Something I don't understand about Kerry

[Eloriel]

Kerry's on record as promising to EXPAND the military in his first 100 days as President by 40,000 troops. (Citation -- the Yahoo link cited in this thread is now obsolete
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=272798 )


This boggles my mind for two major reasons.

1. How the HELL is he going to do that without a draft? 40,000 in 100 days (3 months plus 10 days) is 400 a day, 12,000 a montb.

2. WHY the hell would he do that if he doesn't suppor the U.S.'s current militaristic misadventures abroad -- if he wants to "internationalize" Iraq and get out of there quick (he has promised that, hasn't he?).

Come to think of it, just what HAS he promised re getting out of Iraq?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Our troops are overextended

reservists are overdeployed. We have just taken on more than we can handle with the number of troops we have.

As far as withdrawing from Iraq, Kerry hasn't made any promises he can't keep, that's for sure. What will the situation in Iraq be on January 20, 2005, anyway?

[snoochie]

2. I thought all but DK and AS hadn't promised anything

Most of them just seem to say we'll be there for years and then hint at coalitions to help with funds and troops. :shrug:

[zulchzulu]

3. Check this out

Here's a better understanding of what Kerry proposes:

From the site:

* 40,000 Active-Duty Troops. Kerry is calling to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. The United States should add the equivalent of a current division, about 20,000 combat troops, to the active duty Army.  Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists. 

* Relieve Pressure on Service Members. The buildup, which will require time to implement, will relieve the mismatch between active and reserve capabilities and also allow us to thank returning reservists when they rotate out of Iraq in 3 to 9 months—not just with our gratitude but with a reasonable assurance that they will not have to again deploy to Iraq in the immediate future.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

There is plenty of information/policies from that link if you want to really check it out.

[democratreformed]

31. This still does not answer the question.

How will those active duty soldiers be obtained? Where will they come from? Are there 20,000 active duty troops sitting around doing nothing?

[Lobo_13]

40. Nothing in there that answers the question

about where those troops are coming from. Are they going to magically appear? Does he have secret clone banks working? Where do they come from?

[quaker bill]

64. But just where is he going to get the people?

A large number of people in the services want out and are only there because of the "stop loss" order.

If he reduces the stress by allowing the people who want out (and whose hitches are up) to leave, then he needs to find as much as twice this number in 100 days.

Smells like a draft to me.

[MidwestMomma]

4. Yes, what has he promised re: getting out of Iraq?

I was just wondering that today. Couldn't remember his position/proposition. Sounds like from his plan to increase troops that maybe his plan is to maintain the occupation but with fresh troops. I don't know.

I do know Clark has said he would try to bring in allies, maybe NATO, and work out a success strategy for withdrawing. I know that probably sounds vague but I have a feeling that Clark as a former military officer isn't going to go around making any promises to the troops he can't be sure of keeping. But that's just based on my perception of the man.

[Vote2004]

5. I am still confused.

I was confused about the candidates and was glad to find this site a short while ago. I was excited to see what the general concensus was about the candidates and to learn more about them.

Now I am more confused than before. Kerry worries me, Dean scares me, Edwards seem nice and civil but doesn't seem strong enough, and Clark seems to be out of touch. (Please, no flaming. I am expressing my opinion in ernest.)

Originally I thought that Sharpton/Lieberman would be good but got laughed at and it's okay. All I want to know is who will be the best candidate for the Democratic party? Who? Somebody please help me!

[Eloriel]

7. I won't flame you

Welcome to DU.

Why does Dean scare you? Have you been buying into the media sleaze, lies and distortions (like the "I Have a Scream" speech which ABC finally had to apologize for misrepresenting) instead of taking a look at the candidate directly? I hope not, but if so, check the Official Blog out every day: http://www.blogforamerica.com (and be sure to read supporters' comments by clicing Comments under each front page blog entry).

If you want samel ole, same ole from the Dem Party, anyone ELSE will do. If you'd like to bring new people in, get the Dem Party to be accountable and responsible to The People again, get some REAL leadership against George Bush, get things DONE not just talked about in Washington, Dean's your man. He has 11 years of outstanding executive experience and a record of accomplishment in Vermont.

