So this shameful, illegal war is all Kerry's fault and nobody else's?

[politicasista]

Based on all these Anti-Kerry threads popping up about the IWR and not wanting to pull out of Iraq. You would think that he was the one that mislead us into war and not Bush.

Kudos to everyone for jumping those threads.

Excuse my sarcasms everyone. I have had a long so-so day.

[Mass]

1. We had a power outage for most of the day after a big storm

so I have just seen the thread tonight, but it seems to be the same 3 or 4 people, because I have only 4 names in my ignorelist and the threads come out with many comments in ignore.

I really think that some of these people do not want the Democrats to succeed (either because they are GOP people or because this would kill their ultra-lefty agenda).

[Goldeneye]

2. I just typed out a long response to that post that made it to the

greatest page, and then I decided I didn't want to get into it. They're nuts, if they believe Kerry's vote on IWR had any effect on how the Iraq war went. Bush is the one who fixed the facts. Bush is the one who decided he was going in no matter what. BushCo lied to the UN. BushCo diverted money and force away from afghanistan and capturing Bin Laden. BushCo authorized torture and the use of napalm. Bush screwed this up.

They asked what success in Iraq would be. Yeah, what a thought provoking question. Everyone with a brain knows restoring Iraq to the point where Iraqi's have access to food and water and aren't subjected to daily suicide bombings would be success. Success means getting rid of the insurgency, because it threatens not just Iraqis and the Middle East, but because it threatens us too. The question isn't what would be a success, the question is, is it acheivable. That is an opinion, and everyone including John Kerry and the OP deserves to have their own opinion.

[Dr Ron]

3. Yes, the war is Kerry's fault

Kerry sent in the troops. Personally. All by himself.

Or so it seems around here.

[karynnj]

4. I think you're right

It's because of the little known provision hiding in the constitution that can only be found by reading it backwards and looking only at every third letter. This provision gives the fourth highest minority party member of the Foreign Relations Committee the sole right to commit US forces. Or is it the Senator with the best hair?

I started responding to some of these threads, but many of these posters are the same ones who made the same statements months ago. What is most suspicious is that some now say that Kerry wants to kill more Iraqis than Bush- when Kerry's whole thrust was to get as much stability and progress as fast as possible and to send very strong signals that the US intention is to not have a permanent presence.

Some of the media have lumped Kerry into the group saying more American soldiers are needed when in his Senate speech and the 2 tv shows, he specifically ruled that out. Am I paranoid to think it's intentional and that it may be more a function of the reporter charged with writing about the Democratic response may have seen less of Kerry's statements than any of us here. (They needed, after all to get other Democrat's opinions. Although I noticed no Hillary comments.)