"Good old Crafty Kerry"

[galatea]

Whereas in the NYT piece a deadline is set for getting combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006, this deadline is missing from the Senate resolution! Good old Crafty Kerry. It is left to Bush and the Iraqi government to come up with a schedule for withdrawal. Congress is only to be consulted and informed once Bush and the puppet Iraqi government have come up with whatever schedule they devise. This is nothing more than the same old crap, calling on Bush to devise "an exit strategy." Congress and Kerry avoid all responsibility for setting a date in this resolution.

Next Kerry explicitly states that the remaining troops will be "garrisoned" presumably in enduring garrisons. And more than that, the mission of the remaining forces is not to be simply for "training" as mentioned in the NYT piece but also for "security back-up (whatever that means) and "emergency response." No deadline. No complete withdrawal.

Is there any good news in the Kerry stance? Yes there is. Kerry is always looking out for the well-being of -- Kerry. (As we say in Massachusetts, John Kerry is always there for his friends ­ when he needs them.) The fact that he took this step at all is an indication that antiwar sentiment is wide, deep and enduring, according to the sophisticated polls he is no doubt running. This sentiment can be marshaled for presidential ambitions, and perhaps provides Kerry with the only way to outflank Hillary the Hawk. And so Crafty Kerry is front and center, reporting for duty.

http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh04072006.html

[cali]

1. Leave it to Counterpunch

to come up with an article like this. At least Kerry is talking about getting out of Iraq. It may not be a perfect proposal but it is a start.

[rodeodance]

3. I agree.

[MADem]

5. I'm with you, they're being "COUNTERPRODUCTIVE" IMO

He's my Senator, and I happen to like the guy.

But naysaying sells, in some quarters, I guess.

[galatea]

8. why?

everything in the article is true.

[Mass]

10. LOL. So we should blast Feingold and Murtha as well.

[galatea]

11. let's do it

I'm all for it. Let's call a Bush Enabler a Bush Enabler.

[TayTay]

12. Enlighten me. What is a 'Bush enabler?'

What part of challenging the President on his war and putting out a plan that challenges just about every basic assumption about this war makes a person a Bush enabler? It would be nice to have a scorecard to keep track of this.

Please explain because this is not only unclear, it's unsupported by the facts and sounds like propoganda from the extreme left wing.

[galatea]

14. hmmmm

A Bush Enabler is someone who votes to give Bush war powers. Was that too hard to understand?

[TayTay]

33. Then, Kerry is not one as this was not his action

Clear?

[Vektor]

143. Oh, indeed!

You've got it, my friend.

[Vektor]

133. TayTay, your answer is right in front of you.

You just responded to a Bush Enabler.

Anyone who consistently bashes prominent Democrats, and repeatedly posts divisive flame bait laden with Right Wing Rovian talking points is a Bush Enabler.

[cali]

16. Oh really?

So you're the sole arbiter of truth? It seems to me to embody far more "truthiness" than truth. You can assert that everything in the article is true until you're blue in the face, but you won't find too many gullible saps here that will buy into this bullshit article.

[galatea]

7. lol

at least? THE ENTIRE COUNTRY is talking about getting out of Iraq. Talk is cheap. Action is what f... matters.

[cali]

27. My, my. Nothing like a little simplistic to the point

of idiocy overstatement.. Do you always speak in cliches? "Talk is cheap". LOL right back at you. What other action would you have Kerry take? He's working toward getting the troops out. Kerry made a huge mistake voting for the IWR, and yes, I believe he voted for it our of personal ambition. That's impossible for me to forgive, but it doesn't mean I won't support him when he does something that moves us forward toward the goal of getting out of Iraq.

Regarding that rag Counterpunch, let me add that it's nothing but crude propaganda; a mouth organ for people who oppose all factions of the dem party, not merely DINOs, and it's not even persuasive.

[Vektor]

142. I guess by "action"

he means smearing Democrats by posting asinine propaganda!

Hmmm. How transparent.

[LittleClarkie]

104. They hated every single one of the Dem candidates last election

except for Kucinich, but only just barely. There are ugly articles on that site for pretty much everyone's favorite Dem. Is your favorite Clark? He's a warmonger. Dean? He's a fake. Kerry? He's a flip flopper.

They heart Nader, that's about it.

[Cocoa]

144. Counterpunch even smeared Wellstone

Kerry's in good company.

[rodeodance]

2. kerrys proposal was always similar to Murtha's. For people who had

read the resolutuon previously, there is nothing new.



"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That- .

(2) United States forces shall be withdrawn from Iraq at the earliest practicable date if Iraqis fail to form a national unity government by May 15, 2006;

(3) if Iraqis form a national unity government by May 15, 2006-

(A) the United States should reach agreement as soon as possible with such government on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq, leaving only forces critical to completing the mission of standing up security forces of Iraq; and

(B) the President shall-

(i) consult with Congress on the schedule referred to in subparagraph

(A); and

(ii) present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon its completion; and

(4) redeployment of United States forces to rear guard garrisoned status in Iraq for security back-up, training, and emergency response in Iraq should be accelerated."

[galatea]

4. in other words

it's actually up to Bush when to leave Iraq.

[neoblues]

15. Bingo! ..................... ...................... n/t.

[wisteria]

25. Kerry has made that clear, Bush is President. Senator Kerry

can propose changes, but our president is the only one who can implement them. That applies to the whole party also. We don't hold the power card.

[neoblues]

43. Sure, we all know Kerry can't do it all...

But Congress can and just won't. If the Democrats can't swing the Congress; many of us want to see them trying (and trying harder), and damned loudly. Letting Bush set his own date or maintain garrisons seems to make the resolution just so many words. In a sense it doesn't even disagree with the key items Bush intends anyway.

So, we aren't satisfied with the resolution; whether Kerry or the Democrats in the Senate are doing all they think they can doesn't change the fact that we want more. When people want more and don't get it and don't see their representatives taking a pounding trying to get what they want, they wonder if those representatives are just taking an easy way out. Perhaps it really is hopeless, perhaps even if the Democratic Senators did take a profound beating in their aggressive efforts it wouldn't even be heard but they should be doing it on principle. If they did and it got media coverage--if only to show the crushing defeat of the Democrats (the one reason it might get coverage), that would be good. The country (including Democrats everywhere) needs to see the fight. For Democrats, just to know their representatives are passionately engaging in their business. For others, seeing the Democratic Senators being excluded, overwhelmed and ignored is important because right now they probably think Democrats are wimps (and roll over on command) and don't even know how badly they're being treated/how one-sided our Congress truly is, as well as how large the ignored Democratic element actually is (many people would be shocked and left with the clear impression, that the government is broken--and (hopefully) conclude that it's not right to ignore what amounts to almost half the representatives of the people).