[Vote2004]

13. Thanks for the info.

The reason that I said Dean scares me is because he seemed to say so many things that he had to turn around and explain away like a hot head. (No, I don't trust the media, they are a joke.)

But, I like the way he handled the scream situation, humbled himself and even laughed at himself, haha. A man who can laugh at his own expense is alright by me.

Okay you are starting to convince me. Dean might just be the man who can beat Bush. Now, I am getting some real help without being flamed. Thanks.

[Eloriel]

20. Well, here's another bit of information that I think will be

helpful. You won't find it here, but it's my personal experience of the man and I've been a supporter (avid!!) for well over a year and watch everything I can of him. Everything.

He has an unusual, unscripted speaking style. He says what he thinks and sometimes, as even he admits, that "gets him in trouble." It gets him in trouble not because it's not true, but because it's not poltic.

He also isn't a "nuanced" speaker, which means that these remarks are easily hyped and blown out of proportion because he doesn't take the time and trouble to couch his remarks in so much doublespeak or add so many qualifiers that they're meaningless to start with.

Too, he sometimes speaks in what he calls "shorthand." That's how he got into so much trouble about his Confederate flag remark some time back. He had been saying something very similar for many, many months and NO ONE called him on it. No one batted an eye. But the time he got into trouble, he short handed it, left out a few details that he usually included in his stump speech and people jumped all the hell over it. *I* and all his other supporters knew very well what he meant -- because we'd heard him say it for so many months. But the ellipses and out-of-context quote were eagerly seized on by his detractors.

If you're watching him speak, most of the time you follow him and understand both what he's saying and what he means. But it really helps if you've had practice listening to him -- not unike how people have to train their ears to understand a heavily foreign - accented version of English. If his quotes are written (rther than heard) and esp. if taken out of context, it's easy to get the wrong idea.

You'll find that in the media, and here, there are people most eager to distort everything they possibly can. However, if you will get your Dean from Dean, rather than filtered, you'll at least get an undistorted view of him.

There are lots of video clips of Dean available from links at the official blog. I heartily recommend his June 23 Announcement Speech, his speech on race relations, and many others. If you want to read them, here are some of my favorites:

June 23, 2003 ANNOUNCEMENT SPEECH
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6455&JServSessionIdr002=egd9mbtdw1.app196a&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

ECONOMY: A New Social Contract for America's Working Families
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002754.html#more

RACE: Restoring the American Community - SC, Dec. 7, 2003
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002565.html#more
DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=844281#846961
Black Commentator http://www.blackcommentator.com/68/68_cover_dean.html

Enviornmental Speech
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7383&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

Declaration of Independence
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=declaration_text

Plan to Strengthen American Cities
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002863.html#more

[Mass_Liberal]

9. just examen all the candidates

on the issues. Their websites might help.

[Vote2004]

14. Okay, I will

Thank you.
When I came here, I thought that Sharpton/Lieberman might bring out enough votes to beat Bush, but I am starting to examine the situation realistically. Thanks for your help.

[BattyDem]

18. May I suggest ...

You watch a couple of Dean speeches ...

2003 Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting:
This is the real Dean. This is not the "media-distorted" version of Dean. :)

By the way, you will hear the "Confederate Flag" comment in context and you'll have no idea why the media made such a big deal about it, especially since he had been saying it for months and no one complained. You'll even hear a mini "Dean Scream" in this speech - and you'll see it's not a display of anger or psychosis, but of passion. Dean Speech 2/21/2003
-- Dean is introduced at about 1:57
-- Dean's speech begins at about 1:59

2003 Linn County, Iowa Democratic Fundraising Dinner:
The speech has the same talking points as the other one, but he goes into a lot more detail.
Dean Speech 1/19/2003
-- Dean speaks first

These early speeches are what inspired us. These speeches are why we supported him when the rest of the country was saying "Howard who?" These speeches are why we believe in Dean and always will. :)


edited: spelling

[On the Road]

6. The Best Interpretation I Can Put on This

is that it's a political move designed to negate any charges of being "soft on defense." If that's all it is, it could be good political tactics.

