On Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves Democrats Fuming

[cal04]

When Senator John Kerry was their presidential nominee in 2004, Democrats fervently wished he would express himself firmly about the Iraq war.

Mr. Kerry has found his resolve. But it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier. They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry's views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006.

As the Senate prepared for what promises to be a sharp debate starting on Wednesday about whether to begin pulling troops from Iraq, the Democratic leadership wants its members to rally behind a proposal that calls for some troops to move out by the end of this year but does not set a fixed date for complete withdrawal. Mr. Kerry has insisted on setting a date, for American combat troops to pull out in 12 months, saying anything less is too cautious.

In drawing up a schedule for the Wednesday session, the Democratic leadership has arranged for its plan to be debated first, pushing Mr. Kerry and his proposal into the evening, too late for the nightly television news, to starve it of some attention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21kerry.html?hp&ex=1150862400&en=d52bb8294f60def2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[BuyingThyme]

1. There you go: DLC marching orders directly from the NYT.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Yes, there is that stench of appeasement and "keeping powder dry"

Kerry can go on pissing those guys off and he has my full support.

[madokie]

17. and I will help him in doing so.

[stepnw1f]

2. whateverrrrrr......not

[mike_c]

3. immediate and unconditional withdrawal!

Anything else is just continuing the war crime.

[unkachuck]

22. exactly....

....this war was completely wrong from the beginning and it isn't getting any 'righter' with time....

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. That got six votes the last time the Senate voted on it

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00174

[mike_c]

69. which demonstrates how utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt...

...our leadership is. They can't define the mission in Iraq, but they also can't find the spine to put an end to it.

[Yollam]

4. I'm often a Kerry detractor, but this doesn't piss me off.

Kerry is basically trying to do the right thing, and as disillusioned as I was with Kerry's 2004 campaign, Biden and Dodd aren't even fit to lick his boots, IMO.

Good for Kerry. And if Kerry's plan is so bad, why are they scared to let it have any media attention?

[TayTay]

5. By all means, lets not stand for anything

We don't want to be noticed or anything. Maybe if we just stand here in the corner, the good people at Haters Inc on the GOP won't see us and they won't beat us up and take our lunch money.

Geez guys, take a stand. The Alito filibuster was a good thing, as is this withdrawal plan. Go with it.

[ray of light]

6. DLC can be manipulated through calls. And frankly this person

suffers from DKS.

In other words, after today's brutal murder, support for the war will go down even more.

Dems are united to end the war and all conversations help the party move us out of war. Period!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. I Don't Agree With A Fixed Date Approach.

I agree with him 99.9% of the time probably, but I don't think it should be some sort of firm date. I think it should be framed more as a serious goal with an outline of strategy on achieving that goal while incorporating measures to gauge the progress in order to achieve that goal.

[wisteria]

11. Kerry was there in October 05, It is past the time to do it effectively

now. I beleive Senator Kerry has this right. This piece is nothing short of smear.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. I Agree.

I just don't think we should be focusing on a date so much. To me it's all about the plan and emergence of a real strategy (two things the administration and republicans have failed miserably at).

[wisteria]

29. The date is part of the plan. As is evident, the Iraqi's respond to

dates only" They comply only with pressure placed upon them. Staying indefinitely, doesn't really benefit the Iraqi's in the long run. They will have to take responsibility for their own safety, fight and govern themselves at some point. We train our soldiers for three months and expect them to be ready to fight. Apparently, they have all but 7,000 of the soldiers needed to reach Bush's goal on trained Iraqi's. How much longer will it take to train 7,000 more? When have we stayed long enough? Ultimately, the Iraqi's will have to want the democracy we have given them enough to keep it. It is all up to them and as long as we assume most of the responsibility and the lead, they will never lean to take care of their democracy.

[karynnj]

12. In reality that's what it is

Kerry's reaction when Maleki was named and was setting up the government was what if it's close but not done by May 15, would Kerry give him another week. Kerry's response was that Bush was the one who needed to set a deadline and that of course he would get the extra time needed. (Kerry's October 2005 was pretty much as you describe - he clearly feels that more push was needed.)

