Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WEBSITE: Birddogging Kerry on war support

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:37 PM
Original message
WEBSITE: Birddogging Kerry on war support
The more I think about this, the more important this kind of action is.


Consider two scenarios:

1. Democrats win one or both houses of Congress in 2006. Given that a large percentage of the Dems have supported the war to one degree or another and nearly all buy into the war on terror shtick and refuse to talk about oil as the agenda in Iraq and pending war in Iran, it is unlikely they will end the war. A more likely scenario is when Nixon took over the White House from LBJ: same song, different verse, but for the grunts sent to die and the Vietnamese on the other end, the result was the same.

2. Democrats lose (or allow election to be stolen) again in 2006. The DC/DLC Democrats are so worried about offending potential corporate donors that they are forgetting to do much to actually appeal to voters, and aren't looking out for our interests in any case. If we expect to win, we have to start cleaning out these assholes who see elected office the way Bush does: as a way to make money for themselves or their friends. I know one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein is doing this--her husband got a rebuilding contract in Iraq.

Her office isn't far from here. Maybe I need to put a sign like this together too.



http://www.birddoggingkerry.org





Young John Kerry: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Bring the Troops Home NOW!

Back in April of 1971, Vietnam veteran John Kerry sat before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said the following about the ongoing death trap in Vietnam:

Young Kerry:
"Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost, so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese. Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows...that we have made a mistake. We are asking Americans to think about that, because...How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Fast Forward to 2006...


Today's John Kerry: Let the Troops Keep dying for a Mistake... Stay the Course in Iraq


Today John Kerry is facing another, very similar death trap for U.S. soldiers - another mistake that the entire world can plainly see. And today's soldiers are becoming uppity, just as Kerry had in the early '70s. Yet today's far more influential Senator John F. Kerry is singing a very different tune for today's soldiers than he sang for his own buddies - because today's John Kerry isn't willing to allow pesky human decency to stand in the way of his political aspirations.



Even though Kerry is on record admitting the war on Iraq was a wrong war, he still refuses to lift a finger to end it.

So our question for the older and wiser John Kerry is this:
Okay, John, so how exactly do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?



*** Birddogging John Kerry every Friday in Boston ***

Each Friday afternoon from 4:30 - 5:30, a dedicated, nonpartisan group of antiwar voters takes this banner to John Kerry's Boston office at One Bowdoin Square (a couple of blocks from City Hall, on Cambridge St.).

All peaceful picketers are welcome, provided that all signs, fliers, buttons, etc., are consistent with NOM's message of Bringing the Troops Home NOW.

Not One More casualty, for the sake of a mistake.


Contact John Walsh at [email protected]


http://www.birddoggingkerry.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Actually, Kerry proposed things to end it. He is one of the few in
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 01:42 PM by Mass
the Senate who did so.

That John Walsh and you disagree with it and want to protest is one thing. That you distort the truth is another one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. put up the link that sets the record straight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Why - you know exactly what I am talking about.
There is a bill on the senate floor to bring the troops home in one year.

I understand this is not what you want, but this is something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I missed it. Put up the link, so people have a reason to be hopeful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Here's his original speech from October where he first proposed withdrawal
October 26, 2005
Senator Kerry’s Speech at Georgetown University

Excerpts of remarks as prepared for delivery
Kerry speaks from his heart and conscience on Iraq:

“A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.

The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.

As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.

The Challenge in Iraq:

Now more than 2,000 brave Americans have given their lives, and several hundred thousand more have done everything in their power to wade through the ongoing internal civil strife in Iraq. An Iraq which increasingly is what it was not before the war -- a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists and a magnet for foreign terrorists. We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.

Kerry Defends The Right to Dissent:

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

In fact, while some say we can’t ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no – in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn’t pessimism, it’s patriotism.

The Truth About How We Got Here:

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

Administration’s Mistakes Have Narrowed Our Options:

We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been.

The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military.

When after September 11th, flags flew from porches across America and foreign newspaper headlines proclaimed “We’re all Americans now,” the Administration could have kept the world united, but they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they pushed allies away, isolated America, and lost leverage we desperately need today.

When they could have demanded and relied on accurate instead of manipulated intelligence, they chose not to. They were wrong – and instead they sacrificed our credibility at home and abroad.

When they could have given the inspectors time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson’s report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead they attacked him, and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq. We don’t know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history. History will judge the invasion of Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy misadventures of all time.

But the mistakes were not limited to the decision to invade. They mounted, one upon another.