Clinton actually did the same thing in certain ways. Supported the Seawolf nuclear sub even though DoD didn't. Then after he was elected he carefully, slowly took a peace dividend and built down a military a bit.

It may be partly a difference in military philosophy, not military expansion. I don't know how much the number of troops has changed under Bush, but Rumsfeld's philosophy is to actually shrink the number of enlisted men and depend more on high-priced toys.

[Eloriel]

8. Please answer re the DRAFT

HOW can Kerry add 40,000 NEW troops in his first 100 days WITHOUT A DRAFT which he MUST know Bush is already preparing for anyway.

IF NO DRAFT, how the hell can he do that?

So far, no answer on what he's promised re actually getting out of Iraq.

[kayob1]

10. Yeah

I did notice he tap danced around that draft question during the debate the other day.

[Eloriel]

11. Did he really?

LOL -- I was going to ask you what he said, but then I remembered who we're talking about. No straight talk from Kerry -- it would be impossible to remember his obfuscations if he was in tap dancing mode. However, if you can remember the gist, please share it.

[kayob1]

15. No, I don't remember exactly what he said, sorry

Just a typical politician's "That's a good question, I'm glad you asked that" and then they never answer the question that was asked.

Definitely tap dancing. :evilgrin:

[Vote2004]

17. It seems impossible math wise.

Would like to hear the details about his plan. The numbers don't add up. If you think I am wrong anyone, please correct me.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[MAlibdem]

16. If it could be done...

I think an expansion would be good. I don't know, but I think the real reason the Pentagon's budget is balloning is because of Cold-War tech toys that Boeing and others are still cooking up.

We are in Iraq and Afganistan, whether or not you agreed to go, as a country we now are legal stewards of the sovereignty of these nations. In order for these countries to have any chance of developing into stable, let alone democratic, states, violence must stop. To do this, we need at least one Division (correct me if that's the wrong term, 20,000 troops) that is trained in post-conflict policing and civil disorder.

Such a unit (or units in the modern era of warfare) would be effective in Afganistan, Iraq, and potentially Liberi a

[Eloriel]

19. But HOW is he going to do it?

Esp. without a draft.

Our military men and women aren't stupid -- they're getting the hell out as quickly as they can, even with the Stop Loss Orders. Even with a "better" President, they've had enough. Plus we're killing and maiming them at an alarming rate.

Will Kerry impose MORE Stop Loss (stealth draft)?

40,000 in 100 days is an astronomical number. HOW WILL HE DO IT? I could maybe understand if he said he'd increase by that much, but he added "in my first 100 days." HOW?

Can't any Kerry supporters offer any clues? Is Kerry just blowing smoke? Is he delusional? Does he intend to institute the draft Bush has been preparing for? WHAT?

[kayob1]

21. Well

Here's something I don't understand. Maybe you could help me out.

My daughter-in-law was in the Army in 2002, stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. She told me her whole unit and half of Fort Riley had been replaced by reserves in September 2002; they had all been sent to Kuwait.

Wasn't the IWR vote in October? Isn't that correct?

I guess you could say they sent them all to Kuwait "just in case" but she is a paralegal - why would they send a whole unit of lawyers to Kuwait "just in case?" Maybe they were planning on suing Saddam?

That's why I don't buy the "I was misled" bullshit.

[Eloriel]

22. Still no answers, and not many Kerry supporters even

bothering to try.

Don't these issues bother you? Are you in favor of a draft or continued Stop Loss orders (since those are the only two possibilities I can think of)? Or is Kerry pandering to the military with this remark and it means not much more than most else he says?

And what about Kaybob's questions?

How 'bout some answers -- or at least speculation. Some of you Vets for Kerry ought to be able to tell us how he can get 40,000 new troops in 100 days in office?

[kayob1]

23. You probably should mention taxes

in there. That would probably get you some answers :)

[arcos]

24. same as the PNAC thread...

after 2 days, some Kerry supporters started to defend their guy, but at first no one did. It would be a good idea to keep this thread kicked!