[IndianaGreen]

20. Then you condemn our troops to the same fate of Vietnam vets

many of whom died for nothing, long after the political leadership in the country realized that the war was lost.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. I Do No Such Thing. Melodramatic Much?

I want them home too, asap. I think there needs to be sound strategy, thorough plan and goals along the way which are to be met and measured. This administration has failed miserably on all counts. I think troop reduction could start immediately but that enough would have to remain to assist the iraqi's in training until they are competent to protect their country on their own. I see no reason as to why this couldn't be done within a year so I support the majority of Kerry's thinking. I just consider it to be more of a goal than a date. It's not the date that matters to me, it is the plan inbetween now and that date and the commitment and conviction by our congress and government to implement the plan, meet the goals of the plan, and have the results be successful by or before the timeframe set in the plan. The timeframe doesn't have to be set in stone, but it should be agressive, measurable and have whatever adjustments be made to it if certain steps on the critical path become at risk. The timeframe should be a give or take, but with not that much give.

As far as your melodramatic over the top sentiment goes, spare me.

[fedupinBushcountry]

27. Goal, date

same thing.

[mike_c]

28. protect their country from whom, exactly...?

From themselves? That's civil war. Which side do we want to protect against? Or protect their country from foreign aggressors? That would be us, at the moment.

[leftchick]

58. Yes lets ignore the facts and take a cautious approach as more people die

I hope our billion dollar embassy in Baghdad has a heli pad....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. Your Post Makes No Sense In Context To Mine.

Did you just offer a reaction just because?

There was nothing in my post that spoke of cautiousness or of ignoring facts. If you came down off your high horse a little maybe the screen would've been closer to your face and you would've been able to read my reply a bit better. Just food for thought.

[leftchick]

76. you are the most insulting DUer I have ever come across

is that all you are capapble of is hurling insults rather than respond with facts? I thought so.

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Oh Give It A Rest. Your Post Said I Was Ignoring Facts And Being Cautious

That couldn't be further from the truth and I challenge you to defend that accusation in context to my post. My tone was such because it was in reply to a post I considered to wreak of self righteousness and narrow mindedness with a mentality of "if you don't agree with how I see things then you are ignoring facts and being stupid" etc. I can't think of anything more self righteous than tones like that, but unfortunately I see them far too often from some here in response to different issues (knee jerk reactions).

As far as being insulting goes, here's a mirror, in case you don't have one.

[mike_c]

21. progress? toward what end?

What constitutes progress in Iraq? I agree with you in so far as opposing a "fixed date approach," but only because the ONLY approach I can support is an IMMEDIATE and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq with all possible dispatch. There is no justification for continuing the occupation even a single day except to expedite the evacuation of American troops.

[Clarkie1]

31. Declaring a date accomplishes nothing and puts us in a box.

It's a stupid move politically on Kerry's part and will do nothing to bring the soldiers home any faster. Worse, it divides the party gives the other side a way to attack the withdrawl date instead of being on the defensive defending their own action or inaction.

We are not responsible for this war...the administration is. It is up to the administration to find a way to reduce troop levels and bring our soldiers home without leaving the region in chaos. I wish them luck.

[Toots]

63. Benchmarks, I agree

Set specific goals and when each is reached more troops are withdrawn. Seting exact time limits is not the right way to go, approximate time limits though, Like we want Iraqi troops to control such and such sector and we expect that to happen by Sept 06 and then we pull fifty thousand troops out to Kuwait or some other nearby area and then the next bench mark with a predetermined amount of troop numbers to be withdrawn until all are redeployed to surrounding areas and then gradually redeployed home.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Exactly.

Makes sense, don't it? Not sure about the logic of the other knee-jerk responses I got though. But I appreciate your comments and agree. That's exactly the type of scenario I'm talking about. A real strategy, a real plan and real measurable objectives that will ultimately lead to our complete withdrawal.

[Klaxon]

9. Actually...

I totally agree with Kerry...Sounds like a semi-rational plan.

I only wish he would go further and take the stolen money from all those no bid contracts.


