Why didn't Kerry just tell the truth on Iraq?

[TheFarseer]

If he or Gore would have been president, we would not be in Iraq. No one would have even brought it up. There would be no need to ever even think about Saddam Hussein. The sanctions would still be working. Saddam would still be there, yes, but he wouldn't be doing anything to us. He didn't have the WMDs or the nukes or the connection to Al Queda. There was no threat and we would not have invaded. 10,000 US troops would have the arms or legs or their sight back. 100,000 Iraqis would not have died. 1500 or so families would have their brother or sister or son or dad back. We would have mopped up Afghanistan a long time ago and be tracking down isolated Al Queda remnants across the globe. That's the truth. Why didn't he say that?

[MadisonProgressive]

1. You just said a mouthful of truth.

I wish I knew the answer to your question, but if you ask Kerry you'd just get weasel words.

[blm]

11. So YOU didn't know he spoke to this, either? Were you all asleep waiting

for broadcast media to report his actual campaign speeches?

Wise up, people. The media is in place to NOT REPORT the important things Dems do and say - they are in place to protect the fascist agenda and BushInc.

[MadisonProgressive]

24. You talk to me like that but provide no link?

:spank:

[blm]

28. The speech is excerpted in a post below.

And still, why didn't any of you even KNOW he made that major speech? Why do you even need to be reminded?

You all should have been out rallying behind speeches like that in 2004, knowing every important detail, instead of spending 2005 claiming they never happened.

[MadisonProgressive]

50. He only said that once?

That's not goode enough by a long shot. He should have been saying that every day and pounding it home. It's no wonder most peoplenever heard of this. And don't tell me what to do with that holier than thou attitude - it really doesn't help you.

[MadisonProgressive]

51. Can't you provide a link?

Without a link, how would anyone know whether you're making this up?

[blm]

56. You have GOT to be kidding? He said much the same throughout the campaign.

Why this is new to you is the mystery.

Go look up his campaign speeches - this one was in Cinn. right after the GOP convention.

It's hilarious that this is so new to you that you think I wrote this speech.

Maybe the ignorance of too many Dems and their failure to pay attention during the actual campaigns is the REAL reason the media has an easy time of hoodwinking the rest of the nation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5131-2004Sep8.html

[Dr Fate]

37. I'm tired of blaming the media. What is Kerry's plan to combat media bias?

I understand and agree with you that the media helped bury Kerry.

But- I saw it as it was happening-and I had ideas to combat it. Why didn't the Kerry people?

What are Kerry or others going to do about it when it happens in '06 &'08?

I hope Kerry gets media savy people on '08 who will know to punch the Wolf Blitzers in the throat everytime they shill for the GOP.

I would have called them out on it.

I would have said "The media, and commentators like (insert actual names here) are helping Bush lie (and use that word) about my voting record and war record. Here are some examples..." He & Edwards could have spent 2 minutes & 30 seconds in every speech doing this.

They could have done it to their faces on the interview shows, and asked them to their faces to clarify the "untruthful statements you allowed to go unchallenged on your program."

Is Kerry going to do this in '08, or do I have more "its the media's fault we lost again" excuses to look forward to?

[blm]

41. I hope ALL the Dems get competent spokespeople adept at hitting back at

the media and confronting them with their rightwing bias.

It goes way beyond Kerry.

We need Dem spokepeople and leftleaning news pundits who are schooled on the ISSUES and all the Dem candidates, not just in defending Clinton and his activities for 8 years like Terry Mac's DNC.

You may be tired of hearing it, but the OP needed to hear the truth and the TRUTH never changes.

[MrTriumph]

2. Actually, we don't know if Saddam would still be in power

With sanctions, no fly-zones & diplomatic isolation, a case could be made that Saddam's days were numbered.

[niceypoo]

3. Must be Booosh lite. Muuust be 'centrist'.

Muuust try and win right wing voooote.