This wasn't specifically a criticism of Kerry; he's just one Senator and he's trying, even if his strategy isn't satisfying to some. If he catches flak, it's just because he's prominent and his actions are being scrutinized to see if he's doing what we want or if he's doing things specifically in order to enhance his chances for being nominated for the next Presidential campaing. Anyway, all this is just an expression of the general frustration many of us are feeling; messengers or news makers beware.

[karynnj]

48. He is the President

As Kerry said in either the Hardball or Blitzer interview when asked if the Iraq government was likely to respond to his deadline - (paraphrased) "No, not mine" "The President would have to do this."

The fact is, even if foreign governments wanted to, Kerry is not allowed to negotiate with them. He can speak to them and state their offers, but only the executive branch can negotiate.

[LittleClarkie]

125. Well, yeah, the moron in power is ultimately responsible

for both starting and letting the war continue.

In case you hadn't noticed, we ain't in power.

All Kerry's going to be able to do at this point is show that the Dems have a plan. Folks are more likely to vote for a party with a plan come November.

If we can get our asses back in the majority, THEN we can do something.

This FUBAR belongs entirely to the Republicans.

[bvar22]

131. Not entirely true.

Those who voted FOR the IRW must share the responsibility.
Under the Constitution, it is CONGRESS that has the authority to go to war.

[LittleClarkie]

132. They cooked the intelligence. They created the atmosphere

under which these people had to vote.

Meanwhile, do you really think that the failure of IWR would have stopped these people? I don't. I think they would have argued that they had the power under the earlier resolution passed just after 9/11.

[bvar22]

141. And STILL,

over 100 Democrats were wise enough to see through the smokescreen, and principled enough to vote AGAINST it.

Are you arguing that Kerry lacks judgment, or is unprincipled??

[MADem]

6. Which means, if they ever went to a vote, the conference committee

meetings between the House Bill and the Senate Bill would be a snap. No big fights to resolve differences.

[Mass]

I guess he disagrees with Murtha and Feingold then.

In passing, Walsh should read the Constitution. The president is the CIC, so it is to him to decide how to withdraw the troops. The Congress can only advise, which is what Kerry, Murtha, Feingold, and others are doing.

Forget people like Walsh, who have other agendas than telling the truth. They are about as reliable as Limbaugh and Drudge.

[TayTay]

9. Kerry wants:

The US out of Iraq this year. If the Iraqis can't come up with a coalition government then Kerry wants the US out by May 15th. If the Iraqis do form a government then it means they are serious about governing their own nation and we can leave by the end of the year.

What part of that, along with no permanent bases, and a much smaller US presence in an 'over-the-horizon' capacity away from the trouble centers in Iraq, do you have a problem understanding? That is not only clear, it is an extension of what the Senator said last year and in the '04 campaign.

Oh, and I know a lot of people in my home state of Massachusetts who have been helped by our taller Senator. Maybe that's why his popularity poll in the most recent Globe survey was at 60% approval. The good people of the Bay State know who is working for them and actually representing their concerns in Congress.

[galatea]

13. it does'nt look like it:

"We in Massachusetts have been picketing Kerry's Boston Office and other events where he appears since last December. (It has been cold.) We would like to think that we had a hand in the small, albeit typically duplicitous step that he has taken. (See: www.BirdDoggingKerry.org). Finally, the discrepancy between Kerry's op-ed and his Senate resolution means we must watch carefully as the politicians, both Democrat and eventually Republican, slither over to an antiwar stance."

[blm]

18. That's BS - Were you there to "force" him to protest Vietnam, to uncover

IranContra, uncover BCCI, uncover illegal wars in Central America, uncover CIA drugrunning, submit first gay protection legislation, submit the first public financing of campaigns bill, write the first book warning of the growing network of global terrorists and their funding?

Don't even PRETEND that YOU are Kerry's conscience.

Kerry's conscience has a long record that few lawmakers in modern history even come close to. Care to match YOUR record of public service with his?

[galatea]

21. Kerry is the reason

Bush is in power for 8 years. That, to me, is a disgraceful public record.

[Mass]

24. Really. Suit yourselves.

[TayTay]

28. Hahahahaha!

Okay, that alone is enough for me to not take you seriously.

Hahahahahaha!

[blm]

31. LYING LEFT PUNDITS are the reason some lefties are fed disinformation to

confuse the voters further.

Kerry won his matchups with Bush.

Left pundits and media got their ASSES HANDED TO THEM on a daily basis by the RW message machine, and the left got confused with so many lies coming from asshole BUSH ENABLERS like the Counterpunch gang doing their David Horowitz best to MISINFORM the gullible minds of those on the left too naive to know the historic facts.

Care to notice that you couldn't even claim one credit for being Kerry's conscience throughout history, while you claim to be his conscience now?

[BlueIris]

32. I weep for you

and any children you have or may have. Good Lord. Invest in boarding schools.

[maddiejoan]

36. He is?

news to me.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

122. No. I am the reason. And so are you.

Kerry can have some of the blame too. But he wasn't out there by himself.

And every last single person who voted for the moron. I hope they're proud of themselves.

[Mass]

23. May be Walsh wants to rewrite the Constitution! It is not in the power

of the Senate to fix these dates.

Here is Murtha's proposal. Note that it is to Bush to determine how the troops will be withdrawn. The "six months period" does not appear in the bill either.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr_051117_iraqres.html

But of course, we should not be bothered by such small details.

[TayTay]

26. Oh, the inconsistencies of it all!

Oct 27th, 2005:
"We must make it clear now that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely. And as we withdraw our combat troops, we should be prepared to keep a substantially reduced level of American forces in Iraq, at the request of the Iraqi government, for the purpose of training their security forces. Some combat ready American troops will still be needed to safeguard the Americans engaged in that training, but they should be there to do that and to provide a back stop to Iraqi efforts, not to do the fighting for Iraqis."

Gee, that's what he said last week and reinforced on the MTP show. Oh my, why is Sen. Kerry being all clear and consistent and such. Must give some people fits.

[wisteria]

29. Oh, now I understand.

You criticize a good Senator for taking a stand, apologizing for a vote and doing all he can within his power to bring positive results to a messy war and save soldiers lives.

[Sydnie]

41. No wonder - look who endorses your Friday Pickets!

Libertarian Party of Massachusetts

Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts

Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports


And to think some might take you seriously. Pfftt.

[rockymountaindem]

45. LOL n/t

[karynnj]

54. The "discrepancy" reflects the difference

between what Kerry thinks should be done - which is fleshed out in the op-ed and in several interviews and the legal wording of the legislation needed to back that plan. To be implemented, the Republicans would have to push Bush to agree to the concept. Bush would be the one who would dictate the date.