And give at least half of it to the Iraqi people..and the other half to the soldiers for health/mental help.

[wisteria]

10. What a f*cking hit piece. Wow! Using all the old stereotyping

and negatives.
I don't believe they think being quite and not having an opinion was a great strategy to run against Rove and the Republicans on. Sure, that really makes us look like leaders. Oh, and the Repubs won't attack that.
I am so angry at my party leadership right now. It's gang-up time on Kerry because he put them in an uncomfortable position.

I would have never known how much pressure he has been under to just comply. I don't think he should go along with the other amendment. It is not what he knows is needed. If he goes along, he will be tagged again.

[LittleClarkie]

13. They prefer the "consensus" proposal. The one without a deadline

They think that they need a proposal without the deadline or they will look soft on terrorism or something, I think. One of the proponents of this "consensus" proposal is Sen. Feinstein, so I guess I'm not surprised it doesn't go far enough.

Not the first time Feingold has been a maverick, and correct to boot. But at least he has company this time.

[IndianaGreen]

18. They obviously don't give a damn how many more GIs must die

for a mistake, as long as they continue to be welcomed at the Beltway's cocktail circuit, the fate of overstressed and combat weary US troops means nothing to them.

Feinstein lives in her fancy multi-million dollar mansion, and she never loses one second of sleep, while our lied-to and betrayed troops live in squalor and die and suffer in public anonymity.

There is something very immoral about these "leaders" that failed our nation and the Republic at the time of most need.

[Blaukraut]

14. Nice, stab Kerry and Feingold in the back

This behavior - this spineless bullshit by the sorry excuses who call themselves Democratic senators is what cost us the majority in the senate and will prevent us from getting it again in '06. NOT guys like Kerry and Feingold, who have the guts to stand up to this criminal regime.
Yeah, go ahead and play it safe so that meanie Rove can't say anything bad about you. I swear, I can't wait for backstabbing cowards like Biden and Dodd to get voted out of office, right into irrelevance.

[ProSense]

15. Have the "consensus" Dems said anything about the

21,000 troops Bush is sending to Iraq during the no timetable ultimatum they're proposing?

[Democrafty]

16. I am heartbroken that this is where we are right now.

People are DYING, and we're supposed to worried about whether Senators are EMBARRASSED??

Kerry and Feingold are NOT why this Congress is dysfunctional. I'm glad they've had the guts to be public servants and try to DO SOMETHING.

[Clarkie1]

32. What they are doing is dividing the Party by insisting on something

that won't bring the soldiers home any faster. I guess they have presidential ambitions, but it's a shame they put that before the good of the party and the good of the country.

[JI7]

36. the fact Kerry and Feingold are able to work together on this

despite the fact they both are thinking of running for President shows they are thinking about the country.

[Clarkie1]

40. Well, it won't bring the troops home any faster.

We are not the ones setting the policy. We should not be imposing deadlines on the Iraqis, we should be working with them. They don't want us there forever, either. Kerry's big daddy approach to dealing with the Iraqis is less than they deserve.

[JI7]

42. i'm not sure what that has to do with anything

we can't do most things since we aren't in power. does that mean we stop talking about our positions and what we believe should happen ?

one of the problems in Iraq is due to the Americans being there and how the Iraqi people view that.

[Inuca]

66. Big daddy approach????

What does this refer to? I do not see anything in what Kerry/Feingold said and proposed that qualifies as such.

[Democrafty]

71. This is the mainstream view.

Country before party.

[emulatorloo]

19. Kerry, Feingold -- DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO

to drag these fools forward.

[globalvillage]

26. I hope everyone has signed JK and Russ's letter.

We need to support these guys.

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/iraq/?sc=e.20060620

[Clarkie1]

33. I certainly have not.

I have, however, e-mailed senator Boxer (my senator) asking her to unite with the majority of Democrats in support of the Reid/Levine/Feinstein ammendment.

[LittleClarkie]

34. That's Reed and Levin, btw

And as Sen. Kerry has said, deadlines are what the Iraqis seem to respond to. They need to step up and defend themselves.