Kerry ran an idiotic, listless, rudderless campaign.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. So true. Kerry wasted my time and money. nt

[blm]

14. YOU didn't hear his Sept2004 speech, either? That damn corporate media

sure knew what they were doing when they chose not to give Kerry's big speeches the coverage needed. So many Dems were even fed disinformation they swallowed and regurgitate still today.

[MadisonProgressive]

25. There must be a transcript then. Do you have a link?

[blm]

29. Posted below in thread.

.

[MadisonProgressive]

52. Can't you provide a link?

Without a link, how would anyone know whether you're making this up?

[blm]

58. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....longtime DUers know I am NO writer.

.

[ginnyinWI]

44. yes--it continues to amaze me

how people can assume they know all about what's going on just because they watch cable news or a few websites. I don't think we out here know the half of what's going on, so are in no position to make judgements across the board about any of our Dem leaders.

[hippiechick]

4. If 'Regime Change' was truly the only aim ...

... it could have been done with one plane, one bomb and maybe a dozen casualties. Or a well-placed sharpshooter at a selected moment in time.

What we've done over there is obliterated an entire country and millions of folks' way of life, for a reason that seems to keep changing.

Why didn't Kerry make THAT point, either? :shrug:

[manic expression]

6. Isn't it also

against the Geneva Conventions (or some international law) to invade a country solely for regime change? I'm not sure, but I remember it from somewhere.

[Al-CIAda]

7. Why didn't he talk about the PNAC? Why didn't he pound on the

'failure' on and before 9/11?

Why didn't he?

[blm]

8. Why don't YOU know Kerry did that Sept/04, but few in media reported it?

Remarks on Bush’s Wrong Choices in Iraq That Have Left Us Without the Resources We Need at Home:

Yesterday in Iraq, we marked the most incalculable loss of all. Yesterday, we reached a tragic milestone. More than 1,000 of America’s sons and daughters gave their lives in service to our country. More than 1,000 sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters who will never come home to live the lives they dreamed of. We honor them, we pray for them and for their families, and we owe it to their memory and all our troops to do what’s right in Iraq.

I also want to speak directly to the more than 150,000 troops currently risking their lives as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan. Your country is proud of you. You are the most dedicated, capable military we’ve ever had. We are united as a nation in our support for you. We pledge to stand with your families as you stand on the front lines for ours. You are the best of America. And you perform magnificently every day. We thank you for your service and your sacrifice.

Twenty-three months ago, President Bush came here to ask the American people for our support. And he promised then to make the right choices when it came to sending young Americans to Iraq.

Here in Cincinnati, he said that if Congress approved the resolution giving him the authority to use force, it did not mean that military action would be “unavoidable”. But he chose not to give the weapons inspectors the time they needed to get the job done and give meaning to the words, going to war as a last resort.

Here in Cincinnati, he promised “to lead a coalition.” But he failed to build a broad, strong coalition of allies and he rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

Here in Cincinnati, from this hall, on that night, he spoke to the nation, and promised: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.”

But then, George W. Bush made the wrong choices. He himself now admits he miscalculated in Iraq. In truth, his miscalculation was ignoring the advice that was given to him, including the best advice of America’s own military. When he didn’t like what he was hearing, he even fired the Army Chief of Staff. His miscalculation was going to war without taking every precaution and without giving the inspectors time. His miscalculation was going to war without planning carefully and without the allies we should have had. As a result, America has paid nearly 90% of the bill in Iraq. Contrast that with the Gulf War, where our allies paid 95% of the costs.

George W. Bush’s wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home. The cost of the President’s go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion and counting. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford after-school programs for our children. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford health care for our veterans. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford to keep the 100,000 new police we put on the streets during the 1990s.

Well we’re here today to tell them: they’re wrong. And it’s time to lead America in a new direction.

When it comes to Iraq, it’s not that I would have done one thing differently from the President, I would’ve done almost everything differently. I would have given the inspectors the time they needed before rushing to war. I would have built a genuine coalition of our allies around the world. I would’ve made sure that every soldier put in harm’s way had the equipment and body armor they needed. I would’ve listened to the senior military leaders of this country and the bipartisan advice of Congress. And, if there’s one thing I learned from my own service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace.

