorization, wrong on the supplemental, wrong on Gulf War I. He failed to articulate a simple, strong position on Iraq, he failed to respond to his own Swiftboating, and he failed to react forcefully when it was evident that massive electoral irregularities had taken place. He deserved to lose, IMO--though that's a far cry from saying Bush deserved to win. But you want to go on telling yourself how great he is, and how he's the next great hope of the Democratic party, and how we should all support his re-run in '08. Well, I call bullshit on that. Bull. Shit. We need a candidate with an actual backbone, who isn't afraid to stand up and tell it like it is. And that ain't John Kerry.

[ginnyinWI]

42. just an observation:

The original post wasn't about Kerry the candidate, or anything about the campaign. He's not a candidate now, he's a Senator.

This is about what he's doing now as a Senator. There is no reason to drag us back to a year ago, IMO.

[liberalpragmatist]

55. Funny then that I'm not even backing Kerry in '08

As it stands right now I think Edwards would be our best bet, although I also quite like Clark and Feingold.

And stating your reasons for not liking Kerry is one thing. That's what you JUST did and you're entitled to that opinion. But it's quite another thing to completely change the subject which was just a posting of a speech Kerry did and just shout "Kerry SUCKS." That's what you did in the previous post. You had a right to speak - that goes without saying. But having that right doesn't mean other people can't get pissed at you when you decide to express that opinion as a dick. And where your comments were relevant to the discussion I don't know. Because the discussion wasn't about 2008, even if some of the admirers who posted seem him as an '08 candidate, it was about what he said in the relevant piece. If you have a specific beef with what he said, then that's the appropriate response. Instead, you just jumped out and said something totally irrelevant to the discussio and were an ass about it too.

[mtnsnake]

100. Hey smoogatz

That was beautiful! Couldn't agree more!

Ever notice how often the Kerry apologists resort to name-calling when someone knocks their idol?

It can't be said enough what a pathetically run campaign he and his handlers were responsible for in 2004. What a fricken embarrassment that they couldn't even make a dent against the worst president in history, and now his people want this guy to run again?? That's funny! Oh wait, Kerry didn't lose. It was the machines. LOL!!!!

Kerry deserved to lose and he DID lose. Instead of fighting he turned the other cheek. Took the high road and stayed there, losing losing losing ground, each and every day as the campaign wore on. I kept thinking EVERY SINGLE DAY as the campaign approached its final hours he's waiting to pull THE BIG ONE outta his sleeve, yet NOTHING ever happened. Kerry and his campaign were A DUD. A flop. What a letdown.

[ProSense]

104. A full year later, you are still following Kerry and his supporters. n/t

[second edition]

35. Expressing an opinion whould be replying to what he said and

perhaps rebutting it. Your just out for attention and character assination.

[rsmith6621]

4. I Completly Agree

Kerry somehow believe that the world really gives a RATS AS$ what he thinks.

Its really to bad he didnt have this much energy and VOICE 16 months ago...he might not have had to worry about Ohio...

[smoogatz]

8. My thoughts exactly. Worst. Campaign. Ever.

Except maybe for Gore's in 2000.

[Can o Beans]

11. Gore.

Won.

Enough of your selective memory, please.

[smoogatz]

27. He won? Really??!! Then the five years of the Bush misadministration

have all just been an ugly, Dante-esque dream? Thank God. I was really getting worried there.

[laugle]

91. You bad boy you!! LOL

Don't worry you're not alone. I don't mind hearing what Kerry is up to, since he is still one of our Senators. However, I know many people have Kerry fatigue and that is certainly understandable.

I just wish people would'nt attack you since it really hurts their case and support for Kerry.

Is anyone listening.........

[ProSense]

97. Glad you are still listening. A lot more people are too. n/t

[LeftyLizzie]

13. More people voted for Kerry

Than have voted for any previous Democratic presidential candidate. Deal. With. It.

[rsmith6621]

17. More People Voted Period

Whats your point?????

[ProSense]

24. Let me guess.

In terms of the additional voters:

They could have stayed home?

They could have showed up and voted for Bush?

9 million more showed up and voted for Kerry?

[smoogatz]

26. And yet, assuming you accept that the election results were only

corrupted by 3-5 percentage points, he lost--by playing it safe, equivocating at every turn, and refusing to confront Bush directly on any issue. He thought if he kept it close, he'd win. And that, as we know, is a LOSING strategy. Deal with it.