The whole point of the "garisons" is that even in the case Iraq forms a government - Kerry is proposing that the US soldiers be in less vulnerable places and roles, which is what he said in October. Remember all Kerry's comments on many many interviews about getting the US out of S&D and policing which both put our soldiers at enormous risk and increase anti-American feelings.

As to "It does'nt look like it" - how many people actually participated in the picketing of Kerry's Boston office. It doesn't sound like thousands, or hundreds. As Kerry said on the Senate floor, "Nobody spins me". Kerry is responding to the changing events on the ground. The BG survey shows that 60% of the random sample of people polled approved of Kerry - in a state with people more likely to "withhold" their blessing than most.

Kerry is a far better person who did more for peace over his life than Cockburn could even dream of. Interesting that less biased accounts have routinely refered to this as the most anti-war stance of any major Democrat. (I know these comments ignore Kuchinich, Jim McGovern and others.)

[greenbriar]

17. pretty telling that you would bash the guy

for trying to do a good thing

enjoy your stay

[galatea]

19. are you talking to me

or the person who wrote the article?

do you always threaten people you don't agree with?

[BlueIris]

37. Boarding. School.

[wisteria]

20. Your agenda is showing.

The "meat" of Kerry's op-ed and resolution is actually the date of ultimatum that forces the Iraq officials to form a cohesive workable and fair government. I would assume Senator Kerry did not want to take full credit for the 2006 redeployment date because this has become part of the collective Democrats Plan for America stand.

"Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqis assuming responsibility for securing and governing their own country and with the responsible redeployment of US troops."

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/RealSecurity_web.pdf

I really resent your implying with this post this is all about Senator Kerry and not about the good senator doing what is right for our country and our soldiers. Senator kerry has been nothing but upfront and honest about Iraq and his concerns over this war. His integrity is apparent to anyone with an open mind.

[galatea]

22. I just posted the article

I didn't write it.

[TayTay]

30. Nor did you try to clean up it's distortions or inconsistencies

You post something inflammatory then complain when the portions of it that are untrue and controversial provoke controversy. Then you try to back off of the fact that you posted it by saying, "well, I didn't write it." Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. This is deceptive on your part. You can't have it both ways. It is, after all, what you are complaining about.

[wisteria]

34. I understand that, why post trash? n/t

[galatea]

44. do you call trash

everything you don't agree with?

lol

[wisteria]

46. No, things that aren't factually correct are trash! Postings that

make assumptions and attack the personal character of someone are trash.

[karynnj]

61. What trash is:

- An article from a known biased and hateful source. (That he is clever and writes well doesn't mitigate the hate filled place he comes from.)

- An article from such a source that flies in the face of all reliable reports. Senator Feingold, known to be an excellent lawyer, has backed this proposal.

Consider what you have to believe to believe this article:
- Kerry signs his name to an op-ed that takes a very aggressive stand on changing the course but submits legislation that is for stay the course. What does he gain: 1) a wave of hatred from all usual FR people 2) a later wave of disgust from moderates and liberals if the latter were the case and Bush implemented it (because it would seem to be what he wants.) Net: Kerry loses every body

- Feingold similarly wants to back Bush's agenda and like Kerry, only pretends to disagree. Like Kerry, when every thing is known - he ends up losing everybody.

[blm]

83. Do you claim to be Kerry's conscience when the historic record proves that

your claim is highly unlikely?

[Mass]

35. Do you disagree with anything in it?\nt

[blm]

38. No - you just claim TO BE KERRY'S CONSCIENCE ON IT - HAHAHAH - THANKS SO

MUCH!!!!!

Hey gang, we have this fine poster to thank for over 35 years of Kerry doing the right thing and uncovering more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.

Thanks SO MUCH.

[confludemocrat]

65. BLM, what's with the HAHAHA shit? You're doing that alot lately.

It does make me laugh whenever I see it though

[blm]

80. I laugh at those who get caught up in their own mudslinging.

And cannot defend their own posts based on facts.

[LittleClarkie]

94. As the Senator himself said

"When it comes to issues of war and peace and young Americans dying, nobody spins me. Period."

[neoblues]

39. Kerry is quite adaptable...

His positions are highly flexible and he's clever enough to study the polls in order to know what to support (in some fashion). Of course, the bright side of such an approach is that, naturally, since the polls reflect (hopefully) what "we, the people" want, then he actually ends up focusing on the right stuff.

Sigh... If only all of Congress would do what we want... and do so sincerely by taking action instead of just talking. Ahh, that'd be just the thing... What a great idea! Just imagine: Government Of the People, By the People and For the People! (Such a good idea, seems like everybody ought to hear it! Spread the word...(hah!))(of course, if they haven't heard that or don't know what it means, one wonders where have they been keeping their heads or if their heads are in working order... and we do have a large number of people who don't seem to mind at all that they have no real influence over their government (they're called "typical republicans")!)

[Mass]

40. Being adaptable and doing what the people want is good in my book.

That may be why it is called a Democracy.

If you want a man who ignores what the people think, we have him right now. It works so well!

[neoblues]

71. Adaptability is good. Doing the peoples will is good.

In Fact: Adaptability is one of the biggest shortcomings of the current pretend President, as is his complete and total disregard for the will of the people.

If you've concluded from my previous post that I want a man who ignores what the people think, you've misunderstood me. To credit your reasoning though, I will admit that when considering how a politician responds to the polls/people's will, when giving credit where credit is due, I do consider their motives and well as their final results. Perhaps that's what you were picking up on.

As to their motives. If they happen to be disingenuous, concerned only with pulic image for political gain (such as a preparations current/future election campaign) or their actions aren't productive (such as being merely words, gestures or half-hearted actions), they don't get much credit. If they're doing so to deceive (in which case their words/actions would be intentionally ineffective/unproductive), they may even lose credit/esteem.

You're right, though, an ideal of Democracy is to have the government implement the will of the people. Ours is rather broken currently; and I don't see our representatives doing very much to fix it. That means all but less than a handful of Congressmen just aren't doing enough. You may say they're doing all they can do; I think there's almost always something more they can do--but don't for a host of reasons, few of which are valid. We can agree to differ.

[ProSense]

72. No inflexibility (stay the course) and lying are Bush's shortcomings. n/t

[neoblues]

82. Since That's What I Just Said... so, I agree with you. nt.

[karynnj]

68. Correlation doesn't prove causation

It seems more likely to me that the worsening situation in Iraq is causing John Kerry's shift in position as well as the drop in the support of the war.

In reality, part of the reason that you will often see a relationship of where the country is (as measured by polls) and where a politician is is because if there are large changes in a population's opinion there usually is a cause. Opinions rarely randomly change in a vacuum.

Here, if you seriously look at Kerry's positions on what to do in Iraq - there are very consistent threads. In 2004, when he could anticipate the power of being President, he spoke of an international summit bringing in the neighbors and the international community, working with other countries to rapidly train Iraqis so they could take over National Security, pushing the Iraqis to work together to create a government, rehabilitation of the country with Iraqis getting the jobs.