When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong again. When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. He was wrong. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the “insurgency was in its last throes.” He was wrong.

Bush Administration: The Real Cut and Run Republicans

Now after all these mistakes, the Administration accuses anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. But we are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense.

And still today they cut and run from the truth.

The Kerry Plan: The Path Forward

This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.

To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase “we will stay as long as it takes,” who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.

It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.

In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

The Military Agrees:

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.

We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.

It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.

We Need A Political Solution:

Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.

We Need a Regional Security Agreement:

The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We’ve proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it’s their turn to do their part.

The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.

To enlist the support of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that strengthens the security of the countries in the region and the wider community of nations. This requires a phased process including improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and participation by countries both outside and within the Middle East.

Improve Training:

Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

Win the Real War on Terror:

We will never be as safe as we should be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we must win – the war on Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the terrorists that are resurfacing even in Afghanistan. These are the make or break months for Iraq. The President must take a new course, and hold Iraqis accountable. If the President still refuses, Congress must insist on a change in policy. If we do take these steps, there is no reason this difficult process can not be completed in 12-15 months. There is no reason Iraq cannot be sufficiently stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can’t soon be on their way home, and no reason we can’t take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves. Only then will we have provided leadership equal to our soldiers’ sacrifice – and that is what they deserve."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Admirable (see snip) but also repeats some disinfo and he said draw down
not withdrawal

The admirable part:

Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.


This was exactly what the Pentagon Papers said about Vietnam. More troops wouldn't put down the war because the war was about the presence of the troops. Democrats should underline this idea and Murtha, to his credit has said this.

This part is a little more troublesome:


The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.


The public was misled. Most people don't know history or have even a minimal familiarity with the military or the extent of our nuclear arms.

Kerry knows that even if Saddam had nukes, he wouldn't be stupid enough to use them on us. Sen. Bob Graham actually asked CIA director George Tenet this question directly BEFORE the war, and Tenet was forced to say Saddam would only use them if he had them if his back was against the wall and he was being invaded.

Given what the Joint Congressional Inquiry saw about Saudi and probably Pakistani government involvement in 9/11, it's hard to believe the Bushie's one crappy meeting in Praque (that no one would substantiate) and the presence of the 90% propaganda Zarqawi, convinced them that Saddam had a major involvement with 9/11.

It is more likely that they agreed with geopolitical motives of hegemony over that oil, or more simply thought they would be voted out of office if they didn't go along with the war.

I don't think Kerry is a coward, so it's possible that at least temporarily, he saw something compelling in the oil agenda. If that is the case, he should say so publicly.

I'm embarassed every time a Democrat talks about terrorism, WMD, or spreading Democracy as a motive for invading Iraq and sidestep the real reasons, which Cindy Sheehan demanded of Bush, Helen Thomas asked him the other day, but few Democrats seem interested in pursuing, or simply revealing the way thankless reporters like Greg Palast and Naomi Klein have documented.

Are they holding back on this for impeachment? Or are we only going to have debates on Iraq policy in bullshit "Wag the Dog" terms?

I want to believe Kerry is doing the right things, and I'm glad you posted that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Kerry has wanted weapons INSPECTORS back in Iraq since 1998 - he
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 02:48 PM by blm
certainly wouldn't have invaded Iraq after 2 months of weapons inspections on the ground since Jan 2003 (as per IWR) were proving that military action was unnecessary. And he said so consistently every time he said Bush needn't rush to war - let the weapons inspections continue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Links
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=952 - John Kerry - “The Path Forward”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=955 - Kerry Offers Specific Starting Point for Iraq Withdrawal

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=957 - NPR: Kerry Urges Troop Withdrawals Post-Iraq Elections

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=960 - C-Span Alert: John Kerry - “The Path Forward”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1117 - Kerry Introduces “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act” in United States Senate

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1120 - Remarks of Senator John Kerry Introducing the Kerry Iraq Bill

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1119 - John Kerry Responds to Senator McCain’s Mischaracterization of His Iraq Plan

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1145 - Kerry Takes Bush to Task on his Veteran’s Day Speech

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1157 - Kerry Takes Bush to Task on his Veteran’s Day Speech - Video

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1197 - Kerry Responds to Murtha Attacks on the Senate Floor, Debate Rages

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1340 - John Kerry: Real Security in the Post 9/11 World

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1348 - Kerry: Reduce U.S. Force in Iraq by 100,000 by End of Next Year

okay I gotta go back to work now - hopefully you get the idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. bookmarked your blog--last story was great. I read that CFR speech
which was one of things that made me think he is making the case with the movers and shakers who are clearly short circuiting democracy here to keep that oil hegemony agenda going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
43. WTF?
The man campaigned on Energy Independence! He's been trying to ease dependence on oil for years. How out of touch are you? Everylink that MH1 provided you has been posted here in the past - I know that verbatim - I posted them.