[ProSense]

30. Deal with your assumption? Are you serious? n/t

[laugle]

92. Most people voted for Kerry because they

thought he was the most electable, (myself included).

I found that most people I know didn't actually like him.

I won't be doing that again....

[ProSense]

98. Best choice for the candidacy. Agree. n/t

[blm]

53. Maybe it's the entire left infrastructure that SUCKS - DNC, left media,

left bloggers - they all had their asses handed to them every day by a RW message machine that could spout lies more effectively than the left could with the truth.

Kerry won his matchups with Bush....DECISIVELY.

Dem spokespeople and leftleaning pundits had the duty of appearing on all the shows to counter the right wing machine and got their asses handed to them every day.

[babylonsister]

18. He won Ohio. There's lots of proof. nt

[KalicoKitty]

5. I give a damn!

Your post is irrelevant!

[wheresthemind]

12. I do...

I think it is ignorant to say he is irrelevant, there are still a great deal of people who look up to JFK and I believe he still has a good deal of influence. Everyone credits Murtha for bringing Iraq back to the forefront of the debate, but Gary Hart said be believed it was Kerry's October speech that spurred a lot of the talk since and I think I agree. Irrelevant? Hardly.

[emulatorloo]

16. Thank you . . . .n/t

[kerrygoddess]

14. Well the same could be said... N/T

[rsmith6621]

19. Kerry Should Have Called Bush A Liar

During the debates...instead he bored the USA with facts that most of America are to lazy to do any research on....

Its just time to move on.......

[liberalpragmatist]

20. Kerry did wonderfully in the debates

And polls showed more than 2/3 of Americans thought he'd won the debates.

Whatever mistakes Kerry may have made, the debates weren't one of them.

[liberalpragmatist]

21. Self-delete

nt

[arewenotdemo]

117. No Kerry apologist here

with respect to his "stances" on the war, but I agree he mopped the debate floor with Der Monkey.

I just wish that instead of talking about America needing to "succeed" in Iraq he had actually made a case for withdrawal then. I'm certain he had many reasons not to, including his IWR vote and his previous demonization for protesting the Vietnam war and for normalizing relations with that nation.

But only one year later and most Americans want us the fuck out of Iraq. Those that have shifted on Iraq since the election may have been receptive then to the frankness of a Murtha...not sure that Kerry could have made the case.

Especially when he has CONTINUED to refer to the insurgency in terms indistinguishable from the war criminals in charge.

Oh, and one more thing. The biggest vulnerability Bush and his people had, IMO, was the chickenhawk issue. Kerry didn't have the instinct or intellect to go for the throat and blast that little nest of vermin sky-high. Instead, the Purple Heart war veteran got slimed. Americans may be witless sheeple for the most part, but they would have understood that. Bush would have been left with only his Save Us from the Queers, Countdown to the Rapture, Country-club Entrepreneur and Gee, You're Kid Looks Great in Uniform base. Kerry wins, 51-49.

[babylonsister]

22. Kerry had too much class to call names. If you can't

respect him for his intelligence and integrity, too bad.

"...he bored the USA with facts...most of America are (sic) to (sic) lazy...Its (sic) just time to move on..."???

It's time to move on because 'most of America are to lazy'...

So people are too stupid to accept a person who bores them with facts, something we are currently sadly lacking?

Huh? So where do you fit into this concept?
:shrug:

[MH1]

28. "Move on"? Like slink away with tail between legs?

Hmmm.....not sure why you would want that (altho I do have some ideas), but you won't get that out of Kerry (or his supporters), so you might as well give it up.

[_dynamicdems]

47. You mean something like this...

Vote for me because...he's...he's a LIAR! His pants are on fire.

Oh, that's mature. Maybe it would garner a few votes among sixth graders, but sixth graders aren't old enough to vote.

Oh no, he's using facts on us! OMIGOD! Facts. Run for the hills before we have to do something horrible...like THINK for OURSELVES. Heaven forbid!

[LittleClarkie]

23. To answer your question: 1. The person who started this thread

2. Me. :hi:

3. A whole plethora of folks in the Kerry group.

4. Several other people who appreciate that he is still fighting the good fight.

5. Anyone who realizes that this is an area of expertise for the man, and so his opinion is valuable.

6. Anyone who realizes that the election was a year ago, and that Kerry is still a Senator. You WILL be hearing from him from time to time. Sorry 'bout that.