When he lost - he continued in the Senate foreign Relations Committee to push for these same items. He has pushed Rice on each of these issues:
-he pointed out in at Rice's confirmation hearings in early 2005, that Jordan, Egypt, Germany and France all told him that they would train significant numbers of Iraqis in their countries. The US could have chosen some of the best people in Iraq, sent them on these programs and gotten back trained police and security people in large numbers.
-he questioned her on the utter failure of their diplomacy both within Iraq and in using the self interest of the neighbors to move Iraq to a better place
- he has spoken since 2004 about the need to make it clear that we don't want occupation (switching to say we need to move from occupation when the reality was that there was an occupation) - in this regard he pushed for taking the American face off things with regional and international involvement and a commitment to no new bases.

The new proposal recognizes that the situation is worse - it drops reconstruction (likely because it's clear Bush won't do this) but it still talks of the Iraqis (not us) needing to create a government, the need for diplomacy, and the need for Iraqis to take over their own security.

Kerry's proposals evolve in adaptation to the circumstances - they are not radical shifts (or FFs) in response to public opinion.

[neoblues]

81. That's simpy true. Correlation is not proof of causation.

Insofar as I know, I wasn't trying to prove any causation. <--> Actually, I've finally re-read my post enough times to finally see what I said... and it does at least appear as though I assumed Kerry never does anything except what the polls suggest, which might lead to the specific conclusion that I was referring to some particular action he took (such as the action listing in the main thread). That's really not what I meant, though I now see how you got that.

I was anything but clear. I was speaking in generalities and all I meant was he's flexible and bright enough to follow the polls to know what to do/not to do (to maintain his chances for future elections), and I also merely explained that if a politician does guide their actions by analyzing polls, it's as though he's actually doing the will of the people, since the polls reflect the will of the people (duh).

So, what I actually meant to say was that Kerry is smart enough to watch the polls and know what to support; I didn't intend to say the polls are his only source of input regarding what he decides to do, although he does probably give them some serious consideration.

I was puzzled by your reply until after I'd begun this reply... So then I wrote "Oh, so what you're saying is that Kerry's actions have nothing to do with the polls, it's more likely just his natural response to the situational changes?" Well, that's certainly possible. I'd go for a combination; he probably has many reasons balanced for everything he chooses to do.

Aside: In considering this... I see also that one of my underlying assumptions is to presume that a politician (any politician) who's considering an election campaign (be it the initial one, or re-election, or for a different office)(and some who aren't considering a campaign too), has motivation to want to appear responsive to the will of the people (as accessed via polls, letters, phone calls, meetings, whatever) and therefore probably does rely heavily on analyzing the polls (probably mainly his own specially performed/private polls).

[karynnj]

89. I'll also admit that my response was written

as much to the constant accusations against many politicians that they follow polls. I realize that this is actually said less about Kerry than many other politicians. I have always had this same idea that it is entirely possible to completely ignore polls and have the same pattern. As I had time, I opted to write this because I think it is often over looked as a possibility.

I do see your point. It's true that if a politician came out and said I went all over my district and I found that an overwhelming majority of the people wanted me to do X, so I will, it would be hailed as being responsive and in touch with the people represented. But if he said I got a poll and an overwhelming majority of people want this - following it is bad. (I realize that face to face contact is good in and of itself - but the different attitude is odd.)

[mtnsnake]

87. He's adaptable alright. He bends with the polls as much as any politician

in the history of the sport.

Kerry is a good man, but whatever way the wind blows...

[TayTay]

88. Not true. At all.

And you should know this. Everything Kerry is saying now is consistent with what he said in '04 and in the discussions that went on during the debate about the IWR in '02.

This is categorically not true. Not about this charge and not about others. It is however true about some others and we can get into this, with real live actual facts if you want.

Just say the word honey and I'm ready to go.

[mtnsnake]

91. Yeah, it is. Kerry didn't sound like this during his debates

Back then, he was all for adding more troops and fighting the war "better" than Bush. He tried to prove to the sheeple that he would be better at fighting the war than Bush would. The country (in general) was much more gungho about finishing what we started, and Kerry followed suit with his rhetoric. Now that the atmosphere has drastically changed, so has he with his lingo. Consistency is not one of his best virtues. Sorry.

[karynnj]

93. So, the situation in Iraq hasn't changed in the last 1 1/2 years?

Would you do exactly the same thing in two very differnt situations? Do you wear the same clothes in December and July?

By the way, I believe that Kerry was speaking of adding troops to the military in general, not to Iraq. His concern was the back door draft where tours kept being extended and people were sent back very soon after returning. Kerry's own experience may him aware of how unfair and hurtful this is.

He did point out that when Bush attacked he went with too few people making it impossible to secure the peace.

[mtnsnake]

97. Yes it has, and so has John Kerry. I'm not crucifying him for it, just

sayin that he can change with the prevailing atmosphere as well as any politician can.

What matters is that he wants our troops home soon. Let's hope that he sticks with this train of thought and continues to fight to get it done. Let's have no more of this "I'll seek those terrorists out and kill them" stuff. No one needs to hear that kind of rhetoric ever again.

[WildEyedLiberal]

107. YOU'D prefer a politican who DIDN'T change his position based on fact?

I have one for you. You can go support him on Free Republic.

You ABSOLUTELY are criticizing him for it. Not that it's hard for you to twist your words and lie about them, or anything...

[karynnj]

112. My point is it's not the "prevailing atmosphere"

that he changes with, but the real situation on the ground. As to the terrorists, Kerry was talking of reeling up the networks as he did with the BCCI banking network. He also made the point that that kind of non-state terrorism can only be fought with the cooperation of all nations. The theory being that in the end it's a battle between lawful nations and outlaws, where ultimately it's in the interest of all nations to capture or eliminate the outlaws.

Is it simply to keep with the fashions that you put away your winter coat this month? (if you did-obviously I don't know the weather.)

[ProSense]

98. Not true!

First debate:

Snip...

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

Similar statements posted all over this site. At Kerry's Senate site speeches and statement saying the same thing.

[mtnsnake]

100. "Not true" what? That Kerry didn't talk about increasing the number of

troops in the war? I remember distinctly him saying we needed to do that in order for us to fight the war properly.

[ProSense]

103. You have a link?

Kerry ran his campaign on strengthening the military:

...And I will build a stronger American military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1510252

He constantly criticized Bush for invading Iraq to show Bush's incompetence.

Bremer says troop levels too low in Iraq

Kerry seizes on remarks by ex-U.S. administrator

Snip...

The criticism by Paul Bremer, chief administrator for Iraq until the end of June, came at a critical juncture in President Bush's re-election campaign, when Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry has sharply escalated his attacks on Bush's decision to go to war and his conduct of the occupation over the past 18 months.