[zulchzulu]

26. Check post #3

I gave some answers. Perhaps you don't reallly want to know....

[curse10]

27. But that would actually require work!

Explanations and answers can be found at johnkerry.com or google "john kerry" reinstate draft- and you find that, no, Kerry does not want to reinstate the draft.

And he has a very simple plan for getting us out of Iraq. He's explained it in the debate and he goes into great detail at the website and has a stump speech about it.

I personally gave up trying to appease Dean supporters long ago. Their questions are often loaded.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. From his website:

40,000 Active-Duty Troops. Kerry is calling to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. The United States should add the equivalent of a current division, about 20,000 combat troops, to the active duty Army. Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists.



Once again, where are they coming from? Please "snip" the section from his website that explains this. I couldn't find it. Thank you in advance.

[curse10]

30. Sorry

No can do. I don't spend my time googling and searching for Dean supporters. If it's an important issue to you then you should have the motiviation to do the research yourself.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. I did. I came up empty.

I quoted the relevent paragraph from his website. He does not explain where they are going to come from. You can pretend that the answers are there if you want.

[Hawkeye-X]

50. It proves a theory of mine..

When Kerry supporters don't have any assertions or facts, they just try to spin to whatever to avoid work and zealously guard their man. In this case we all confess to do the same thing and do better by providing full evidence and not just one overpriced opinions. Yes sir, we can do better!

In this case, please do provide evidence of such assertion that Kerry knows where the soldiers will come from? Stop loss or what method?

Hawkeye-X

[democratreformed]

33. Yes, please find the part that tells where they will come from

I have a 21-yr-old son-in-law. I worry about this.

On edit: I particularly noticed that he completely failed to answer this specific question when he was asked about it in a debate.

[kayob1]

60. Yeah,

I noticed it, too.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. You gave no answers.

Where are the 40,000 going to come from? There is speculation that as many as 50% of reservists won't re-enlist. That's an unheard of attrition rate. There are only three ways to get those troops:

1. Draft
2. Stop-loss
3. Voluntary enlistment

I've already seen rumblings about new stop-loss orders being sent out but that's a temporary fix.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. See post 41

Since he has stated he isn't going to reinstate the draft and states the cost is about 5 billion, I am assuming it is volutary enlistment by process of elimination.

He states money can be transferred from elsewhere in the Pentagon Budget.
Given what we know about waste and lack of accountability at the Pentagon, it seems to me it will be relatively easy to find 5 billion dollars that would be better spent expanding our troops...especially given that we ARE stretched in HUMAN power but have plenty of bombs. Since he doesn't favor expanding NUKES, I'd have to guess that is ONE area he would pull it from.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. See post #28.

There is an expected 50% attrition rate for re-enlisting reservists. This means that you would have to replace them AND add 40,000.

So the real number may not be 40,000, it might be something like 125,000. My source for the attrition rate is David Hackworth( http://www.hackworth.com/ ). Even if he's wrong and the attrition rate is only 30%....it's still bad news.

[democratreformed]

25. This bothers me too

especially since he never did answer the question about WHERE those troops are going to come from.

[mzmolly]

34. The 3 month thing is odd too. Isn't their a learning curve?

Wont this make us less effective? I agree, it doesn't seem possible without a draft.

Also, if we internationalize why would we need that many? Why not bring some home and send in troops from other countries?

Something doesn't fit, that's for sure...

[Lobo_13]

39. That's a good point

There's an eight week boot process, so if he wants 40,000 active troops within the first 100 days, he'd have to gather those 40,000 by the beginning of March to get them deployed within 100 days.

He's either going to hold a draft, or he's full of ever-loving shit.

[democratreformed]

35. interested in an answer kick n/t

[blm]

36. Something I DO understand abot Kerry. He knows about military strategy

better than you or I and most of Congress.