I would not have made the wrong choices that are forcing us to pay nearly the entire cost of this war – $200 billion that we’re not investing in education, health care, and job creation here at home.

$200 billion for going-it-alone in Iraq. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

While we’re spending that $200 billion in Iraq, 8 million Americans are looking for work – 2 million more than when George W. Bush took office – and we’re told that we can’t afford to invest in job training and job creation here at home.



Because of this President’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq while the costs of health care have gone through the roof and we’re told we don’t have the resources to make health care affordable and available for all Americans . . .

. . . They’re charging 17% more for Medicare while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.



Because of George W. Bush’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq while we’re running up deficits that threaten Social Security. In fact, they’re raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for their mistakes in Iraq. . . .



And because of this President’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq instead of investing in making America energy independent. George W. Bush’s energy policy is to trust the big oil companies and the Saudis. In fact, a national news magazine just reported that a senior member of the Saudi Royal family said that as far as they’re concerned, in the U.S. Presidential election, “It’s Bush all the way.” I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi Royal Family.

We’re going to invest in technology and the vehicles of the future, so that no young American will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East. That’s the right choice; that’s the right direction; and that’s the right leadership for America.

Because of this President’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq while we’re told that we can’t afford to do everything that we should for homeland security. I believe it’s wrong to be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America. It’s wrong to cut money for our first responders. It’s wrong to let 95% of the cargo that comes into this country get by without ever being physically inspected. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

As President, I will set a new direction. We’re going to defend this country here at home. We’re going to do all we possibly can to protect it from another terrorist attack. And we’re going to make homeland security a priority, not a political slogan.

My friends, today we are bearing the cost of the war in Iraq almost alone – $200 billion and counting.

Nearly two years after George W. Bush spoke to the nation from this very place, we know how wrong his choices were. He says he “miscalculated.” He calls Iraq a “catastrophic success.” But a glance at the front pages or a look at the nightly news shows the hard reality: Rising instability. Spreading violence. Growing extremism. Havens for terrorists that weren’t there before. And today, even the Pentagon admits, Entire regions of Iraq are controlled by insurgents and terrorists.

I call this course a catastrophic choice that has cost us $200 billion because we went it alone, and we’ve paid an even more unbearable price in young American lives.

We need a new direction. I know what we need to do in Iraq. We need to bring our allies to our side, share the burdens, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. We need to train Iraqi military and police – we need to train them more rapidly, more effectively, and in greater numbers to take over the job of protecting their own country. That’s what I’ll do as Commander-in-Chief – because that’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

[sasha031]

9. yes I blame the media too

they were to busy giving air time to the swiftys

[0007]

15. 'Tis easier to bash than to read, it is easier to follow than to lead.

[TheFarseer]

21. He's still not saying we wouldn't be in Iraq

not even in that speech. He's saying we have to get our ducks in a row before we go in. I agree with all of that speech EXCEPT for the premise that Saddam Hussein was even worth talking about or anyone would give a rats behind about him if not for bush and company foaming at the mouth over his oil. I think, in general, JK always stopped short of saying something important whenever he talked on any subject. As we can see with bush and repubs, extreme rhetoric wins. Pulling punches does not.

[MadisonProgressive]

26. Of course you are right.

[blm]

27. Letting the weapons inspectors FINISH means NO MILITARY ACTION NEEDED.

And if action was shown to be needed THEN he would have done so WITH our allies and a true coalition. For a prospective commander-in-chief it would be very necessary to make that statement.

The point was that media made certain that even those Dems who thought they were paying attention could be scammed into believing Kerry never addressed this issue, when in fact, he addressed it regularly during the campaign.

[Pithy Cherub]

32. Why hasn't Kerry called for impeachment?

Kerry's very intellectual, thoughtful and nuanced speaking style is what kept many from knowing his positions. To overcome the inherent laziness and incompetence of the media whores, Kerry would have to make bold statements that made the president answer his charges.