Snip...

Kerry jumped on Bremer's remarks, saying there was "a long list of mistakes" on Iraq. "I'm glad that Paul Bremer has finally admitted at least two of them," referring to having more troops at the outset and throughout the occupation.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/06/MNGTU94EU21.DTL

[mtnsnake]

105. Link or no link, he wanted to add 40,000 more troops if elected President

Where on earth would he get that many people to add to our military? He was dreaming if he was thinking that he could get that many additional troops to simply sign up.

There are more than a few people who worried that Kerry's plan of adding 40,000 troops and 2 new divisions to the Army could lead to a draft.

Sorry, but the way he sounded then is not the same as he sounds now. I'm not saying there's anything wrong about it, just saying he's not as consistent as so many people claim.

[ProSense]

110. Draft? That's BS.

Kerry made his intentions clear and it had nothing to do with a draft.

Kerry Accuses Bush of 'Backdoor Draft' on Troops

by Greg Allen

Web Extra: More of Kerry's Speech
All Things Considered, June 3, 2004 · Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry accuses the Bush administration of instituting a "backdoor draft" by requiring soldiers to remain in service even after their volunteer commitments expire. Kerry called for increasing the number of active-duty troops and modernizing the U.S. military during a trip to Independence, Mo. NPR's Greg Allen reports.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1921747

If there's nothing wrong with it why complain?

[mtnsnake]

Oh, of course HE didn't mention a draft, but where in heck would he get

an additional FORTY THOUSAND troops to fulfill his cause? Out of a magician's hat maybe? There were more than a few people who felt that his plan to add 2 more divisions and 40,000 additional troops COULD lead to an eventual draft.

Adding that many troops is one thing, and this stuff he's talking about now is another. Which way will it be? You can't have it both ways, Senator.

[ProSense]

118. Ever heard of recruiting? Both ways? Did you read the previous posts? n/t

[karynnj]

113. Where's your link

Prosense's link shows what Kerry actually said.

As to where he would get more troops - I think the situation would be different with Kerry as President. He would likely have moved on Iraq first - as he could do a lot unilaterally. He spoke of a Regional/International summit as soon as he was President. In January, he went to Europe and the ME - he came back asking why we weren't taking Jordan, Eqypt, France and Germany up on there training offers. As President, this would likely have been done immediately - it is highly likely that well before the end of 2005 there would have been sufficient trained troops.

Kerry, son of a diplomat, has loved diplomacy since he was a kid. Iraq is a mess, but Kerry is the type who would clearly have had the tenacity to push for more alternatives and the willingness to look at different approaches. As to our image in the area, I can't imagine anyone with more noral credibility on some of the issues that tarnishes our image. In the campaign, Kerry simply would add Abu Grabeh to the list of things that went wrong. A President Kerry could at an international summit say that the US will follow international laws and that these actions would never happen while he ws President. His actions in 1971, calling his own government to task would give him the moral authority America has lost.

So, I would assume that by the time Congress was considering the increase, the violence in Iraq would have been decreasing rather than increasing. By the time the first wave of trained Iraqis returned - much pressure would be off the US.

[mtnsnake]

119. Prosense's link backs up what I said. Read my post again please

Here is my complete statement, including the title: "Not true" what? That Kerry didn't talk about increasing the number of troops in the war? I remember distinctly him saying we needed to do that in order for us to fight the war properly."

No where in that post did I limit the term "war" to Iraq. Kerry said what he said. You know it, I know it, and we both know that he intended to increase the size of the military, as proven by Prosense's link. It doesn't matter where he intended to increase the troops. The fact remains that he intended to increase the number. If you insist, I can get you another link, but I don't see the need to prove what Prosense has already done.

[ProSense]

120. No it doesn't. Stop playing games. It has nothing to do with Iraq. n/t

[mtnsnake]

121. I just got done saying it didn't have everything to do with Iraq,

but he wanted to increase the size of the military, period.

[blm]

99. Because Iraq hadn't even had ONE ELECTION at that point.

You think it would have been right for him to PREDICT that after the elections the Iraqi officials voted in would still be incapable of forming a functioning government?

I really don't think ANYONE would have taken that position in 2004.

[mtnsnake]

101. BLM, my point is that his position now is not the same as it was back then

as some people are suggesting.

Times change and so do many politicians. Kerry is good at changing his rhetoric to suit the corresponding swings in the mood of the country. He's not the only one either.

Just sayin

[blm]

102. He's always held that Bush's decisionmaking in Iraq was wrong, from

invading while weapons inspectors were proving military action unnecessary to not securing the ministries protecting the civil infrastructure to not pushing for a unity government with all the leverage of the US and the UN.

Now, 5 months after its third election and Iraq is in civil war - all windows of opporunity that were once there have now been closed - there is no other recourse.

[karynnj]

114. The point all of us are making is

that Kerry's changes are NOT because the country is changing - but the situation in Iraq is. (His Oct 2005 plan was before over 50% said to withdrawal (Note: not the same as was the war worth it.) His plan and Murtha's and most of the Democratic caucus' sense of the Senate resolution likely LED to the change.)

[mtnsnake]

123. Your point is well taken n/t

[karynnj]

92. That is simply not true

Here, if you seriously look at Kerry's positions on what to do in Iraq - there are very consistent threads. In 2004, when he could anticipate the power of being President, he spoke of an international summit bringing in the neighbors and the international community, working with other countries to rapidly train Iraqis so they could take over National Security, pushing the Iraqis to work together to create a government, rehabilitation of the country with Iraqis getting the jobs.

When he lost - he continued in the Senate foreign Relations Committee to push for these same items. He has pushed Rice on each of these issues:
-he pointed out in at Rice's confirmation hearings in early 2005, that Jordan, Egypt, Germany and France all told him that they would train significant numbers of Iraqis in their countries. The US could have chosen some of the best people in Iraq, sent them on these programs and gotten back trained police and security people in large numbers.
-he questioned her on the utter failure of their diplomacy both within Iraq and in using the self interest of the neighbors to move Iraq to a better place
- he has spoken since 2004 about the need to make it clear that we don't want occupation (switching to say we need to move from occupation when the reality was that there was an occupation) - in this regard he pushed for taking the American face off things with regional and international involvement and a commitment to no new bases.

The new proposal recognizes that the situation is worse - it drops reconstruction (likely because it's clear Bush won't do this) but it still talks of the Iraqis (not us) needing to create a government, the need for diplomacy, and the need for Iraqis to take over their own security.

Kerry's proposals evolve in adaptation to the circumstances - they are not radical shifts (or FFs) in response to public opinion.