Educate yourself on John Kerry - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?cat=2

You think he's supporting oil - read this from the campaign -
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=2353

You've made your point here, now - but you can be certain there will be a host of Kerry supporters birddogging every piece of crap like this you post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. I read that at the time--one critical dot is left unconnected, oil and
war.

I have argued about this with people here who said people know, it doesn't need to be said directly, but the right doesn't shy away from belaboring the obvious, and until it is said loudly and every time Iraq comes up, it will be possible to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

Every time the reasons for the war come up, instead of just saying Bush lied say we need to find out how oil played into it, and when we talk about the insurgency or withdrawal, we should say how it is fueled by the perception that we are there to steal oil and how withdrawal will affect our supply.

If Democrats started talking like adults about the real underlying issues, they could take the lead in the debate and make the GOP look like the lying, anti-democratic shills they are. By sticking to the war on terror, wmd, democracy frame, the Dems have already lost the debate, because if the stated goals were true, they would be admirable.

But they aren't. The Bushies don't give a rat's ass about democracy, not even here.

The fundamental problem a lot of us have here is it seems like the Democrats are fighting like they are up against Gerry Ford instead of Jeffrey Dahmer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. You really don't pay attention
to what Kerry says because he does make the connection between oil and the war, he did during the campaign and he does now. Repeatedly during the campaign he said "our troops should not be fighting overseas for oil." (I'm paraphrasing - but honestly you're pushing a line of BS here. If you choose to be blind so be it, but others know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. could you find that? the closest I remember his coming is talking about
energy independence and our presence over there which isn't as blunt as what you said.

If Kerry had said what you just said, it seems like it would have been all over Fox so they could try to shoot it down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. If you are a fan of his, can you answer a question not meant to be
inflammatory at all?

Why didn't he bring up Iran Contra or BCCI during the presidential campaign? I admired that work quite a bit, and a lot of the Bushies were players in those, and it would have given an earlier boost to the "culture of corruption" meme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I dont know and I think he should have
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 01:48 PM by Mass
Probably advisors he should not have listened to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. When he did no media would pick it up for discussion afterwards and
the DNC and Dem spokespeople were not able to discuss it with any background knowledge, maybe because the DNC was a Clinton stronghold then and Clinton refused to open the books on BCCI when he took office.

The leftleaning journalists all acted deaf and dumb on it, and those who DID write about it were never asked onto the cable shows to discuss those articles, were they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. those are all valid, but there were two times he could hit it uncensored:
1) commercials

2) debates

His deferential bordering on effeminate performance during the debate puzzled me.

I didn't expect him to try to out-Jethro Bush, but he could easily have done to Bush what Lloyd Bentson did to Dan Quayle.

He scored some good points and obviously won overall, but he could have left Bush pissing and crying on the floor with some McNuggets on his family's involvement in financial scams over the last couple of decades including his brother's involvement in savings and loans, and his own close relationship to Ken Lay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. Whatever you offer, you still need backup when it counts on post-debate
shows. Heck - he went after Bush on port-security in the debates and no media discussed it and then they had the nerve to say that no Democrat ever cared about port security until Dubai deal.

I also believe that Clinton's people who were now on board at that point, would not go there and likely made their views known. Incredibly, Clinton closed the books on BCCI, and oddly never mentions one word about BCCI in his book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
54. yep, but people noticed enough in the debates to score kerry as winner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. His advisors thought it wouldn't play
Bob Shrum's quote was something like "They'll think he's talking about the BBC". And I guess his advisors figured that with all the Reagan-love, Iran-Contra wouldn't have played well.

Terrible idea, IMO. Give birth to the claim that he'd "done nothing" in the Senate for 20 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. Actually, Dean's campaign first made that charge that Kerry had no
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 02:55 PM by blm
accomplishments in the Senate. Dean repeated it at a debate. To his credit, Dean did seem uncomfortable when he threw that line out there.