Well, you asked...

[laugle]

94. Good post, good point, well said.....n/t

[MH1]

29. Gee, he seems awfully relevant to you. n/t

[second edition]

32. Well, then why bother even reading and posting?

This is for people who are interested in Senator Kerry and his leadership.

[lateo]

37. I couldn't agree more.

Kerry blew his chance to be a leader. He failed in his election bid and he failed even bigger to fight for us after it became obvious the election was stolen...again.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kerrygoddess]

41. The conservatives care about what you are saying -

The stat counter on my blog tracks who's linking to my threads. This morning I find this post on Conservative Underground - linked to my original post here and the post on my blog:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25997

And instead of dicussing Kerry's "plan..."


Quote:
smoogatz (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-08-05 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who cares? Seriously. Who gives a good goddam what Kerry says?
He's totally irrelevant, IMO.



Then the thread devolves into some attacking smoogatz and others defending him/her/it.

Anyone who thinks the conservatives don't love it when we attack out own - here's proof positive that they do.

[laugle]

111. Kerry, this post is beneath you,

do you know how this sounds? It's no different than Bush saying we are all traitors for not supporting his war or that we are not patriots because we disagree with his policies.

Sorry, you really shocked me on this one.

Maybe if people didn't get attacked on these threads when they don't support Kerry, it wouldn't disenagrate into flames.

I think it's best to ignore these people unless they have something
relevant to the discussion.

I do appreciate you keeping us all up-to-date on Kerry though.....

[ProSense]

112. Bush's logic doesn't apply.

By quoting Bush's logic in your first statement, your next comment gets lost.

You suggest that pointing out misinformation (what you call attacks) justifies an attack. If someone posts misleading and inaccurate information in a discussion, the best thing to do is to correct the person. Faulty information will certainly cause the discussion to deteriorate.

Ignore is for intentional disrupters. Are you are suggesting that is the motive behind posts with misleading information?

[laugle]

114. Sorry you didn't understand my logic, but in the

larger sense it sure does apply.

As far as correcting inacurate info or misleading statements, I totally agree with you. I always prefer the truth.

When I speak of attacks, you know what I mean, you have been here awhile and I don't need to define them.

[ProSense]

115. I understand perfectly well what you mean.

Here is what you said in response to a post pointing out that conservatives are paying attention to what is posted here:

"Maybe if people didn't get attacked on these threads when they don't support Kerry, it wouldn't disenagrate into flames."


Now look at the OP and then the first post in this thread.


You imply that Kerry supporters are attacking others by responding to misinformation.

Your response to the point about conservative blogs is "Shocked!" also implying the response was an attack, then going on to say "this post is beneath you."


I know, and knew before coming to DU, what an attack looks like.

[laugle]

116. I stand by my post, you are entitled to interpret it

however you like.

[Clutch Cargo]

45. I'm glad he has a plan

but I'm still not gonna make the same mistake twice and support him again if he decides to run.

[_dynamicdems]

46. Well, obviously you do or you wouldn't be here adding your two cents. n/t

[blm]

52. Only someone with no respect for historic record would say that.

.

[zann725]

85. Some of us STILL do. Glad to hear he still keeps planning & "visible"

Thanks, as always to "Kerry Goddess" for keeping us informed.

[rockymountaindem]

87. I care, and Kerry is a lot more relevant than you, jackass

n/t

[zulchzulu]

88. The same feeling goes right back at you

If you haven't a clue about what Kerry has done and continues to do for not only Democrats but the World, you are completely irrelevant and uninformed...

[IndianaGreen]

89. As a long time critic of Kerry, I beg to differ from you!

I was fortunate to catch Kerry when he was on Imus this week. I must admit that I did like the Kerry I saw, not the one that I remember from the '04 campaign. Kerry was relaxed, funny, focused, and he avoided the nuances that dogged him in the past.

I want Kerry to run in '04. I may not vote for him, but I feel very strongly that the voters deserve to be given the choice between candidates that represent a wide ideological spectrum.

I want a vigorous campaign, and I don't want another front loaded primary season in which the voters in most states are left to ratify a coronation.