On things other than Iraq Kerry almost always has a consistent record or one that clearly evolved and where he explained what caused him to feel a change in position was needed. It was Clinton who told Kerry to come out for all the gay bashing anti-gay marriage resolutions - that often took away legal rights or benefits gay couples had - to gain moderate to conservative votes. Kerry's response was supposedly immediate - he would never do that. In fact with Kerry's 20 year record on gay rights and Kerry's inability to lie effectively, it wouldn't work. Clinton could be a chameleon, Kerry can't and he places a huge value on integrity.

[mtnsnake]

95. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy he...ANY Democrat...is speaking now

about getting our troops home ASAP.

He certainly didn't sound like this, though, when he made his theme during the election a war theme.

[WildEyedLiberal]

109. No you're not. You're pissed Hillary still has NO position on the war

You're pissed Kerry has more leadership in his toenail clipping than Hillary has in her entire body.

[Vektor]

135. Shut up, fatty!

HAHAHAHA.

:rofl:

[karynnj]

117. We were in a war

The first2 things Kerry had to prove were 1) He could lead the war and 2) He could protect us from terrorism. Bush was still seen as the one who could do 2)- because people took to heart that we hadn't been attacked, but Kerry did make enormous headway on this. Kerry did win many people on 1)

Any candidate who failed to do his would have had McGovern type numbers. If we're at war, the same will be true in 2008.

[mtnsnake]

124. I agree with you, although

I'm not the only one who thinks it might have been a fatal mistake for Kerry to make practically his entire campaign theme a war theme.

[ProSense]

42. Spin should at least make sense!

Does the writer think any Senator can take over the presidency at any given moment? Can Frist, McCain or Roberts introduce a resolution and carry it out without a vote and make policy at will?

The writer gives Kerry credit for being crafty (skillful, clever adept). That's a switch. Isn't that the same as being politically astute? Which he really is, and intelligent to boot.

Kerry laid out the Path Forward in October and Real Security in December---thoughtful and briliant approaches that focus on diplomacy and the future.

I guess spin is the only way to counter the intelligent, rational and timely ultimatum Kerry has now advanced.

[welshTerrier2]

47. i'm disappointed in the resolution's language

no, i'm not going to bash Kerry for it but it is nevertheless disappointing ...

why you ask?

because the language offered in his NY Times piece should have been a contract with Americans ... i thought we had a deal ...

specifically, in his NY Times piece he called for "immediate withdrawal" if the Iraqis don't form a real government by May 15 ... now, the pace of withdrawal under those circumstances has morphed into the mush of "the earliest practicable date" ...

"earliest practicable date"??? that's a bit more vague than "immediate withdrawal" isn't it?? no definition of the phrase is provided ... it leaves the door wide-open to be interpreted as "as soon as the Iraqis are able to defend themselves" ... what the hell kind of immediate withdrawal is that?????

no, i'm not going to bash Kerry and this is still a step in the right direction; it's also a step back from his earlier commitment ...

and what happened to that year-end at the latest commitment?? if the Iraqis do meet the May 15 condition, it seems like Kerry's allowing for a longer occupation than even his old Iraq plan did ...

[TayTay]

49. This is confusing. That was always in there.

This is the tiniest of nits to pick. Kerry said that if the Iraqis don't form a government by May 15th, we start to withdraw. That means figuring out the logistics of moving the troops and the machinery out of the region. That is the basis of the 'practicable' point. This is also what Rep. Murtha proposed and what he meant when he said it would take 5-6 months to move that many people and that much machinery out of the region. Ahm, that's why it a 'practical concern' and not a political one.

[welshTerrier2]

51. "That is the basis of the 'practicable' point."

you have no evidence to support YOUR interpretation of "practicable" ... the language I've used, and Kerry should have used, was that if the May 15 condition is not met, we sure withdraw our troops from Iraq as fast as troop safety permits ...

What he said in the NY Times piece was "immediate withdrawal" ... if he's going to use terms like "practicable" that are obviously subject to interpretation, he has an obligation to define what he means and not leave it up to republicans to decide that "practicable" means when Iraqis can defend themselves ...

and what about the year-end deadline Kerry mentioned in his Times piece?? has he abandoned that commitment??

[TayTay]

55. I think you are picking nits on this.

Kerry said what he meant in the NYTimes OpEd then repeated this on radio talk shows and on cable TV. He went on MTP and said the same thing. Out by May 15th if the IRaqis don't form a government. Out by the end of the year if the Iraqis do form a government because that will mean that Iraqis are 'standing up' so that US troops 'can stand down' and get out of there.

There will be a small force left behind in 'over-the-horizon' type garrisons because the ME is a hot spot and action might be needed. Kerry said in 2004 and repeated last year and this that he wants no 'permanent bases' in Iraq. He also wants Dayton-like Accord meetings held with stakeholders with interests in the region to meet and start meeting immediately so that diplomatic assistance is given to the IRaqis to help them solve their own problems.

This was repeated everywhere this past weekend. There are transcripts available. What part of this was either underplayed, hidden or not clear?

[Mass]

50. Reread Murtha's legislation - It has the same problem

I think that it may be constitutional. (the one year was just a goal in the old constitution as well).

[welshTerrier2]

52. huh?

i'm not sure what you mean by "it may be constitutional"

[Mass]

53. A senator cannot put a date for effective troop withdrawal in a bill

Murtha did not (he used the "earliest practical date language", Feingold did not (he asked for a timeline) .

The CIC is responsible for fixing these dates.

http://feingold.senate.gov/statements/05/07/2005727747.html

Here is the text of Kucinich's resolution

Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States--

(1) to announce, not later than December 31, 2005, a plan for the withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq ;

(2) at the earliest possible date, to turn over all military operations in Iraq to the elected Government of Iraq and provide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq ; and

(3) to initiate such a withdrawal as soon as possible but not later than October 1, 2006.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS TO IMPLEMENT POLICY.

The President shall implement the policy expressed in section 3 by--

(1) taking all necessary steps to ensure the completion of Iraq's political transition to a constitutionally elected government by December 31, 2005, as called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004), which was supported by the United States;

(2) establishing a plan for the withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq limited only by steps to ensure the safety of such Armed Forces;

(3) establishing a plan for a transition of responsibility for internal security activities to the military forces of the Iraqi Government and a transition of United States military personnel to an advisory and support role;

(4) accelerating the training and equipping of the military and security forces of the Iraqi Government; and

(5) taking all appropriate measures to account for any missing members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens in Iraq prior to completion of the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq .

They all are different, but they all have the same language that let it to Bush to implement the withdrawal they are asking. Even Kucinich's one, who asks the most from Bush, do not say when the troops will be totally withdrawn, simply because it is not within the prerogatives of the House or the Senate to determine that.