A call for impeaching him for the intelligence failures, not waiting for inspectors to complete their work, violations of the horrid IWR and every other item of bush corrupt and bad governance/leadership would have put Kerry in the vanguard, but scared the living daylights out of meeker, mousier centrist voters.

The choice for Kerry to go dark for a month will forever remain hotly debated because the absence of *news* allowed the media whores to have swift boating on 24/7. The media is guilty and complicit in so many things its not even a debate point. Kerry knew that fighting back was critical. Not fighting back was part and parcel of the Dukakis debacle and fighting like hell is part of the Clinton mystique to this day. One thing Kerry can not claim was he did not know this in the marrow of his political bones.

[blm]

36. Kerry gave an August speech at firefighters convention attacking SBV liars

and defending himself.

Another speech the corporate media didn't give much coverage to.

You cannot even seriously compare the media Clinton had to deal with in 1992 with what Gore and Kerry faced in 2000 and 2004. The GOP took near total control of the broadcast media in the mid90s. That's why Clinton was successfully impeached. It wouldn't have happened without that control.

The media also convinced the American people that Bush was a better president on terror than Clinton was, and Clinton failed to change that perception even with his book and publicity tour in 2004. It wasn't till Bush started visibly screwing up so badly and media was having difficulty spinning for him throughout 2005 that finally altered the public's overall perception.

[Pithy Cherub]

38. August has 31 days, that was one speech.

Kerry KNEW the media environment was against him. He is a bright and thoughtful person. His inability to make a consistent charge during that time is part of the campaign strategy that failed him. In no way, does the lack of media ethics, reflect on Kerry. More about what was in his control and he absolutely knew the 2000 election was a sham and he needed to be viewed as tough and uncompromising about national security. If unable to defend himself vociferously, how would the voting populace be able to distinguish between the leper in chief and the Vietnam War Hero who was willing to take on all comers.

I admire your ardent and admirable defense of Kerry. Your continuing example of doing battle against the odds is exactly what those 31 days in August 2004 was about. You do Kerry proud.

Happy New Year, blm! :toast:

[blm]

42. The speech came after two weeks of articles generated by Kerry that proved

he was telling the truth. The reporters on these articles weren't featured on the cable news shows pushing the swiftliars. Admittedly, the leftleaning pundits repping the DNC weren't very effective in promoting the facts, either.

These are the facts: In a post 9-11 world the firefighters convention and their endorsement of Kerry and his speech to them hitting back at the Swiftliars went mostly unreported by the media.

That's astounding to anyone who cares about a free press and democracy.

That's why I encourage people to examine the media as closely as possible and instances like this, and DSM prove the case against them. We need to do whatever we can as a party to expose it before the next election.

It's a task for all of us. I really trust in us as a force for good.

[sandnsea]

47. Why hasn't Kerry cured cancer, ended world hunger, and freed Mumia

For the love of god, it doesn't matter what the man does, the leftards will just raise the bar and demand something else. He is the ONLY one in the Senate who has even mentioned the DSM. He has pushed and prodded and led on every issue this year, from Bolton to Rice to ANWR to troops coming home to the intelligence manipulations. If you think the public has moved based on anything Conyers or Kucinich says, you're way out of your mind. The fact is, the "mousy centrists" can actually HEAR him. The only ones who need red meat rants in order to digest information are those on the left and I have a pretty good guess as to why it takes 5 word blurbs to get their attention.

[Pithy Cherub]

49. Yes they heard, but did they vote for him?

Forgetting the election fraud, why such a large number of ABB voters and not true believers. Centrists are not your go to people when it comes to boots on the ground or being true believers. Centrists go that third way vague route. Kerry himself is not a centrist. Smart move on his part.

[sandnsea]

43. He's saying BOTH

He said he would never have taken us into this war clear back in 2003. But he is ALSO saying that even if our country had to go to war, Bush completely fucked up the way he took us to war. Not to mention he is completely fucking up the way we're fighting terrorism. He hasn't pulled any punches. People just don't listen to what HE says. They listen to what bloggers and leftists who hate him say he says.