[blm]

113. And it appears it might come down to Hillary, Warner and Kerry.

Financially, they will be the ones most prepared.

Heheh....I know you prefer Teresa in the WH over any of them.

[laugle]

93. Amongst many mistakes Kerry made, I think

the biggest one was when he was asked "if you new then what you know now, regarding Iraq, would you still do the same thing." He answered "yes".
I was floored by that!

I just heard yesterday, that he has changed that to a "no."

If he runs again, all we will hear is flip, flop, flip, flop.

I can't stand it!!!

[ProSense]

9. Brilliant speech! n/t

[liberalpragmatist]

25. Kerry sounds much more engaging on the radio...

... than on TV unfortunately.

If this were still the 1940s, I doubt Kerry would have had a problem.

[IndianaGreen]

49. He looked really good on Imus this morning!

Someone posted the transcript elsewhere in this forum.

[_dynamicdems]

50. He was great on Imus today. He's got an old fashioned style of

public speaking that turns some people off...too formal (almost Shakespearean). I love it, but I'm a speech nut. Most people start to yawn at anything that sounds like a speech. When Kerry is conversational, he's very endearing and people warm right up to him. He's very good one-on-one. He looks you in the eye and is generally interested in communicating, in listening to what you have to say. This doesn't come across in a speech. He's also wicked funny.

[second edition]

36. I am so glad they have him out front on this issue- he make sense

and presents his facts in an honest non spin way. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to hear him.

[ohtransplant]

43. Like it or not Kerry isn't going away.

He's committed to the issues of the day, supporting the party, local Dem candidates, and the '06 elections.

I think Senator Kerry should give a response address to every staged propaganda laden utterance by pResident *. In addition we should be screaming for the media to cover it.

I appreciate him fighting the good fight. There are some that will criticize his every movement regardless of what he does.

Let's fight about '08 when the time comes. A lot can and will happen in the interim. Our choices may not be what we think they'll be.

[_dynamicdems]

51. Very well put. We need all the fighting Dems we can get for 2006. n/t

[ohtransplant]

59. I noticed he has a great ability to keep his eye on the ball.

He knows (proven by his actions)if more Dems get elected in '06, the Dems chances in '08 are dramatically better. Case in point; What would have happened if Florida/'00 or Ohio/'04 had had a Dem SOS?

BTW, I don't understand the griping about his use of language. After five years of someone who couldn't pass speech 101, I'd love to listen to a President who has a great command of the language and choses his words more carefully than some.

[_dynamicdems]

78. Amen!

People really need to focus. It is absolutely vital that we knock back the GOP next year. It isn't just about the Presidency. There are Repugs in every level of government, like weeds that have taken over a garden. We need to do some serious pulling.

As for the griping over Kerry's use of language, it strikes me as funny when we have a President who says things like, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

[confludemocrat]

44. post #1 has a point, JKs fuzzy position(s) been supplanted by better

more direct, more honest thinking by others on Iraq long ago and lately. Kerry's trying to stay in the game. A withdrawal? Feingold beat him to it.
Admission that the war is not going to be a "success"? Murtha beat him to it. And then Dean. Get Halliburton out of the picture no matter what? Edwards beat him to it.
JK: 12 months to withdraw but full of conditions, Murtha: 6 mos or sooner is reasonable.
Always behind the curve.

Harry Reid on Bill Press essentially admitted that Dems have been.

[ProSense]

48. Kerry did all those things long before the others.

In his NYU speech:

Text: Kerry Lays Out Iraq Plan
eMediaMillWorks
Monday, September 20, 2004; 12:10 PM
Following is the text of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's speech delivered in New York.

snip...

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35515-2004Sep20.html


Kerry put forth a details plan---transfer responsibility to the Iraqis, withdraw 100,000 troops (no permanent bases) and advance diplomatic efforts in the region---and that goes much further than any of the others.

[blm]

54. I think you have your timetable mixed up. Kerry was crafting a withdrawal

plan since early Sept. and presented it in October. Most people here at DU never even knew who John mUrtha was till the middle of November.

[confludemocrat]

57. Your post and the one above it only serve my point

Feingold: timetable for withdrawal called for in June 2005,

can you seriously interpret Kerry's saying in 2004 he has a four year plan constitutes the same thing?
Lame ass flacking is doesn't serve your cause well. You could have said JK's plan is better, but the cheerleading "he was first" simply won't cut it. He wasn't.
Feingold is still behind the curve too, he thinks there is a "military mission" still to be done.