[welshTerrier2]

56. perhaps it needed to be handled by a cut-off of funds

thanks for the info ... the absence of a "date certain" badly waters down the bill from what Kerry said in his Op Ed ...

btw, with all recognition that i don't know anything about military tactics, i absolutely do not accept the premise that it would take 5 - 6 months to withdraw our troops ... we were able to move into Iraq against whatever resistance existed and march all the way to Baghdad in just a few days ... the idea of taking months to withdraw just doesn't seem reasonable ... this is NOT Vietnam with a powewful Viet Cong force driving Americans back into Saigon ... there is no ground acquisition here ... it is not at all clear that insurgent or other forces would even attack US forces as they departed ... i claim no expertise; still, that's my opinion ...

[Mass]

57. I think this will eventually be the only way to end this.

This is the ONLY power the Senate and the House have and it is how they ended VietNam.

[welshTerrier2]

58. are you endorsing a cut-off of funds?

that is exactly my position ...

i wish that was a component of Kerry's resolution ... if "troop withdrawal dates" are not constitutional, i would have wanted the "dates certain" he proposed in his Op Ed to be addressed via a cut-off of funds (for any purpose other than troop safety and troop withdrawal) by the end of the year if the Iraqis meet the May 15 condition and much, much sooner if they don't ...

iirc, there was language similar to that in McGovern's bill ...

[Mass]

60. A cut-off of funds is not going to happen before the election.

We can dream, but it is not going to happen. However, as long as Bush is in power, this is the only way a Democratic Senate and House would have to end this craziness.

I have to say I have not really looked at Kerry's bill wording because we KNOW that it is never going to go to a vote. What is important is that people as proeminent as him, Murtha, Feingold, speak in favor of troops withdrawal soon and not just about how much * mismanaged the war.

I hope more will come in this direction, but unfortunately, I dont see them now.

[welshTerrier2]

62. if i were a republican and supported the war

i would bring Kerry's bill to the floor and vote for it ... it would allow me to show how bipartisan i am and that both parties agree on how the war should be handled ...

then i would stay there as long as i wanted to because there are no real exit dates in the resolution ... if the May 15 test was met, we'd just keep going with the "we're training Iraqis" meme; if not, i'd say we can't leave yet because it's not practicable ... Democrats might squawk because THEIR interpretation of "practicable" MIGHT be "as quickly as troop safety allows"; i'd argue we have to think not only about the practicality of troop safety but also of the Iraqi people, regional stability, Israel's safety and our dependence on Middle East oil ... i'd argue the Democrats definition of "practicability" would put the nation at risk ...

the result?? we'd be no better off than we are today ...

[Mass]

63. I guess he would have been better off by doing nothing.

:sarcasm:

[welshTerrier2]

67. well, i won't return the sarcasm

i support the following aspect of Kerry's resolution:

United States forces shall be withdrawn from Iraq at the earliest practicable date if Iraqis fail to form a national unity government by May 15, 2006

i support it because I think a near-term, very tangible condition is a useful addition to the national debate ... the term "practicable", however, needed greater clarity ... Kerry should have included verbiage about "troop safety" rather than leaving the term wide-open to interpretation ...

i'm not saying "he would have been better off by doing nothing"; i'm saying that his resolution falls very short of his Op Ed piece and, because it lacks clarity with regard to the pace of withdrawal, I think it could easily be exploited politically ...

[ProSense]

70. Why would the Republicans do that, when Bush said this yesterday?

Snip...

The Iraqi people have begun building a free society -- with a thriving free press, and hundreds of independent newspapers and magazines and talk radio shows where Iraqis openly debate the future course of their country. The Iraqi people have begun building a free economy -- with an independent central bank, and thousands of small businesses and a relatively stable currency. Iraqi people have stepped forward to fight for their freedom, as well. Despite repeated attacks on military and police recruiting stations, more than 250,000 Iraqis have volunteered to wear their country's uniform. These brave Iraqis are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists and the insurgents. Today, there are more than 130 Iraqi Army and police combat battalions in the fight -- with more than 70 Iraqi battalions taking the lead. Iraqi units have assumed primary responsibility for more than 30,000 square miles of Iraq. We expect that Iraqi units will control more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006.

more...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060410-1.html

Kerry has maintained that the training can begin outside the country and a adequate force ready in a few months. Together with the forces the Republicans say are already trained, they cannot refute the ultimatum by saying no troops are trained.

[welshTerrier2]

74. i'm not saying they would; i'm saying they could

i'm not really clear how bush's quote argues against the concern i raised about the politics (which, btw, is not at all the central point to my concerns about Kerry's resolution) ...

bush said that Iraqis might only control "more territory than the coalition" by the end of the year ... that leaves a whole lotta room for a lot more occupation ... the argument would not be that "no troops are trained"; the argument would be that it would not be "practicable" to leave until the Iraqis can safely control Iraq ... bush has already said that won't be until after he leaves office ... 2009 or beyond appears to be HIS interpretation of "practicable" ... it would be helpful if Kerry provided a clearer definition of the term ...

[ProSense]

75. Kerry did! Two Deadlines And An Exit: May 15 and the end of 2006. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

76. exactly - but the resolution language lacked clarity

that's the whole point - i strongly supported the clarity and language about deadlines in the Op Ed ...

put the Op Ed side by side with the resolution:

May 15:

Op Ed: "or we will immediately withdraw our military"
resolution: "United States forces shall be withdrawn from Iraq at the earliest 'practicable' date"

End of 2006:

Op Ed: "then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end"
resolution: "the United States should reach agreement as soon as possible with such government on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq"

[ProSense]

78. May 15 is 33 days away.

Kerry's call for witdrawal by the end 2006 is clear. May 15, then as soon as possible, which could be earlier than the end of the year.

Section 2. United States forces shall be withdrawn at the earliest practicable date if Iraqis fail to form a national unity government by May 15, 2006.

Section 3. If Iraqis form a national unity government by May 15, 2006, the United States should reach agreement as soon as possible with such government on a schedule for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, leaving only forces critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces. The President shall consult with Congress on this schedule and shall present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon completion.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0405d.html

And this is not the full text of the resolution.

[blm]

79. Kerry said in his appearances that congress can settle on a date around

that time when it goes to the floor. He set May 15 as a target for congress to use, but specified in his tv interviews that a specific date around that time needs to be negotiated.

This article completely neglects the actual purpose of Kerry not stating an exact date in the senate resolution.

[welshTerrier2]

85. i'm not clear what you're saying

there are two different points at issue here ... point #1 is Kerry's near-term, specific date to "test the condition" ... i support his position on this both in his Op Ed and in his resolution ... May 15 is the date on which he wants to examine the status of the Iraqi government ... his findings would trigger point #2 ...

point #2 is the PACE OF WITHDRAWAL - there's pace "A" and pace "B" ... pace "A" would be the pace of withdrawal Kerry recommends if the test in point #1 is NOT met ... pace "B" is the pace of withdrawal if the test in point #1 is met ...

my objection to the language in the resolution focusses on what i'm calling point #2 ... I have no objection to the timeframe Kerry specified for testing his proposed condition ... are you saying that even that is not a firm point in time??