[politicasista]

45. And that's why Dems will continue to lose period n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. Why, oh, why ..

did Kerry turn out to be a spineless weasel?

Never have I been so utterly disappointed in a candidate. That big "woosh" you heard was all of us throwing our good time and money into an empty bucket.

[blm]

12. I'm SHOCKED that you didn't hear his Sept/2004 Iraq speech, either.

If it isn't on broadcast media it didn't happen - how convenient for the fascists who control network news.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. Yes, it's quite unseemly, isn't it,

to have an opinion?

[MrBenchley]

22. Especially such a silly one....

[wiley]

33. You're a treasure!

:patriot:

[MH1]

13. For starters, the sanctions weren't "working".

The sanctions were unsustainable because Saddam was using the sanctions regime to abuse his people. Has everyone so quickly forgotten the (rightful) angst about the misery caused by the sanctions regime?

Okay, now that's out of the way. The sanctions were working in terms of suppressing Saddam's weapons programs. However, something had to be done about the sanctions regime, because it was terribly destructive in and of itself. (I just get SO tired of people forgetting that now.)

However other measures were working in 2002/early 2003. The threat of force combined with leveraging the UN got the inspectors back into Iraq. The inspections found that there were no viable weapons programs that posed any imminent threat - before Bush yanked them out and invaded anyway. Which violated what he promised to Congress. (btw, note my sig line.)

Based on what Bush said on the eve of the IWR vote, it was not a vote for war - he had no preconception that war was necessary (he said). Well we all now know that he was lying, and some were sure of it at the time, and it may be that Kerry suspected it - but he couldn't have known, and the American people backed Bush at that time. And remember, the Senate (except those with special access, maybe) was fed cherry-picked intelligence by the bushel that seemed to show that Saddam DID have active weapons programs. And it is a FACT that Saddam violated UN resolution after UN resolution, failing to provide the evidence that he had indeed complied and dismantled his programs.

If you read Kerry's statement prior to the IWR vote (it is available online in the Congressional Record - October 9, 2002), you will find that he spoke out vehemently about the administration needing to pursue all possible alternatives before resorting to war. For example:

Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism--they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.

It is love of country, and it is defined by defense of those policies that protect and defend our country. Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq--seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.

and

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

And there is so much more. If you expected the media to cover it though - what planet have you been vacationing on for the last 15 years? (shall we talk about how Iraq I was trumped up and Kerry saw that and voted against it and NOBODY stood up to say he was right? How the American people proved themselves such gullible fools on that one? Nah, let's do that one later. I gotta take a break.)

[MrBenchley]

17. I blame you....

if only you had told him "the truth".....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. That aforementioned "anonymity"

makes every dick that wanders down the road an "expert."

Haven't you noticed, MrB?

Welcome to IgnoreLand, MrB.

[MrBenchley]

23. Especially the "experts" who know "the truth"

By the way, there's no downside to me...it's not like your posts have been a bouquet.

[TheFarseer]

20. I'm not sure I follow

is it my fault for not seeking out his statements like other posters have suggested? Or do you dispute what I have said is the truth?

[blm]

31. Bottom line is it's the media's fault, but, involved type of Dems should

have not only KNOWN about the speech when it happened, but should have been rallying BEHIND that speech after he made it in 2004.

But, instead, we have too many Dems in 2005 spreading disinformation that the speech was never even made.

[Dr Fate]

39. Fine. So what is Kerry's strategy to combat media bias in '08?

I'm tired of this excuse.

What is the solution other than to use it as an excuse when we lose?

[ProSense]

40. I think the media was complicit during the campaign.

A lot is changing now though, thanks to the efforts of the Democrats in Congress and all the people who have pressured the Bush administration. The Democrats have gotten the message out and when people take heed the media often hears about it. So, I don't believe the media can remain complicit in light of these efforts and new channels.