Dean, Murtha, and Pelosi have all done us better.

[ProSense]

58. No he said within four years! But his call for withdrawal was in 2004. n/t

[confludemocrat]

83. lawyerly technicalities mixed w/ fuzzy talk then&now: worth zero n/t

[ProSense]

84. If you don't understand the facts, fine. A lot of people do. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

56. Kerry's plan is bullshit

instead of trying to defend this crap, you just dump a link to what he said ...

don't you have any thoughts of your own??? surely you can see why this plan is garbage ...

[ProSense]

60. Why?

Kerry's plan for full withdrawal (100,000 troops and no permanent bases), transferring sovereignty to the Iraqis, working with allies in the region on political reforms and strengthening diplomatic relations is the best solution I've seen.

But as others have pointed out the ball is still in Bush's court, and at least the Democrats have come up with solutions from which a single, effective withdrawal plan can be negotiated. The Republicans want to stay the course or increase the number of troops.

[welshTerrier2]

65. it's bullshit because it's DOA

it's bullshit because it depends on progress in Iraq that bush is unable and unwilling to make ...

it's bullshit because it will never make the kind of impact with the American people that Murtha's plan made ...

it's bullshit because it's not what the American people, Democrats or the Iraqi people want ...

[ProSense]

66. No.

Kerry's plan calls on Bush to change course, as do all the Democratic plans.

Seems a lot of people took note of Kerry's speech, even the ones who don't agree with his ideology. All the plans, and Kerry's is still being discussed and he's still getting under the skin of RW types, as they give him even more exposure and expose their ignorance.

[welshTerrier2]

67. "a lot of people took note of Kerry's speech"

yeah, wherever i go all i hear about is Kerry's speech ... everyone's going through the exciting details of his inspirational ideas ... at the mall, at the gas station, in the park, everywhere ... it's all Kerry all the time ... what a guy ...

i'll tell you what i have heard people talking about ... Kerry's poorly chosen words, misinterpreted thought they were, on Face the Nation ... but his plan, ummmm, no ...

btw, how many people are there in an "a lot" ... is that more than a bunch? ... did you come to your statistical determination scientifically??

[second edition]

70. I see your back to your old self again.

Look, I think we all get the idea, Kerry isn't anti war enough for you and your friends. Well, Kerry's plan appeals to more of the main stream public. Murtha's ideas are good to. I like Kerry's because it goes further than Murtha's and because Kerry has more Foreign Relations experience.

Can't say I appreciate your comments. Kerry's plan may not be on the lips of everyone you talk with, but neither is Murtha's or even the Presidents on others' lips.

Now, tell me how many people have remarked about Kerry's poor chosen words? Must be the people in your-I'm assuming small group of purists. Or- gosh, do you listen to Hannity and Limbaugh and mingles among st that crowd.
No matter really, those that needed to hear Kerry's speech did and as for the misspoken words that Kerry stated, most sane rational people realize this is just a small item that will soon pass.
It's a real shame that Kerry can't make a very minor error without it being viewed as a death sentence. Personally, this makes him seem human. Oh, if we could all be as perfect as you and your "people".

[welshTerrier2]

73. what a moronic post ....

i have had it with the Kerry operatives ... you goddesses don't want to discuss the issues; you're just here to lie and defend Kerry even when he's wrong ... that's not discussion at all ...

and if this is my old self, so be it ... you want to alienate people, you got it ... i've put up with all the bullshit i intend to ... you want to blindly defend Kerry's idiotic Iraq ideas, good ... you're going to be very busy ...

and then you ask if i listen to hannity and limbaugh ... yeah, anyone who realizes that Kerry's bullshit Iraq plan is DOA and that it inspired no one beyond DU's goddesses must be a right-winger ... the truth is i've never listened to either one of those people ...

Kerry's plan laid a great big egg when he announced it ... it went nowhere ...