[TayTay]

86. No, what she is saying is that May15th is a target date

Kerry doesn't know what the PX is selling in it's stores.
He doesn't know what's for lunch at the base in Baghdad.
And he can't know exactly what the conditions in Iraq will be on May 15th. It's his target date that, unless his conditions are met, the US starts to withdraw on. And, if the conditions are met, we start to withdraw anyway.

Could shit come up that could screw up the logistics of a withdrawal? Yes. Come on, what is so hard about that?

[zulchzulu]

59. I guess they threw the "Where the fuck is Kerry?" article out...

Gee, how frigging predictable.

Sorry fellas at Counterpunch, but Kucinich is not going to be president. Neither is Nader... Get a clue.

[confludemocrat]

64. Murtha says there is no plan but HIS, which is true. Sorry JK

and go ahead and gloss over Kerry's inadaquacies once again, but this latest shows it. But an argument that JK is THE MAN is not supported by saying Murtha "is just as bad" as far as how closely his public stances have tracked any legislation he introduced. Even if this was true, since no evidence is EVER put forward by the Kerryites here, so what? I thought Senator Nuance was supposed to be better, so what gives? No one can match the disingenuousness of John Kerry as far as Dem candidates for 2008.

[Mass]

66. Nice - Anybody who knows you by now knows that you hate Kerry.

So why do you think what you say about him matters?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[blm]

84. Something you do often even when the facts of history prove you're wrong.

.

[TayTay]

73. Kerry and Murtha's plans are extremely close

I wouldn't be surprised to see that these two have been in talks. Mr. Murtha is a hawkish and conservative Democrat whose oppostion to this war comes from his military leanings and his knowledge of what is going on 'on the ground' in Iraq. Mr. Murtha is not someone who generally hangs out with the Progressive elements of the Democratic Party.

It could be that it is Mr. Murtha and not Mr. Kerry who is unwilling to step forward and champion this cause as an 'anti-war' person. It fits his background. It is possible that Mr. Murtha wants to pursue his agenda from an entirely different perspective that honors his background as a hawkish and Pentagon friendly Dem.

[BlueIris]

77. Oh, my God...what if "Crafty Kerry" becomes the "Flip-Flopper" of '08?

"Crafty Kerry" is so...catchy. Good enough for the haters to feel nice and safe with. Craf-ty Ker-ry. Four syllables, very easy to pronounce, and continue to propagandize with.

[karynnj]

96. Too easily turned into a positive

Very clever man

[LittleClarkie]

108. Maybe he's just into macrame

or something.

[LittleClarkie]

145. Decopache?

Needlepoint?

Scrapbooking?

[Vektor]

146. Heh...

"Crafty Kerry"...

Prompts one to imagine the good Senator clad in an apron...

And little else.

[LittleClarkie]

90. Counterpunch. What a rag.

There is more than a dime's worth of difference.

And the Murtha plan had the troops stationed thus as well.

This is not the man I see. They are welcome to whatever delusion they see fit. But this is not the man I see. Not when it comes to the troops.

[WildEyedLiberal]

111. The freepers are getting restless

Isn't it amazing how the harder Kerry kicks ass, the more cockroaches crawl out of the woodwork to attack him for doing things that NO other Democrat is doing?

I wonder why... not.

[Joanne98]

115. He can forget running.......

[WildEyedLiberal]

116. Yeah, fuck Dems who call for withdrawal

Fuck Democrats who actually DO SHIT.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

126. What does that have to do with an Iraq exit plan

Talk about a non sequitor.

[Vektor]

134. Uh, ok. I'm sure he will

just cause you said so.

:sarcasm:

[LittleClarkie]

127. Dude, a question. Which candidate did you like in the 2004 primaries?

?

[WildEyedLiberal]

128. ....

Bush.

:hide:

[Vektor]

130. .

You beat me to it. That was my answer.

[Vektor]

129. Let the sounding off of the penis envy brigade begin!

Every time the good Senator scores another triumph, the inferior and the tiny appear on the scene with RW talking points in an attempt to discredit Kerry and add inches where they are sadly lacking.

What an exercise in futility.

Kerry still rocks, and his detractors are still showing their inadequacies.

:eyes:

[saltpoint]

137. Yes, my good Vektor, there is the matter of the good Senator's uh...

wiener.

I know the other nouns but refrain from using them so as not to tripswitch the censors and besides, I've made a promise to try to behave.

Nevertheless, you are quite right to mention the subject before our august consideration here this day.

It is a well known fact, ladies and gentlemen, that Senator Kerry is long on service, long on brains, long on heart, and long on something else, too. This has been dutifully reported for decades and frankly, thre's no basis at all for any objections to its verity at this point in the game.

I think a team of shrinks from all cultures would uniformly agree that anybody who knocks John Kerry is jealous of all the things on him that are prodigious.

____
Vektor, Senator Kerry is fortunate to have you in his column. He rocks. You rock. Go, team.

[Vektor]

138. I see you are one of the "informed"...

Kerry's um, "talents" are indeed legendary, and every time he rocks out with his you-know-what-out, the pathetic pavlovian response from his detractors is sadly, predictably the same.

It actually is quite funny.

Edited to add: it takes a real man to be able to say this, and you sir, deserve an award for being ONE BAD MUTHA.

[saltpoint]

139. Vektor, always a pleasure to read your posts on DU, and

as the 06 and 08 elections get closer, I wish for both of us, and all the rest of the country really, a REAL blue November.

Hat's off to ya. :hi: :dem:

:thumbsup:

[Vektor]

140. I think it will be....

And your posts are stellar as always. I think the one above is by far the best one yet. Farking brilliant.


Check your PM.

[saltpoint]

136. A vote for Kerry-Edwards in 2004 was not least, a vote against

interim appointments like John Bolton to the United Nations; a vote against Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State; a vote against extremely conservative Supreme Court appointments who might hold the balance of power of Roe v. Wade in theri hands.

It was a vote FOR civil temperaments in public service, for the notion of public service itself, for the idea that men and women who are inherited or gained privilege might use it to demand of themselves and others a heightened citizenship.

It was a vote for the role of life-long service to one's ideals as opposed to wildcatting out in the West Texas oil cities, snorting cocaine up your nose, and in general dumbing down everything important because your daddy's both rich and famous.

If Kerry runs, that's his choice, and if he becomes the nominee, he's got my enthusiastic vote.

[proud patriot]

147. I'm locking this thread

It's critcism is written in an inflammatory way.

Moderators have decided it is best to lock this .

proud patriot Moderator
Democratic Underground