A vote without a deadline is a vote for quagmire.

[Clarkie1]

35. He's wrong.

A vote without a deadline is not a vote for a quagmire. Any quagmire is the doing of the administration.

I have seen no evidence that deadlines are what the Iraqis respond to. It isn't us vs. the Iraqis. It's us vs. the Republicans.

The only thing he is right about is that they need to step up and defend themselves, but an arbitrary deadline will not achieve that any faster.

He's wrong. I do not understand his preference for threatening the Iraqi people when we should be working with them. Nobody asked the Iraqi people if they wanted us to invade, and if Kerry has his way no one will ask the Iraqi when they want us to leave. They deserve more than that, and frankly we owe them more than than the kind of parent/child approach Kerry is promoting.

[JanusAscending]

78. Sorry Dear,

Good ole Barb is siding with Kerry /Feingold on this one. Hear she did a great job in the debate. She sent me an email today to petition my Sens. and Rep. to back Kerry! She knows the REAL DEAL when she sees it, and has a set of cojones unlike some male Dem Sens.!!

[leftchick]

60. they are ignoring the fact more Americans want the US out

not just the majority of Democrats. Most Americans! Everyone! The DLC can kiss my ass.

[noshenanigans]

25. Please, as if the DLC..

even represents the majority of Dems anymore. Feingold in '08!

[Clarkie1]

30. Kerry's "plan" accomplishes nothing except to divide the Party.

That's not what I look for in a leader.

I wonder when his next "deadline" will be. Instead of trying to figure out his deadline dates, he ought to simply be holding the administration accountable to do their job. If you noticed, they aren't doing it very well lately. They are the ones setting the policy. Setting an arbitrary deadline merely shifts the discussion away from the failures of their policy to a discussion of "cut and run" deadlines. It plays right into thier hands, will not bring the troops home any faster, and is a stupid and ineffective move politically.

[politicasista]

39. What does the General think about Kerry/Feingold's amendment? n/t

[Clarkie1]

41. I don't know.

But he's made it clear what he thinks of the administration's policy. That's more important, since it is the administration that is setting the policy, not Democrats. We should not be getting into the business of drawing dates out of a hat, we should keep the pressure on the administration to change course, bring the troops home sooner not later, and work with the Iraqis and surrounding countries to stabilize the region. No one knows what the situation in Iraq will be months from now, but we should be beginning to bring the troops and transferring responsibility to the Iraqis. Setting a deadline that the administration has no obligation to follow (and which in any case will not pass congress) is counterproductive. It takes the focus off the administration's failure to set a more effective policy and puts the focus on the the whole deadline/cut-and-run meme. It won't bring the troops home any faster, won't help to stabilize Iraq or the region, and doesn't give us any more leverage with the Iraqi government. It is a useless piece of legislation that does no one any good. First the proposed deadline was the end of this year, not he's moved it up to July. This will continue happening because we are not the ones setting the policy...they are. Since we are not the ones setting the policy we should act in a way that is most likely to influence the administration to move faster in the direction we want them to move. Continuing to draw arbitrary lines in the sand they can walk right over, mock, and kick in our faces will not accomplish that. It just gives the Republicans the ability to say that's all we know how to do. That's why they have expresses such delight in the past days at the idea of "debating Kerry." His proposal is exacltly what Dr. Rove ordered.

[politicasista]

43. What's more important is that the Dems come together and

unite on one withdraw plan instead of playing the blame game of who's dividing the party or who is being a "waffler" or not.

The people who are working to get out of Iraq are the same people that are getting dumped on by people who want out, but can't rally behind a person just cause of something that happened in the past. That's what keeps Dems divided. That's why Dems will continue to lose elections. Why don't you put your blame at the Dems that are sitting on the fence instead of one that is trying to unite the party.

[Clarkie1]

45. YES!

Please e-mail Kerry and urge him to support the Democratic Plan. We need to unite NOW.

[Mass]

49. Kerry and Feingold are going to vote for Levin amendment and will

not criticize Reid and co. So let's be clear. The ones who are against unity are not them, but Reid and Schumer. I feel sorry if they dont want to embarrass Hillary, but it is all it comes to.