[second edition]

74. Excuse me, first you assume you are correct and then you

assume I am a Goddess. It seems to be perfectly alright for you to get under our skin with small digs about Kerry, that don't even resonate in the real world and then you expect us to consider these to be talking points. If what you are attempting to do is sell us on someone else, I don't think it will work. You also insult all those who do support Kerry, by assuming that we are wrong simply because we do not see things as you do or share the same opinions. Perhaps, I have faith in the man because I saw something in him when he was campaigning and I have come to realize that he was correct about so many things. I trust his judgment. Thats all there is to it.

[welshTerrier2]

75. OK ... you're excused ...

and no, i am NOT "attempting to sell you on someone else" ... you would probably believe that since you are trying to sell us Kerry ... have i mentioned anyone else?

[second edition]

76. I'm not trying to sell you on Kerry as much as I am trying to

defend him from unfair criticism. I can understand you not liking his plan, it doesn't offer you enough of what you are looking for. I see things in another way.

[kerrygoddess]

77. WT2 - very tacky

First my user name is based on my business name (and the nickname I have from friends because of my business) and the the candidate I supported in the '04 election. So the snide "goddess" crack is stretching it and uncalled for.

Second, don't ever presume to call me a liar because I either disagree with you or don't have time to hang here at DU all day and "discuss" the issues with you. This is the 2nd time in recent weeks you've insisted that I should discuss something with you. I'VE GOT A LIFE.

Finally if you are not interested in Kerry's plan - run along and find something else here to discuss instead of sticking yourself into every Kerry conversation.

Kerry is a Senator, he does more than most on his off days and yes, there are people outside of this forum who respect him and appreciate him and still support him.

[Mass]

86. WT2 - I should have guessed. A couple weeks ago, WT2 asked

that Kerry supporters let him alone. May be it is not wise for him to go around attacking Kerry in a Kerry thread if he does not want to meet people who respect Kerry.

I have put him on ignore that way, I avoid making him angry by answering to him. He can talk to himself as much as he wants.

[blm]

82. Kerry crafted his plan WITH members of Iraq's Parliament not linked to

Bush loyalists.

He also did it with some of the same generals and commanders that Murtha spoke with.

It's bullshit to NOT try just because BushInc is working against it and only want to use the media to attack the Murtha plan they already defined as cut and run.

[karynnj]

99. It's DOA as is Murtha's plan and all other none Bush plans

because Bush is in charge. But it's still important for the various Democratic plans be discussed.

[Clarkie1]

61. He's talking to the wind.

There is no way the Bush administration will be influenced in any way by what Kerry says, especially about Iraq.

[second edition]

72. Well, they have already taken enough notice that they feel

compelled to continue to campaign against him. Kerry's speech isn't designed to influence Bush. It is for all those who have said the Dems have no plan and no vision. He is offering an alternative and he is trying to reach those with open minds. I'm guessing your not one of those types.

[Clarkie1]

95. My mind is open, but in my opinion Kerry has the wrong approach.

And in any case, Kerry is not the one setting the policy no matter how much he likes to pretend.

[ProSense]

102. Kerry is pretending he's the one setting policy? Really? n/t

[Mass]

110. Is Clark the one setting a policy?

Because I thought he was proposing solutions he finds good. I would never criticize him for doing so.

[karynnj]

101. Nor by what Clark, Murtha, Biden, Edwards or McCain say

[Dances with Cats]

62. Kerry ins NOT going to be the nominee

you might as well accept that sooner rather than later.

[Clarkie1]

63. I agree with you there is absolutely no possibility of that.

I would not make that statement about any of the other potential nominess, except Joementum.

It's nothing personal against Kerry, but mainstream Democrats aren't going to make the same mistake twice.

We aren't that stupid.

[karynnj]

80. At this point, I think that it's impossible to say what the choices

will even be for 2008. But, even right now, I think that Kerry is not in Lieberman's place. Lieberman was only in the race in the first place because Gore picked him. He was, to my knowledge, never considered as a likely candidate before. That and he was 180 degrees off on the most volatile issue. (Any pro-war Democrats in the early primaries might have preferred Edwards, who was sliding away from a pro-war position.)

In the early primaries, you don't need 50% of the vote. The real question is whether Hillary will have close enough to 50% to simply take all the primaries. If she doesn't, the question is who can be the anti-Hillary candidate. Unless Iraq goes away, that will be based on current Iraq policy plus the usage electablity etc.