My suspicions about Shrum on BCCI is that he was protecting the Clinton administration on that issue - since Clinton is the one who wouldn't allow the books to be opened once he took office in 1993, supposedly at the insistence of Alan Greenspan. But, I think there's more to it, since his political benefactor, Jackson Stephens, was also involved in some of the shady deals BCCI uncovered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. do you have a link on that Clinton/Greenspan business?
This gets back to the DLC being on the same page with GOP on economic and foreign policy stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. That's the story from the time - no way did Clinton even mention
BCCI in his entire book. That should speak volumes - it does to me.

Back in 1993 many of us wondered why Clinton wasn't opening the books on IranContra and BCCI and heard that Greenspan warned Clinton that the revelations could collapse the world economy. Others here at DU heard the same thing back then, so that may be the only way to verify the story. It would be odd that so many of us heard the same story from insiders back then if it wasn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
50. Thanks for reminding me what happened on the closed BCCI per Clinton
The BCCI is directly connected to Negroponte's project, NAFTA i suspect, and it is at the core of the destruction of the working and middle class of America.

Kerry advisors were his worst enemies - even worse than Karl Rove and the Swift boaters. Apparently that includes the Clintons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #50
68. Step back a second and realize - how crazy Kerry would have looked
if he brought all of this up - Most people in this country do not have a hint of any of this. What do you think Clinton would do if Kerry would have brought up contra drug running into Arkansas. (I in fact first heard it as a RW rumor to tarnish Clinton.) Clinton supported funding the Contras. On BCCI, Clinton opted not to pursue it. Kerry's BCCI report has a list of things that he recommended be done- one was more investigation on Marc Rich who had BCCI ties and to look more closely at the A Q Khan/ BCCI ties because BCCI finaced the development of that bomb. (Imagine getting the A Q Khan network before they sold materials or technology to Iran and North Korea.)

Could Kerry win against both the Clintons and the RW? Kerry was very close to winning and would have if the OBL tapes didn't come in. He did this without using some of his best work. As I read these things in fall 2004- it was almost like he was a stealth candidate. That he was willing to undertake both of these efforts with no support from either party and for BCCI with his entire party against him - and they call McCain a maverick??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. when will they give Shrum his walking papers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
35. he could have said a bank that funds drug dealers and terrorists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
70. he did in his University of Pennsylvania speech on combatting terrorism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
66. It would likely have backfired
Kerry's part of Iran Contra was the part looking at early accusations that the Contras were drug trafficking - bringing drugs into the US (while the CIA looked the other way) to finance arming the Contras, because Congress specifically said no to Reagan/Bush. I know Kerry's work was validated in the 90s when the CIA conceded he got it right. In the summer of 2004, Reagan died and was promptly canonized by the media. The media in the 80s ridiculed Kerry for his work - calling him a "randy conspiracy nut" (Newsweek). In the 90s, they buried the validation. So, after the shift to the right, how would the media react to Kerry saying he proved that St Ronnie allowed cocaine into the country (how many kids born in the late 80s were crack babies? How many lives destroyed?)? Remember how crazy we all though Perot was when he charged that GHWB was threatening his family? It's hard to win, when people - rather than believe hard truths - label you a lunatic.

Kerry did bring up BCCI a few times. In Philadelphia when he gave a talk on the war on terror and he spoke of knowing how to rollup these terrorist webs - because he did it. He also mentioned it in the Matt Bai NYT article. One conjecture as to why he didn't push it further was that it was to complicated. This is unlikely as just saying "I closed down Bin Laden's bank" has a certain ring to it. The problem is that Kerry wrote his report on this in the early 90s - Kerry had a long list of outstanding things that needed investigation that he couldn't do with no committee and no subpoena power. The number 1 thing dealt with BCCI's connection to AQ KHan who made Pakistan's bomb. It also wanted more investigation of Marc Rich (the guy Clinton pardoned)who had some BCCI connections. The problem is who was President starting in 92. Bush could turn Kerry's work around and say Clinton should have had his justice department investigate this and it could have prevented 911.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is stupid and counter productive. It also misrepresents Senator
Kerry's position on the war in Iraq. Why not bird dog the President? After all, this is his war and he actually is in a better position to do something about it.
Actually I consider this flame bait because it is not accurate in it's representation of Senator Kerry's positions on the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenbriar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. STOP IT>>>WE NEED TO FIGHT THE REPUKES NOT EACH OTHER
am so tired of all these "I won't support...."

I will support any and all of these guys and will NEVER EVER VOTE REUPKE

you can't tell me that you will vote otherwise if one of these people runs.