[IndianaGreen]

66. Is that why he voted for preemptive war when he cast his IWR vote?

Kerry will be another President Johnson, a warmonger who will be unable to extract us from a bad war.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. There is a bill introduced by Ellen Tauscher to do so

http://www.ellentauscher.com/what/index.asp?ID=109

I am searching for responses on GOOGLE, to see if this is the plan Kerry backs to accomplish it. I have read several articles so far..none mention the draft. I will continue to look in the meantime to see if this is the bill Kerry supports.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. OK here's Kerry's answer on the draft

Increase military by 40,000 troops-but no draft
Q: You said that in your first 100 days you would move to increase our armed forces by as much as 40,000 troops. You said there was a dire need for two full divisions. People are wondering right now about voluntary versus draft.
KERRY: We don't need a draft now and I wouldn't be in favor of it under the current circumstances. All across this country there are families who are suffering greatly because the Guards and Reserves have been called up. They are overextended. Their deployments are too long. If we're going to maintain this level of commitment on a global basis, and for the moment we have to because of what's happened, we need an additional two divisions. One's a combat division and one is a support division. That's the responsible thing to do. That's temporary, because I intend to go back to the UN, rejoin the community of nations, bring other boots on the ground to help us, and reduce the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe.

Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Homeland_Security.htm

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Here is an article explaining how he would do it

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/01/kerry_says_army_should_grow_by_40000/

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he favors expanding the Army by roughly 40,000 soldiers to relieve troop strain, and would spend whatever it takes to stop the guerrilla warfare in Iraq. But Kerry said he would not send more US soldiers into the country, preferring international troops that include a corps from Muslim nations.

snip
A division is roughly 18,000 people. Under Kerry's plan, one would be dedicated to combat, the other to civil functions such as policing. He estimated that the additional troops would cost at least $5 billion, which he said he would pay for by reallocating money within the Defense Department budget.

"Personnel is the most important thing we should do," he said, explaining that the existing 480,000-strong Army is strained by multiple deployments.

While calling for an overall expansion of the nation's 1.4 million armed forces, Kerry was careful to say that he would not send more soldiers to Iraq, where the current force of nearly 150,000 troops is subject to frequent attacks. He called for a multinational expansion, saying, "the best way to protect the troops is to get Arab-speaking Muslim troops on the ground in Iraq."

[democratreformed]

44. Okay, I think I am understanding that the two

things he is saying are supposed to be two different things. Maybe?
Anyway, I wonder how he intends to attract 40,000 new recruits in this day and time even if he does say he does not intend to send new troops to Iraq?

[democratreformed]

42. Yes, I remember that answer very well.

It does not answer the question about where the 40,000 will come from. It is contradictory in that it says this is how many more we need and that the current military is overextended but, still, we are going to come up with 40,000 more - albeit on a temporary basis b/c he intends to seek UN support and help from other nations.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. See post 41

[democratreformed]

45. Sorry about that

I guess we were post those two at the same time.

By the way, post #41 does help me some.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. Thanks...and I looked for that since I assumed it would be the next

logical question.

[democratreformed]

48. THANK YOU for your help n/t

[Lobo_13]

49. This is all you need to know about the answer

We don't need a draft now and I wouldn't be in favor of it under the current circumstances.

He gave a very firm answer in favor of a draft. Just did it in a half-assed, overly rhetorical, safe way. Bush will wipe the floor with him.

[salin]

59. I disagree - and here is why

bush goes off on lala land regarding policy.

Ex. 1
He says - we don't have to have revenues - and I can keep spending until the cows fly... but I will cut deficits by half! For a long while folks bought it.

But look... listen... what's that... ridicule? from conservative columnists and think tanks? from conservative voters? from the middle? oh my?!

Ex. 2
He says - we must go to war because saddam has continued to build weapons of mass destruction... to prove this... we know... he tried to get nuclear material... from (he paused for gross effect)... Africa... he later says it is about liberation and all sorts of other things he didn't use to sell the war. And for a long time... folks bought it... and then the bought the shifting rationale (after the fact) for the war.

But look... listen.. what's that... concern about the Kay report... ridicule of the SOTU address and his "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" weasel words? Oh my questions from the left, from the middle AND from the right? Oh my oh my.