[TayTay]

53. Please e-mail all Dems and ask them to unite behind Kerry/Feingold

We need a plan that shows a genuine difference with the Republicans and shows the American people that we can get out of Iraq and make that country responsible for it's own future. The Kerry/Feingold plan puts the burden of running Iraq on Iraqis where it belongs.

The tepid competing plan from the other Senate Dems does nothing but divide Democrats. They should be uniting behind a plan that takes into consideration what the Iraqi people want. You should e-mail General Clark and ask him to support the Kerry/Feingold plan for real change in Iraq.

[Mass]

48. Reid and Schumer expressing their anti-Kerry feeling to the NYT does

a lot more to divide the party than anything Kerry did, which was only to express what he thought and ask for a vote on it (there are a majority of people in this country who agree with Kerry and Feingold).

If Reid thinks his authority is threatened by the fact that Kerry supports something different than he does, Reid has to get over it.

As for not opposing Bush very well, I agree, but it is Reid and Schumer who fix the strategy, and they seem more busy attacking Democrats who help them than attacking Bush. Of course, we all understand that they both need to protect Hillary, but still.

[JanusAscending]

79. I wonder if you "bothered" to watch the debates tonight?

If you did, and really listened, I'd be interested to see what you have to say on Thursday. Maybe you will have changed your mind. I was surprised at some of the content of the debate, and Kerry had VERY STRONG arguments, and reasons for the cutoff date. He was a real Champion for America tonight. I think many of the dems ,come election day, will be sorry they chose not to support him on this, as will ALL of the Repukes!!

[madmusic]

37. Does anybody give a fuck...

what the Iraqis want? And didn't they ask for an 18 month timetable? It doesn't have to be about what the Dems or Repukes want. It can be about what the Iraqis want, which is what the Dems want.

Problem solved.

[Clarkie1]

38. I agree with you on that.

We should be working with the Iraqis to formulate a plan, not threatening them with deadlines.

Kerry's approach is dead wrong.

[madmusic]

44. Uh, that's not what I said.

They WANT a timeline. Thought it was 18 months.

[Clarkie1]

46. Have a link for that? n/t

[TayTay]

51. Here is the link

Washington Post OpEd from the Iraqi Chief of Security:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901237_pf.html

The Way Out of Iraq: A Road Map

By Mowaffak al-Rubaie
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; A17



There has been much talk about a withdrawal of U.S. and coalition troops from Iraq, but no defined timeline has yet been set. There is, however, an unofficial "road map" to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. This road map is based not just on a series of dates but, more important, on the achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq.

Iraq has a total of 18 governorates, which are at differing stages in terms of security. Each will eventually take control of its own security situation, barring a major crisis. But before this happens, each governorate will have to meet stringent minimum requirements as a condition of being granted control. For example, the threat assessment of terrorist activities must be low or on a downward trend. Local police and the Iraqi army must be deemed capable of dealing with criminal gangs, armed groups and militias, and border control. There must be a clear and functioning command-and-control center overseen by the governor, with direct communication to the prime minister's situation room.

Despite the seemingly endless spiral of violence in Iraq today, such a plan is already in place. All the governors have been notified and briefed on the end objective. The current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has approved the plan, as have the coalition forces, and assessments of each province have already been done. Nobody believes this is going to be an easy task, but there is Iraqi and coalition resolve to start taking the final steps to have a fully responsible Iraqi government accountable to its people for their governance and security. Thus far four of the 18 provinces are ready for the transfer of power -- two in the north (Irbil and Sulaymaniyah) and two in the south (Maysan and Muthanna). Nine more provinces are nearly ready.

With the governors of each province meeting these strict objectives, Iraq's ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008. In practice this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.

Kerry is right and completely in line with what the Iraqi government and people want.

[rox63]

55. Here's a link for you

A surprising _ and welcome _ plan for troop withdrawal:
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=SCHRAM-06-20-06

[madmusic]

73. Thanks, rox n/t

[Mass]

47. Reid and Schumer afraid of standing for something? Not exactly

a surprise. They are the same one who did not want to try to filibuster Alito, who did not support opposing the Patriot Act in 2005 (thanks to Feingold, it was opposed), ...