If not, we end up with JEB or Condi or Brownback or Rudi or someone else equally depressing.



and you all know voting for a 3rd party just puts another idiot in the WH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
80. Amen
Anyone who thinks Kerry's, for example, support of the resolution was an equivalent mistake to Bush's starting the war AFTER the resolution was COMPLETELY SUCCESSFUL at getting unprecedented inspections access is just spinning bullshit, and we shouldn't stand for it.

Personally, I'm glad to hear people like John Edwards thoughtfully and candidly explain their regrets about supporting the resolution. But in any case, blaming the minority party for this is a joke (though one we're going to hear a lot over the coming years).

As for "I won't support," I think the one guy we need to drum out of our ranks is Lieberman. He's jumped the shark and landed on the elephant.

Finally, if our country doesn't wise up and appreciate statesmen who know their facts and can make intelligent, nuanced decisions, we'll be condemned to be led by dull-witted bullies who celebrate their ability to make uninformed judgments about critical issues and stick to them, as we sink into the Big Muddy.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. Wow! A SBVT ad with Vietnam-era photo and all. Shame! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. I admire the Vietnam era Kerry and voted for that guy and the Iran Contra
& BCCI investigator.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. You voted for him then decided to smear him? The election was 2004 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. YOU KNOW Kerry submitted an Iraq withdrawal plan last October to have
troops out by the end of 2006. Why are you perpetuating INCORRECT FACTS?

Do you NOT Want the public to know that Dems proposed a withdrawal plan for Iraq and that Bush and his media won't DISCUSS withdrawal plans from Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. find the link! I would like to be wrong. I certainly didn't get the
"out in a year" impression from his presidential campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Iraq hadn't had their elections yet back then. Here's the actual
submitted on the floor of the Senate in Nov. 2005.

11/10/2005
Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate


Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.
"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. the permanent bases thing is important--did he ever talk about OIL?
like letting Iraqis, renegotiate after troops leave?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. He wanted Iraqi companies hired to replace American companies.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. He did say that it's their land, their oil
in this specch last Dec. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9390/real_security_in_a_post911_world.html

He also said that the oil regimes in the Middle East strangle dissent and prevent the growth of actual democracies in the Middle East. And a lot of other good things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. I remember that. the dots still need to be publicly connected
if they don't kill the boogeyman stories and make the real reasons part of the debate, we will be vulnerable to more manipulation and more wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #44
57. People are being misinformed and manipulated by your original post.
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 05:00 PM by blm
Shouldn't you start killing boogeyman stories so YOU aren't contributing to the manipulation of vulnerable people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #44
83. We could publicly link the dots
swath them in neon, douse them in gasoline and light them ablaze, erect a billboard announcing that there is a plan, and the "liberal" media would still look around (with their eyes closed, mind you, lest they see something to contradict "conventional wisdom") and say "The Democrats don't have a plan! All they do is hate on Bush!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. *yawn*
I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but even I think this is bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
24. What the fuck do you want him to do?
We are in the MINORITY. Kerry is NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. All any Dem can do is put out their own proposals, which doesn't really matter much since WE ARE IN THE MINORITY AND ARE NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Focus on getting Dems elected in 2006 so they can get a majority and actually do something, for chrissakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Put it where you can see it on his web page in plain enough language
that there's no confusion.

Learn some of the basic communication lessons from GOP.

Say occupation creating strife

no claim to bases

no claim to OIL

give rebuilding money to Iraqi contractors

Pull out now.

No one could confuse that.

Frankly, I don't even buy this shit about training troops and cops. The Iraqis aren't apes that just descended from the trees. They had a military and police before.

The Iraqi troops don't do well because they are fighting for US not themselves. Somehow, the insurgents and militias manage fight okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. And what would that accomplish?
Every poll confirms that Americans are sick of this war and want a way out. But neither Kerry or any other elected Democrat can do anything about it because they are in the minority and Bush is in the White House.

Why don't you spend your time putting up a website to help the Democrats take the majority or, god forbid, protest a Republican who is making it possible for Bush to continue this war?? If President Kerry and his Democratic Congress was responsible for this continuing you would have every right to protest and complain. That is the inverse of the REALITY that we are dealing with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. Hate to burst your bubble
But his speeches, his press releases, everything that has been said about not having bases in Iraq, about pulling troops out, about oil independence, etc is ALL on his Senate website.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #41
58. I have read a lot of that stuff and it requires parsing to see that
the general drift is toward getting out.

Why is it so hard to say "We can't let oil companies dictate our foreign policy, and decide which people to kill and who is an acceptable leader of a country?"

at the very lest, he needs some help with headlining and condensing his stuff.