So to this issue - bushies cronies are ramping up the rhetoric for more wars. The same folks who said we didn't need so large a force in Iraq (and fired top brass who offered criticism on this point.)

Kerry's discussion - forces the question that is lurking behind even those who supported bushco wars. Do we really have the man power now? How can these folks even be talking about three more conflicts (Iran, Syria and North Korea) - if we are undermanned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush's facade is crumbling. Challenged in the correct way - on the points that the public is uneasy with - but trying to swallow - changes the entire discussion.

I think it is a good strategic move that has the potential to change the entire discussion around bushcos war war and lets make three more wars talk.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

62. No he didn't. He clearly stated he was NOT in favor of a draft

His explanation was very succint and precise, and perhaps you just don't like that the question had an answer.

What part of "I intend to go back to the UN, rejoin the community of nations, bring other boots on the ground to help us, and REDUCE the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe" didn't you understand?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. Ok so was this an honest question or rhetorical?

As far as the plan to get out of Iraq, it is similar to what Dean said on MTP this morning?


I spent a good deal of time looking for the answer to the question posed in this thread. I got one genuine response, one smarmy one and silence from the rest of the terminally curious.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. Ok so only 1 person on this thread had the guts to actually read

the answers to the question and respond.

[salin]

54. I tried to answer the second question

may not have done it well - but I tried.

[blm]

55. How many honest questions have you seen here?

Really....just asking...I'm really curious....I am genuinely wondering.....etc....

[salin]

57. hehe - a pet peeve of mine for months

we agree - this is gdo4 - where posturing is prefered to questioning... and has been for many, many months.

[kayob1]

61. Well,

Mine was an honest question. See post 21.

[democratreformed]

58. NSMA, is it okay if I use that abbreviation

I know it's disgusting to have questions asked pretending to be legit and, in actuality, really just trying to stir up trouble. Many times, I just look over them b/c I know what they are. For that reason, I would like to sincerely thank you for your research b/c it really does make me feel more at ease about my son-in-law facing a draft.

In the future, maybe I'll strive to answer more of these type of questions. You can always tell if someone's concern in genuine, b/c, if it's not, they will just keep arguing no matter what you come up with. That's just my opinion. Every once in a while, I get in to those, and, after a couple of back-and-forths, I just quit.

[salin]

53. a guess (I haven't read closely)... but forcing a dialogue on the

realities and costs of the current bush military excursions.

While bushco pretend you can do and have it all - there are monetary and human resource costs to their policies. There are not enough resources for our current commitments. Making this an issue - forces two discussions...

1) the human resource realities of the bush policies (which in their rhetoric extends to many additional conflicts)... suddenly the whole dialogue of the perle/rummy/wolfie rhetoric (against NKorea, Syria, Iran etc)... has to include a discussion of troop resources. Normally one would think this discussion would be part of the public dialogue - but after three years of delusional policies sold as realities... this aspect of the 'costs' of these policies has gone absent since the firing of the head of the Army who challenged the prewar manning for Iraq. A flourish of discussion and whammo - never discussed again. This forces a shift in public discussion which is significant an important.

2) it changes what the meaning of "supporting ones troops" means. To us - supporting the troops means bringing them home out of harms way. But sadly - to the greater public there is a resonance of the theme. Now Kerry revives the talk of undermanning /undersupporting those who have already been committed to the ground - and equates getting adequate support to = supporting the troops. Puts the support the troop rhetoric of the bushies on their head.

Just answering from a public discourse/framing the issues vantage point - and what came to mind of how this could be used to push public discussion away from the simplist war rhetoric that until recently was giving blankets of cover to bushco.

[BruinAlum]

56. Very informative thread

Thanks for the question

[IndianaGreen]

65. Kerry will NOT get us out of Iraq!

I don't think our friends in the DLC will understand this until they see us demonstrating against President Kerry and his war in Iraq!

A President Kerry is also going to give us trouble on Cuba since candidate Kerry has already said that he is giving veto power to the Miami Cubans over our Cuba policy.