Reid still thinks a temprum on the Senate floor, then surrendering without condition is what an opposition party does.

Thanks for Boxer , Feingold, and Kerry for sticking to their guns.

[bklyncowgirl]

50. Whoopie! It's firing squad time! Everybody in a circle.

Last week the story was that the Democrats had no plan for Iraq.

This week the story is that they have two plans and can't agree on either of them. A few teeny weeny compromises on either side and they could have gotten their shit together, but no, teeny weeny compromises would have meant putting aside their big fat bloated egos.

ON EDIT just in case I wasn't clear

Perhaps Kerry & Feingold may have been able to compromise a little for the sake of party unity but the guys who are blasting Kerry for embarrassing them are way the hell out of line. If Kerry hadn't forced the issue these "consensus Democrats" would have been sitting huddled in the Senate cloakroom chanting "Together America can do better" while the Republicans blasted them as do nothing cut and run cowards.

Way to go guys.

[zulchzulu]

52. Actually it's the Kerry-Feingold Amendment...

There's some other guy named Feingold too, DLC. Please make a note of it...

[Mass]

54. Feingold is not DLC.

[zulchzulu]

57. I meant the amendment is co-sponsored by JK and Russ... n/t

[jsamuel]

67. hmm, but you don't hear them attacking Russ...

I wonder if they think Kerry is an easier target?

[zulchzulu]

56. By all means, we must stand behind our President in this time of war...

No impeachment, no censure, no disagreement about FISA... let's just ASSume the position.

:sarcasm:

[Mass]

59. BTW., typical NYTimes crap. Sources? As usual, the Times does

not care to tell us, except for a couple of presidential candidates like Biden and Dodd (who are clearly miffed that Kerry and Feingold are putting them in a difficult position, but it is so much more funny to attack Kerry and less risky these days), a bunch of unnamed staffers, and a DLC strategist.

BTW, Durbin, Boxer, and Feingold, whip, and assistant whips, support this bill. So, may be the Dems are not so mad, only a handful of them.

[flpoljunkie]

62. Kerry and Feingold are not afraid to LEAD while most Dems cower and

triangulate, hoping to offend no one.

Note the latest cosponsors of the Levin amendment--Senators Biden and Obama. Where's Bayh?


S.AMDT.4320
Amends: S.2766

Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl (submitted 6/19/2006)
COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. - 6/20/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 6/19/2006
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 6/19/2006
Sen Obama, Barack - 6/20/2006
Sen Reed, Jack - 6/19/2006
Sen Salazar, Ken - 6/19/2006

[zulchzulu]

65. Yep...I'm going to write a LTTE...

It was fairly pathetic claptrap speckled with some Rovian half-truths...

[goodhue]

61. not this democrat

[dpbrown]

68. Majority in Iraq and in the US favor a definite date for withdrawal

So Kerry's representing the mainstream view and Al From and the DLC Republican bootlickers are trying to smear him.


Nice work if you can get it.

[jazzjunkysue]

70. Seems to me we'll always be divided. Can't stop that. Also,

it seems nothing will go well in Iraq, no matter what. Can't stop that.

We can't undo the harm we've caused. Can't stop that.

The GOP will always swiftboat us, no matter what we do. Can't stop that.

Those who are inside the senate know what can be reasonably passed, and if one proposal will simply fail, then there's no point in falling on the sword.

If we can only propose an open-ended resolution at this time, then let's all get behind it.

We're still not in control of anything. IF we can get anything through about leaving, then let's unite for that.

This playing field is not ours, yet. A small movement in the direction of retreat will help. Failing totally won't.

What we want is meaningless if it's impossible.

[Beelzebud]

72. "Democratic Leadership" is what is fucking up our party.

They are the reason Kerry went weak-kneed in 2004.

They are the keepers of the dry powder.

How long are we going to operate within their system? They are ruiners.

It's hard to be in an opposition party, whoes leadership wants to do anything but oppose.