Whatever his priorities, it's easy to misinterpret or just miss if the materials he has control of follow the Democratic policy of being as inoffensive as possible, and you have to dig to the middle of a speech to see what's distinctive about what he's saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Sounds like someone is a little lazy
Sorry it's such a chore to understand what others get readily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Do you think the knuckledraggers who listen to fox or the apathetic
middle is going to bother to read down to paragraph 17, especially if the headline looks like something even Bush could say as he did with energy independence in his state of the union?

Why is it easy to repeat the GOP's embarassing boogey bullshit and too obvious to say the oil industry dictated our invasion of Iraq as Greg Palast got them to admit on camera and broadcast on the BBC, but Ted Koppel didn't feel safe saying until he retired?

It makes it a hell of a lot harder for the rest of us to make the case when even Dems are repeating that non-sense that should make a third grader blush.

http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html


http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=0


Background on oil and our machinations in the Middle East:

http://www.mymethow.com/%7Ejoereid/oil_coup.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #63
72. The Fox Knuncledraggers are extremely unlikely
to visit Kerry's web site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. which supports my point--make the message distinct, in your face, and
clear.

As I've said here and many times, Kerry has said and done good things, he just needs to headline so the form is as good as the content--like the letter to General Pace someone else posted here.

Every public statement should be that brief and concise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #63
86. Do you expect Fox viewers to vote for us anyway?
The people who are supposed to vote for us are folks like you who *can* understand nuance and *are* willing to read to paragraph, 17.

Instead you seem to be looking for excuses not to vote for someone who agrees with you, just because that statement of agreement is in paragraph 17.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
76. BULL - he clearly said HUNDREDS of time that no American should be sent to
war for oil. In almost every campaign speech.

WHEN are you going to stop manipulating and playing your move the goalpost around game?

Your original post TARGETS and MANIPULATES those who are underinformed and vulnerable to DECEIT.

When are you going to retract the smears?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
48. Doesn't give you the right to promote disinformation, though. You don't
see that saying Kerry supports war and Bush's stay the course policy is a LIE that you are repeating?

And even when you are shown that it's a lie, you defend the lie instead of correcting yourself or your original post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
51. Guess you also missed his demand to Gen. Pace about NO PERMANENT BASES?
Y'know, everything you claim you want was put out there many times over the last year by Kerry - Kerry - YOUR TARGET OF CHOICE.

Why aren't YOU responsible for knowing so little about your target? You feel he deserves to be targeted based on what YOU DON'T KNOW?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
67. that's good news, put up a link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. Ever hear of Google?? Or a few simple research skills?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Link on permanent bases
From Kerry's questioning of Condi - 2 or 3 weeks ago:

KERRY: Thank you, Madam Secretary.

The other day, General Kimmitt, Mark Kimmitt, gave a speech in London to the Institute of Strategic Studies, wherein he reportedly said the United States will not maintain any long-term bases in Iraq.

KERRY: Our position is, when we leave, we won't leave any bases there.

I wrote to General Pace to follow up on this, and General Pace wrote me back and said: "At present, the Department of Defense has no plans for the permanent basing of U.S. forces in Iraq."

This has long been an issue of contention.

So, you know, General Casey has said, "The sense of American occupation is part of what feeds the insurgency."

The administration, however, has never formally said, "We're not going to have permanent bases."

So I would ask you today: Is it, in fact, the policy of this administration not to have permanent basing in Iraq?

RICE: I think General Pace has spoken to that, Senator, and he speaks for the administration.

Senator, our job now is to use our forces to help the Iraqis gain control of their own security environment, to train their forces to protect our people who need to go out in the field to be a presence outside of Baghdad.

That is the purpose of our forces.

As the president said, we don't want to be there one day longer than we need to be.

KERRY: I understand that, and we all want that transition. I'm just trying to figure out what the long term is, because I don't think the administration has actually said that before with clarity.

So if you're affirming today what the generals have said as the policy, that's a step forward.

RICE: Well, Senator, I think General Pace has spoken to this.

I don't want to, in this forum, try and prejudge everything that might happen all the way into the future. The policy of this administration is to, as quickly as possible, turn over responsibility for security to the Iraqis and, as the president said, we will be very pleased the day when American forces can come home. KERRY: So the conclusion for what you've just said is that the civilian leadership, which is how we lead the military in the United States, has a different position from the uniformed leadership -- which is you're reserving the right to make that decision in the future?

RICE: Senator, I said I'm not going to try to speak to something that is that far into the future.