[blm]

46. I hope we have tough, knowledgeable Dem spokespeople who are schooled

on the issues and all the Dem candidates, instead of the last 8 years of Terry Mac's people who were only schooled in defending Clinton and barely KNEW the records of other Democrats.

[MadisonProgressive]

53. If you admit it wasn't covered by the media

how were we supposed to know about it? You are pretty unbearable with your attitude.

[ProSense]

54. There are a lot of media outlets

There were in fact AP stories found online that were never covered by the broadcast or cable news networks. In fact, that still goes on. And even though the most people rely on television news for information, there is a lot they don't cover. How much attention has been given to the DSM? Some people have no clue what that's about.

[blm]

57. I'm just reasonably pissed off that so many who CLAIM to be activist Dems

are also claiming they never heard about this speech or any of the hundreds of times Kerry made similar statements.

Maybe THAT is the problem? Too many Dems buy into the corporate media version of the campaign and then spread that disinfo throughout the campaign and for years to come.

[MadisonProgressive]

62. happy new year

[MadisonProgressive]

63. happy new year

[wiley]

30. Not to be picky, but you don't mention

moms. Also friends and lovers who share their lives but are not even given the status of family by the military or society.

I also think that if Congress was run by the Repukes, we'd still be dealing with the neo-con agenda.

[bpilgrim]

34. the cartoon world view must be maintained at all cost, apparently

hopefully they (it isn't just kerry) will come to their senses before nothing is left worth fighting for.

the corruption in our body politic and the M$M is so pervasive it requires almost a complete sweep with new blood, folks who are responsive to the people and not only their corporate masters.

i think us on DU have an obligation to learn as much as possible and then pass the word to our friends, neighbors and co-workers and if we are lucky enough to have a position of authority or better a soap box (media mic) to speak truth to power to challenge the current cartoon world view (conventional 'wisdom')

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Dr Fate]

35. He is truthful- unfortunately, he needs to dumb-down his explanations.

Reading all of Kerry's long-winded explanations from over the past few years, I can see why swing-voters & non-political types tuned him out. Sad, but reality.

I don't agree that Kerry is being dishonest, I do agree that if he could be just a little more blunt about what is going on, he would get more support from the base and fence-sitters.

If it takes 5 minutes to explain his positions to swing-voters, then that is too long.

Before the usual suspects jump all over me- I like Kerry and I will support him if he can continue to fine tune his message- which he has been doing in increments.

[zulchzulu]

48. Actually he did say that...

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. As far back as 2002, Kerry warned Bush that the UN inspections should be the first and most critical part of dealing with Iraq.

From his October 9, 2002 speech:

"As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. "

http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/kerry-speech-10-9-2002.htm

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

55. I wonder if it would help clear the air if we'd have a Blame-Off?

A virtual version of the proverbial circular firing squad just to get it all out of our systems.

One thread, keyboards at the ready.

Ready, set, blame, blame, blame,

Blame the media, blame Diebold, blame the people who blame Diebold, blame the candidates, blame the opposition, blame ourselves, blame the party, blame the universe, blame Rush, blame Newt, blame Kkkarl, blame the DLC, blame sunspot activity, blame the aliens who crashed in Roswell New Mexico back in 1947.

Blame Clinton, blame Einstein, blame Mother Theresa, blame Pope John-Paul, blame Lincoln, blame Gandhi, blame LBJ, blame Nixon, blame Atwater, blame Plame, blame Stalin, blame Hitler, blame Ghengis Khan, blame Mussolini, blame Osama, blame the Ayatollah, blame Adam and Eve, blame the snake, blame Darwin, blame evolution, blame creationists.

Blame everybody!!!

Ready, aim, blame!!

Okay, one for the money, two for the show, three to get ready and four to go go go!!!!

:rant:




:rofl:

[HR_Pufnstuf]

59. Because...

... he is Skull and Bones.

And pirates are faithful to their ilk.

[blm]

60. Except he DID address what the OP said, so you're wrong.

,

[HR_Pufnstuf]

61. Arrgghh ya matie.

nt