Feingold, Kerry, Clark, Lieberman and Biden have mede substantial statements. (Edwards will likely do so - expanding on his op-ed which had nothing beyond the 2004 K/E plan). At this point, Kerry and Feingold are the most behind a plan (that if they were President) would have us out within a year or slightly longer. Feingold voted against the IWR, Kerry didn't, but was against the war before it started. If they continue doing what they're doing, either of these people could be the anti-Hillary on the left. I don't see Edwards being able to get this position - though Stephanopolis suggested it.)

Will there be a "center" candidate? Depends how to the right Hillary moves. I think Clark, Biden, Warner, Bayh, and Vilsack all may be positioned too close to Hillary. Clark's plan moves him closer to Hillary, not to Feingold. These people need Hillary to fall apart very early or not run.

Kerry is using his status to be one of the most out-spoken opponents to Bush. On the S&D issue and the secret prisons issue, he is not acting like a cautious politician - as Hillary is doing. On these issues he needs strong backing from Democrats who agree. Kerry was aware when he was 27 that what he was doing could keep him out of public office entirely. I doubt that he doesn't see the liability of taking strong positions now.

As he has said 2006 is what's important now.

[ProSense]

64. Did the OP say something about 2008? n/t

[Mass]

68. That is the nicest statement this poster has ever done about Kerry

Let's congratulate him.

[second edition]

71. Says who? You? Besides, why was it necessary to share that

with us here. If he does run, I will vote for him. If he doesn't it will be everyones loss. He would make a wonderful President. Your opinion doesn't really count for much in the real world.

[Dances with Cats]

106. My opinion counts as much as yours in the real world

Probably more if the truth be known. I said '08 because I constantly get e-mails from Kerry. Fuck him, he had his chance now he needs to get the hell out of the way.

[ProSense]

108. Kerry's e-mails are never about 08, but you can unsubscribe. n/t

[New Earth]

79. what the hell does that have to do with anything?

[politicasista]

81. Can we just focus on getting out of Iraq, 2006?

There are Democrats like the one mentioned in this thread that are trying to get us out of this (bleeping) mess, while you and others dream of a perfect candidate for 2008.

Talking about 2008 is exactly what *, Roveboy, the GOP and media want. It not only plays into their hands, but it takes the focus off the REAL issues.

2008 is a LONG way off therefore 2006 needs to be our goal period.

[second edition]

69. This seems to be a sensible well thought out plan for those of us

who still hold out hope that the Iraqi's can pull it together and the Dems and some Repubs can put pressure on Bush to make some changes. We need to get out, but not at the peril of consolidating of leaving Iraq to weak to defend itself. I like Kerry's plan. It is the most well thought out and comprehensive one I have heard.

[zulchzulu]

90. MP3 available of Kerry's Plan for Iraq Pullout

http://www.kerrysupport.com/media/Kerry-NPR120805-Iraq.mp3

[Paulie]

96. Weak plan...

He had the chance to support Kucinich's plan, he ignored Dennis in the debates. Now gosh golly he has a "plan"???? It's practically 2006!! :mad:

The only thing reasonable is ending oil as an issue. The rest really sounds like Bush talking points. Corruption at the UN? WTF does that have to do with IRAQ??? Especially with the US having a VETO and ignores UN treaties as it sees fits (like not invading countries with war (of aggression) without UN approval??? Come on John.... Get out more.

:wtf: :argh: :hurts: :grr: :nuke:

[Mass]

103. The line concerning the UN was basically to say that this was not

the main issue when it comes to terrorism. It is one line in a one-hour speech.

BTW,this speech you are referring to was not about Iraq, it was about national security and terrorism. Most it was about was how to make the rest of the world our friends again and not our ennemies and making the point that most of our foreign policies were based on our need on oil and the support we give to corrupted regimes because of that.

The part about Iraq was an essay given on NPR by Kerry the same day, and it was very general as can be expected. He has presented his plan many times before and you can find all the information on his website, if you are interested.

[kerrygoddess]

105. Not only was it very general

But I was told it was cut by NPR as well.

[Dances with Cats]

107. good for NPR....

This democrat is sick of John Kerry.

[Mass]

109. So dont listen and stop bothering the rest of the world.

You cant expect we care about you and your opinions, do you?

The poster I was answering to was actually arguing on issues. You cant go further than name-calling on Kerry. You dont like him. Fine, move on.