KERRY: I heard what you said. I understand.

RICE: We are...

KERRY: No, I understand.

RICE: Yes. Sorry.

KERRY: I got your answer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More recent statement from Abizaid (last week);

The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.

"Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability," Abizaid said. "No doubt there is a need for some presence in the region over time primarily to help people help themselves through this period of extremists versus moderates."

Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region.

"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Dr Rice's weird answers were to avoid telling the truth - which explains Kerry repetition of the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #67
78. THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE -YOU DON'T KNOW ANY OF THIS and
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 07:24 PM by blm
even when you are corrected on almost every point you still stand by your original post that is DECEITFUL and MANIPULATIVE.

WHY? And why are you in such contempt for other members here that you don't care to correct your postings? Do you WANT more people to believe the lies that are in that post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. actually, I tried to go back and amend it, but it was past the edit period
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. Then you should ask a mod to pull it, since it contains false information.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
25. Suggested talking points for Dems who voted for the war
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. posted a comment there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #34
74. I followed up as well and would love to hear from more DUers, too
Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
27. Oh yeah, these guys sent a someone to protest the PTSD appearance
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 02:58 PM by TayTay
in which Max Cleland and a lot of vets who were appearing to promote a NECN (local cable) show that shows the devastating effects that this disease has on people.

Ahm, do these folks regularly picket events that promote things they believe in, like treatment for PTSD and in which Senators appear to lend support?

Just wondering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Maybe the poster isn't familiar with the FACT that GOP operatives pose as
lefty groups and birddog their opposition from the left - a tactic they've been employing for at least 4 decades.

During the early primaries some Deaniacs were posting quotes from websites that were supposed to be left sites like wintersoldier, but turned out to be front sites launched by the same guys from Swiftvets to discredit Kerry with the left. That is standard operations for the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
65. Sort of like that "God hates fags" guy who pickets funerals
You'd think these folks could find someone who actually supports the war to picket. Someone who hasn't offered a withdrawl plan.

It indeed smells like a "dime's worth of difference" mentality. And I always find that perspective annoying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
85. {{chirp}}
That's all you'll get on that question, I'm sure. Crickets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
39. I would respond to this joke....
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 03:12 PM by Kerry2008
...but my fellow Kerrycrats have set the record straight above. Kerry voted for the war. So did Hillary Clinton. So did many Democratic hopefuls in 2008. Kerry's admitted he made a mistake in the way he voted. What more do you want? Him to get a time machine, and rewind time? Kerry's been a big advocate for getting us out of Iraq, and a tough critic on the administration on the war. Again, what more do you want?

Your no better then the GOP. Hell, your using many of their own talking points. Stop fighting your own, especially when your own has admitted their mistakes, and has worked to correct them. John Kerry was wrong. He admitted he was wrong. You can't ask for much more then that...now can you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Bush would have invaded anyway n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Ron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. Correction--he voted for IWR, not "for the war"
He did not vote "for the war." His vote for the IWR was not an endorsement for going to war as Bush did. Kerry had multiple public statements (such as his Senate floor statement, his op-ed in the NY Times, an aritcle in Foreign Affairs, his speach at Georgetown) urging Bush not to go to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #47
55. I understand and even believe that--how well did it go over with the
public though?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Ron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. Pretty well
Most of the public don't care about the IWR. In 2004 they thought of Kerry as the anti-war candidate.

It helps politically that a large percentage actually wanted someone who they perceived as supporting the war at first but objected to how it was waged.

It is primarily liberal bloggers who are obsessed with the IWR. Then there's a handful of "journalists" who repeatedly brought up the claim that "Kerry voted for the war" but they tended not to be ones seen by most of the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
45. God, what unadulterated BULLSHIT
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 03:36 PM by WildEyedLiberal
The only people still claiming that Kerry supports "staying the course" are lying fools who REFUSE to acknowledge the facts that are readily out there, such as KERRY'S OWN PLAN to withdraw the troops, to refuse permanent bases, and to withdraw permanently from Iraq by 2007, not that it FUCKING MATTERS because until we get a Democrat in the White House the troops are going nowhere, no matter how many circle-jerks idiots like this have about it.

I respect you as a poster, so it disappoints me deeply to see you post such lying, divisive, psyops bullshit as this. These people can go fuck themselves along with the Republicans they support with their "hate the Democrats" horseshit, because they're no better than Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Ron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
46. Looks like attempt to bash Democrats to promote 3rd party
Look at their endorsers, including the Green and Libertarian Parties.

I suspect this is an attempt to promote a third party by attacking the Democrats, falsely making them appear to be no different than Republicans.

It's an old trick. Nader claimed there was no difference between Gore and Bush, and look what happened. Hopefully most people will see the huge difference between Kerry and Bush on the war and not fall for this nonsense. If they want to protest, protest against someone who supports the war, not an opponent of the war. It accomplishes nothing to distort Kerry's postion in this manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Yep, GLibs. Isn't it just adorable that they've found something else to
work on together. Who'da thunk it. Opposites attract.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
56. people here have done a good job of establishing Kerry's record
my point isn't to promote a third pary, but get Democrats to act like an opposition party, especially on the war, and not to bury it in polite procedure or speeches but to do so prominently and consistently.

Is there any doubt about where Republicans stand on the war? Do they only say they love it in back rooms and think tanks, or do they trumpet and defend it at every turn?


Obviously, other Democrats need this kind of treatment more, but I'm not just going to hope and pray that they do the right thing, and calling their office and sending letters alone isn't going to do it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Ron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. This doesn't help
Even if you feel that the Democrats should be speaking out agaisnt thewar more (and Kerry has done plenty of speaking out) there is still absolutely no benefit in distorting Kerry's position in this manner.

Having opponents of the war divide to fight over whether people like Kerry really oppose the war is not a worthwhile use of time which could be better spent actually opposing the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #62
71. No fair, you're using logic!
:sarcasm:

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #56
79. Then target Dems who haven't done so - YOU choose to target one of the few
with the best record in this regard, so it makes you seem incredibly insincere that you claim that goal, yet know LITTLE about Kerry and the issues you claim to be most concerned.

You don't see a disconnect here? Anyone who CLAIMS these are of major concern would have paid attention every time the issue was addressed by a Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
49. Perhaps they'd like to pick someone who hasn't proposed a withdrawl
Gads, what an oversimplification. Stay the course my ass.

How about picketing Bush. Gee, what a concept.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
75. how about not voting more funds for bush's war
now there's a concept i'd support ...

you don't "picket bush" by supporting his war budget ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #75
81. Sort of a mixed metaphor there
Kerry's not picketting Bush.

But these people could be picketting Bush instead if they could see more than "a dime's worth of difference."

At the least there are REAL war supporters in the Dem Party that would make more sense to picket. Lieberman. Hillary. Some others.

Kerry is far from a cheerleader for the war. And the fact remains that Bush lied. It's his war, and I don't intend to let the likes of these people dillute that focus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #81
88. Kerry's not as bad as Lieberman or Hillary?
OK ... you've convinced me ...

but this idea of not protesting against people who keep voting for more war funds because it "dilutes" the focus from what bush has done is not convincing ... some of us see a Democratic Party that continues to support "bush's war" ... they say we can't leave Iraq until we "succeed" ... actually, that's sort of Kerry's pitch, isn't it?

here's exactly what he said about his so-called "withdrawal plan" ... as you'll see from the following direct quote, Kerry's plan is totally contingent on bush having "success" in Iraq ... here's what he said:


The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.


how's that for a "conditional withdrawal plan" ... if bush somehow became "suddenly competent", then we can leave ... and you're comfortable with this idea? ... i'm not ...

i'm not "bashing" Kerry ... i don't "hate" Kerry ... but this is not what those of us who believe in immediate withdrawal consider to be good representation or good leadership on the war ... should Kerry be "singled out"? of course not; nor should he be excused or free from criticism over his war position ... some of us on "the left" had hoped for his support; most of us are deeply disappointed in his position ...

in his speech last October, Kerry said we should withdraw 20,000 troops after the December elections in Iraq ... fine ... have any other "benchmarks" been met since then ... has he called for additional withdrawals since then because additional "benchmarks" have been achieved? maybe i just haven't heard these calls ... the point is that bush is not going to, what did Kerry say, do "his work correctly" and Kerry's "withdrawal plan" is an open-ended invitation for more war ...

it may not have been his preference or his intent, but that will nevertheless be the result ...

those of us who strongly believe in "Out NOW" have every right, even every obligation, to protest against those in power who don't ... and we have a right to highlight that those who supposedly are "the opposition party" have failed to represent our deepest beliefs ...

if all people can see in that is "Kerry bashing", there's not much point in conversing ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
87. I asked mod to re-open to editing or delete. I'm posting a new thread
Kerry's anti-Iraq War actions, and I hope you'll repost some of the excellent evidence you've posted here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC