Kerry told Kucinich 'you can't cut and run Dennis' during the 2004 debate

[SavetheUSA]

listen here
http://ftp.radio4all.net/pub/archive/05.29.04/cnndeb-troops-k60d.mp3

As much as I would like to see the troops come home, Kerry was a huge part of the problem in 2004 and I cannot believe his hypocrisy on this subject. How many innocent people have died since 2004? How much more money has the Bush Administration looted? If Kerry realized how dire the situation is with Bush at the helm, he would have tried harder to expose Bush during the election season. He should have said something about Bush's bulge during the debates. He should have said something about them stealing the election. He enabled the idiot dictator to continue and now he wants the nomination again?

Dennis Kucinich has been fighting the Bush Administration every step of the way on their path to dictatorship and he still has the best plan for getting the troops home. (not redeployed) He is the true leader of the democratic party...and if Kerry is so mistreated by the media...well why do we hear about him all of the time, everything he has to say etc. I hear very little about Kucinich- just as in the primaries.

[Terran1212]

1. Kucinich: Go fuck yourself Kerry

Of course he's too nice to actually say that but I'd be happy if he did.

[Mass]

5. Actually, I think he would say: welcome aboard to Kerry and Murtha.

[Terran1212]

16. Kerry and Murtha are no where near Kucinich's political spectrum

They are hawks when its more politically correct to be; Kucinich is true to his stance -- he was blasting the war from the beginning, not caring how his political comrades and media would attack him for it.

[Mass]

21. Nobody disagrees, particularly when it comes to Murtha.

but I still think DK would disagree with you on that.

[blm]

27. Baloney - I supported DK for 33 YEARS, even thru his conservative voting

period. Don't even PRETEND that any of you know DK just to use him for your own agenda.

[Terran1212]

34. There's no agenda; he's been a truthteller

Whether its popular or not, not a stooge for political machines.

What he believes the truth is may change, but he doesn't change except for good reason.

[blm]

38. You think Pres Kucinich in Jan 2005 would have acted differently when

the UN tells him they need the US forces to stabilize Iraq more BEFORE they can go in?

As Pres dealing with the REALITY of what Bush would leave in Jan 2005, Kucinich would have taken a similar course as Kerry - stabilize Iraq however necessary to GET the UN to takeover as BOTH wanted. Kerry was in the position of having to say HOW more so than Dennis was.

[Cha]

33. I think he would too..

And that is what I'm saying. No need to hold grudges ..it gets you stuck in the past.

Look what happened to bush.

[CountAllVotes]

2. Kucinich should have been the next President!

I remember DK saying that the whole thing was going to come down to the war. I knew he was right.

He was the only candidate worth voting for in '04.

As for Kerry ... bwahahahaaaaaaa!!!!! :grr:

Day late & a dollar short for you idiot!

:kick:

[Caution]

3. Gee, I guess admitting openly to a mistake is now hypocrisy

gimme a fucking break.

[Mass]

6. Yes, in the MSM, it is called this way.

[Terran1212]

7. It would be better to have someone who knew the truth from the start

and wasn't afraid to say it.

There's 300 million Americans, maybe half that who are of age to be a Senator. A lot more of them were saying the truth before Kerry.

Democracy is having your officials represent popular will. If yours don't, don't defend them -- fire them. That's how a business and government should work. Get the best employment.

[Mass]

10. So, he should have stayed to support the war (that he did not support,

but...).

[Terran1212]

13. It's good he changed his views, but screw him as a Senator

There are far better people in the state of Massachussetts who wont vote for illegal wars to begin with.

[Mass]

17. Allow us in Massachusetts to judge of that.

[bigtree]

51. that's absurd

simplistic and wrong. If you spent anytime at all researching what Kerry has actually done and said, you would know that his commitment to the principles and agenda of the Democratic Party are second to none, especially in Massachussetts.

And, Kerry didn't vote for war. Not even Bush will point to the IWR as justification for his preemptive, unilateral invasion and occupation because what Bush ultimately did disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution. Bush wasn't waiting for the IWR to pass or fail. He was mobilizing troops, and claiming that he had the authority to invade, with or without the resolution.

If the IWR is so enabling then tell me what's in it that would have prevented Congress from voting to deny funds at any time, shutting the war down? It's ridiculous to keep holding up the ignored resolution as licence for Bush. It isn't the power to commit forces that Bush relied on is inherent in a loophole in the War Powers Act that allows him to commit forces for a short period and seek congressional approval later. In fact, Bush did formally notify Congress within the time period allowed to be certain they were in compliance with the route they had taken to war. The War Powers Act was convieniently included in the resolution. The rest was a vain attempt at restraining him that was brushed aside by presidential abuse of power and a compliant republican majority.

No way a Democratic majority would have behaved like the republicans did. The only REALISTIC route available to legislatively try to affect Bush's push to war, outside of voting 'no', was what Kerry and others did in seeking to strengthen the prevailing resolution with language of restraint. They did. It made sense that they would then vote for the resolution, KNOWING all along that Bush could just jump the process, ignore whatever they did, and push on to war. THAT"S what Bush ultimately did. Disregarded Congress and the IWR, disregarded the American people, and disregarded the international community, and invaded.

To blame John Kerry's IWR vote for that is ill-informed nonsense.

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War

TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[NYCGirl]

11. Kucinich was originally NOT pro-choice, but he changed his mind.

So why won't you give others the benefit of the doubt?

[rox63]

28. And didn't Kucinich become pro-choice

shortly before launching his presidential campaign? Funny timing, that...

[NYCGirl]

37. Funny how that works, isn't it? NT

[SavetheUSA]

41. We knew of the Niger forgeries before the war...

and Kerry was just playing along...

Kerry March 20, 2003: Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. The only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause. We're in this together

Kerry is obviously(so obviously) 'changing his mind' because he wants the nomination in 2008. But he will redeploy the troops to continue to war on terror...more lies, setting us up for more conflict.

[Mass]

4. So, you are unhappy he changed his views?

I love Dennis Kucinich, but I am missing your point here. You're right, he is very ignored, but why do you need to blast Kerry to tell us that.

[zulchzulu]

8. I'm glad people aren't allowed to change their minds...

:eyes: :think:

[LittleClarkie]

18. Golly, I sure wish more Dems were like President Bush

He NEVER changes his mind. What a guy. :sarcasm:

[LoZoccolo]

40. He believes the same thing on Wednesday...

...that he did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday!
- Stephen Colbert, of course

[NoPasaran]

But didn't Kucinich change his mind on choice?

I'm only voting for candidates who sprang from Zeus' forehead with the correct positions on every issue, thank you!

[Cha]

39. THen that lets DK out and

Dean if he ever runs for office again }( :popcorn:

[dogday]

9. Since we have found out this war is based on

a big pile of steaming horse crap, it has changed the minds of many, including a majority or the public, who now don't approve of this war, and the 70% of the soldiers themselves polled by Zogby want this war to end.

So let's reiterate, shall we?

War was found to be based on lies via Downing Street Memos and No WMDs plus False Niger Documents..

Majority of the United States Citizens do not approve of this war....

70% of the Soldiers want the war to end...

I like both Kerry and Kucinich, although Feingold is my first choice.. But let's remember where the blame really lies....

[CountAllVotes]

15. Kerry already knew that

I give him no slack, no slack whatsoever. I never believe a word he says either. Sorry *reality check*.

:kick:

[dogday]

22. Nobody knew any of that until after the election

Check the records.. All this information was tied up until after the election... Changed many people's minds...

[SavetheUSA]

65. We knew of the Niger Forgeries, the spying on the UN

Kerry had ample opportunity to stand up and speak the truth, but he just played along with Bush.

[dogday]

75. The official inquiry into the Niger Documents

had not been even been completed at that point... Why would he speak of it? Does not make sense to me..

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/JoshMarshall/102705.html

October 27, 2005

Congress keeps ducking Niger investigation

As Patrick Fitzgerald’s criminal probe grinds on, we shouldn't forget that a congressional inquiry into the Valerie Plame outing and the Niger uranium forgeries has never really started grinding at all. So with that in mind, let’s run down a short to-do list of things that need doing if and when Washington ever decides to get serious about getting to the bottom of this caper.

First, how about the investigation Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate intel panel, promised a year ago?

Chairman Roberts has been the great ally of the White House in covering up the administration’s bad acts on the WMD and flawed-intelligence fronts. He got the Democrats on his committee to agree to split up the Senate’s Iraqi WMD investigation — investigate flawed intelligence before the 2004 election, investigate political manipulation of intelligence and other administration bad acts after the election.

Like Lucy with her football, once the election was safely past, Sen. Roberts announced that his committee couldn’t make time for the promised second phase of the investigation. “It’s basically on the back burner,” Roberts said about phase two of the investigation in a speech in Washington last March. “The bottom line is that believed the intelligence, and the intelligence was wrong.” Now more than a year has passed, and nothing.

[SavetheUSA]

82. the forgeries were laughable! no inquiry was needed.

The UN laughed when they saw the forgeries and proved them so within hours using the internet. They didn't even have the correct stationary or signature. It seems like Jenna and Barb did it for laughs.

Then there was the phony dossier in the UK- which showed they plagarized a US student paper to make their case for war. That was all out in the open before the war as well.

[dogday]

84. But you don't have official proof

you would look like a fool on the Senate Floor...

[CountAllVotes]

32. the blame lies in those BLACK BOXES

and they are called voting machines!
As for Kerry, to hell with him.

I knew the "war" was based on a pack of lies and I'm no politician. You could smell the * a mile away the minute * stole the election in 2000!

:kick:

[dogday]

48. Then give them the evidence to bring this

to the public... Where is the evidence... Politicians just don't accuse without some proof.. I believe the boxes were tampered with, the rolls were purged, democratic precincts received faulty machines or not enough as well...

[CountAllVotes]

49. have you heard of RFK, Jr.?

Do you realize what he is doing at the moment?

[dogday]

56. Yes and I commend him, that is what I am saying

I don't appreciate Salon's attack on him..

I believe like you do, we need more evidence, it is catching on.. Lou Dobbs has been doing several news pieces on it...

I believe in 111 1-person 1-vote 1-piece of paper

[blm]

12. If Kerry took over in Jan 2005, he would have worked WITH the UN, just as

Dennis Kucinich would have. And Dennis was pushing immediate withdrawal while at the same time saying that the UN needed to take over.

Well - how would he have GOTTEN the UN to take over? The only way POSSIBLE - stabilize Iraq to any degree where UN moving in actually COULD have happened. Just like Kerry would have.

This is TWO years later - THREE ELECTIONS IN IRAQ LATER.

This is not a matter of hypocrisy, and only a SPINMEISTER would try to conclude that it is.

[CountAllVotes]

25. DK was against the "war" from Day #1

and that is the truth.

Kerry can kiss my ass!

:kick:

[ProSense]

29. So was Kerry! Kucinich can advocate his postion, like Kerry is doing! n/t

[SavetheUSA]

61. Kucinich introduce legislation last year to bring the troops home

Kucinich introduced the bipartisan Homeward Bound Act- With Walter Jones "freedom fries"....last year! Remember? No, of course no, because he was ignored. Then came Murtha with his 'redeployment' and the media went crazy on it. Now the meme is 'redeploy the troops'...which sucks!@! And Kerry is helping Murtha with this. Why didn't he support Dennis, Walter Jones, Abercrombie and Ron Paul last year?

[LittleClarkie]

63. And it was SO effective, wasn't it?

Now look, you don't have to support Kerry, but what about the amendment? Do you support the amendment?

[SavetheUSA]

68. I support bringing the troops home! NOT redeployment

Redeployment is setting us up to further the war on terror which is based on lies.

The Iraqis certainly don't want us to hang around protecting them...

[LittleClarkie]

71. OUT is OUT

And OUT is better than IN. Or would you rather Dennis continued to propose legislation that doesn't go anywhere but passes your standard. Then you can feel like someone is doing things according to how you think they should be done without anything actually GETTING done. Yeah, that's been effective so far. Get back to me after another 2500 dead and let me know how it's going, m'kay?

[bigtree]

76. Senate and House

How can you set up a match between members of different houses and expect some equity of action? As it stands in the Senate. Kerry's amendment is closer to Dennis' than the Levin alternative. Where is this platform that Kucinich possesses to make his ambition come true? Is this a race between the two? Or, will you just accept that there are political realities to being the minority party that prevent measures like Kucinich supports from enactment. Good for him for trying. It takes opposition like he's demonstrated to push this administration to act. But it would be merely symbolic and perhaps a non-starter in the republican Senate to try to forward a bill like the one Kucinich supports.

Like I say, Kerry has the most progressive amandment that exists today in the Senate. Instead of holding him to an impossible and unachievable standard, we should be commending him for his commitment and dedication against the Iraq war. Those of us who know more of him than the media rhetoric and snarky attacks, know he's been on the right side of this debate from the beginning, despite his IWR vote. Distortions and half-truths

[blm]

30. Jan 2005 UN tells Pres Kucinich he needs to stabilize Iraq BEFORE they can

So when the UN tells Pres. Kucinich he needs to stabilize Iraq BEFORE they can go in to alleviate the pressure from the US troops, what does he tell them?

[LittleClarkie]

14. Opinions change over time

I imagine if he saw Dennis today, he's say he was sorry and that Dennis was right.

As the situation has changed, and as milestones have come and gone with little improvement, Kerry's opinion has changed too. Mature people do that. They reassess, they reconsider, they change.

Would you say that John Kerry was "too little, too late" and a hypocrite in 1971 because he should have been against the Vietnam War all along, and especially shouldn't have fought in the thing? Did that make his contribution in 1971 a political stunt. Or do you think he was sincere.

I think he's sincere now. He takes his good natured time deciding, I'll grant you. He actually had to GO to Vietnam to make his decision about that war. You may think he should have arrived at his conclusion about Iraq sooner than this, but in a way, I don't see why it matters if it gets the job done.

How ridiculous would it be for someone to say they don't want his help on this issue because they don't trust his motivations. I should think help would be help regardless.

Bully for Dennis for being first. But I didn't really think it was a race. One could say that Feingold beat Kerry to the punch too. So? They've joined forces now. Why is that bad?

[Mass]

19. I am happy that Dennis changed his view on choice. May be I should

decide he is worth nothing because once, he was wrong on that?

[Minnesota Libra]

20. A person can't admit having made a mistake because its hypocrisy.......

.....is that what this is implying or are we to believe Kucinich has never made a mistake in his life??:wow:

Before someone decides to flame me allow me to point out that I like Kucinich and Kerry both but I don't for a second believe either one of them are perfect Presidential material.

Ok flame away.:boring:

[Vinnie From Indy]

23. LOL!

This post is too obvious for words. Operation divide and confuse is in full swing!

[charlie]

24. Can't go wrong with Kooch

If he was born taller or with John Edward's easy charm, maybe more would've listened to his positions instead of funnin' him for being a garden gnome. Such a shame, the guy's a buried gem amongst Democrats.

[ProSense]

26. Kerry is trying to bring the troops home! Whaa! Whaa! Geez! n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. And Kucinich changed his mind on abortion

Apperently a lot of politicians change their minds on some issues.

[Terran1212]

54. Don't even try to rationalize it like that

This war was raging and Kerry just didn't want to speak the truth. He should be replaced with someone who won't back down all the time.

[Mass]

58. Once again, allow people in MA to decide for that. Given who your

senators are, I certainly would not want somebody from your state to decide for us.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Kerry can't be 'replaced' until 2008, when he is up for reelection

[blm]

35. THIS IS YOUR THIRD THREAD ON THIS - How many do you need?

Because you can't argue with the LOGIC and FACTS In the other threads, you start a new one.

[Mass]

36. Nice hit and run from the OP.

[MsUnderstood]

42. umm it isn't hypocrisy its evolution

umm it isn't hypocrisy its evolution!

I hope with all my heart that you want people to CHANGE their minds and don't mean to throw their words back at them when they do.

It is a nasty trick the republicans use to make sheep think that changing your mind is BAAAAAAD and staying the course (even if it leads of a cliff) is goooooodd.

Whatever Kerry said and did in 2004 was before events between then and now that have shaped his current views and led him to his current position to fight to end the war.

So now that Kerry does come out your response is that 2 years ago he was weak so he shoulda coulda woulda and I love Kucinich?

Hey is Kuncinich doing anything int he Senate right now to try to end the war?

[Norquist Nemesis]

43. So, what's your point? Kerry should just shut up then?

:eyes:

[SavetheUSA]

57. I don't trust him

I want the troops to come home, but I think Kerry is trying to come in and take credit to set himself up to win the democratic nomination 2008.

[Norquist Nemesis]

60. Oh, so even though he is advocating a position you agree with

you would rather shoot him down because you believe he has ulterior motives. Gotcha.

[blm]

81. Oh brother - - Do you have NO SENSE of what Kerry has done for 35 YEARS

already? And he has done MORE THAN ANY OTHER LAWMAKER and gotten the LEAST AMOUNT OF CREDIT from the establishment and the media.

Get a grip - your agenda is PATHETIC.

[LoZoccolo]

44. Kucinich voted for the flag-burning amendment.

Like, a long time ago.

[blm]

45. Kerry and Kucinich BOTH WANTED the UN to takeover - DK was never in

the position to actually have to PLAN to make it happen with the UN while Kerry was in the position of having to work with the UN To make it happen.

Are you trying to claim that DK would NOT have worked with the UN and tried to meet their needs to stabilize Iraq before they would go in?

Do you take DK for an intransigent dumbass lie Bush who WON'T work with the UN?

[SavetheUSA]

46. Kucinich changed his political position on abortion

because we live in a democracy and he must have realized that he doesn't have a right to legislate his spiritual position. That is why he seems the perfect person to wake up the republicans who are just as confused.

Kerry's 'mistake' has enabled the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, in the most gruesome ways...and the number of injuries, distroyed familes, depleted uranium spread all over the country to commit genocide for years to come....and then there are our soldiers....

1971 Congressional Testimony: "We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country," Kerry said. Kerry called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam, calling the war "the biggest nothing in history."

Feb 26, 2004 - "No, I do not regret my vote ... No, I would not leave now. I think that you can't leave now."

1971 Congressional Testimony: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

February 27, 2004: "I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade."

[LoZoccolo]

47. So what's your point?

Is your point that Kerry shouldn't change his mind, but change it back to what it was before? What's your point?

[LittleClarkie]

53. nevermind

oops

[SavetheUSA]

55. My point is....

that DUers should be very suspicious of Kerry's intentions. He is out for himself and to win the nomination for 2008. He is a poor leader and should not even be in consideration. If he did manage to win, he would still play along with all of the bullshit that Bush has been spreading. Maybe we would redeploy to hit Iran, Syria who knows? He cannot be trusted.

[LittleClarkie]

70. Well, several of us don't share your suspicion

And that's because we've actually spent time paying attention to the man.

And if Dennis, God bless him, is such a GOOD leader, why does he get ignored time and again. Shouldn't people listen to a leader?

[bigtree]

78. this innuendo and speculation takes away from your attempt

to paint Kerry as dishonest. No facts, just bad-mouthing slander.

[LoZoccolo]

80. We should be suspicious of Kucinich.

[blm]

85. What a crock - Kerry is the only person I would trust to OPEN THE BOOKS on

BushInc.


But, thanks for showing us your REAL AGENDA. You want us all to pretend we have no sense of historic record just to humor you?

[Mass]

50. LOL - Two people - two standards.

Obviously, you think that only your hero is right. This is a very shallow view if you are more than 15.

BTW, thanks for quotes that dont have any context. This is sign of the weakness of your arguments.

[Mass]

52. I can probably find quotes from Kucinich to make the same effect.

[SavetheUSA]

62. why don't you do that?

might clear things up.

I still feel that sending our troops to die and kill in an illegal war is much worse.

[Mass]

64. May be because I dont see the point. I am not trying to distort DK's

position. I know he was and still is anti-war. I like him because of it. But, I dont see the point of attacking Kerry when he comes to the best position the senate had (and him alone, when he is not the only co-sponsor of this bill and who knows who brought the "redeploy" language).

Happy to see you like that, I dont.

[blm]

66. Kerry didn't take this country to war - neither did the IWR which would've

PREVENTED war if a president implemented it honestly.

Bush was going to war with or without ANY RESOLUTION. That IWR that you blame so much also put inspectors back into Iraq, and took Syria and IRan off the table as next targets. Want to blame the Dems for that, too? You would prefer that Bush had war HIS WAY WITH NO RESTRICTIONS AND IRAN AND SYRIA INVADED RIGHT AFTER THE FALL OF BAGHDAD?

[SavetheUSA]

72. Why didn't Kerry tell everyone that Bush kicked the inspectors out?

Bush is still going around saying that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in.

The UN inspectors said they had found nothing, needed more time, Saddam even asked for a debate with Bush but he kicked everyone out and started bombing.

What did Kerry say?
Kerry March 20, 2003: Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. The only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause. We're in this together

[Mass]

73. Well, can you provide us the complete text of the statement.

[blm]

79. Kerry said many times that Bush rushed to war when inspectors were proving

there was no need, and it was Kerry who informed us that diplomacy was working, too, and that Saddam was ready to agree to leave Iraq peacefully.

Or did David Horowitz not put that in the talking point sheet?

[seabeyond]

67. working on two years. 2004 is different than 2006

you can't leave that out of the equation. but you do.

[ladjf]

69. Kerry has either obfuscated or outright changed his position so

many times that his words have become as "white noise", in other words, meaningless.

[bigtree]

77. prove it. back it up

otherwise its just a baseless slap. what credibility is there in that?

[ladjf]

86. I have stated my opinion about Kerry's style. You have stated

your opinion of my post. It's up to the readers to decide whether (1) Kerry is ever vague to the point of obfuscation in his public pronouncements or (1) if Kerry has the habit of changing his political positions.

There is as small , but very vocal group of DU posters, that will pounce on any negative remark about Kerry. There is never an interest in true debate , but rather, immediate attempts to simply discredit the poster. I usually recognize the ID's. Yours is new to me.

[blm]

Really? Wanting weapon inspectors and diplomacy to work so war didn't have

to happen is a change from WHAT?

Are you angry that he keeps offering solutions dealing with Bush's war in the reality of 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006?

You prefer some intransigent stand that doesn't factor in anything? Kerry says we are in our third different war right now in Iraq - is he wrong? Can you explain how the insurgency now is the same as when we went in?

[ladjf]

87. Ah, my old Nemesis blm. I was expecting to hear from you.

Actually, Kerry has been producing some reasonable ideas lately, albeit much too late to have done him or the Country any good in 2004. With a majority of the Country of the opinion that the Iraq war was a mistake, it doesn't take too much courage to suggest that we start bringing the troops home.
He first suggested that they be out by the end of 2006 then switched to 2007. I'd settle for either.

Kerry may or may not be a good Senator. But, he voted to give Bush authority to do whatever he deemed necessary to settle the Iraq situation. Now he says that he was wrong. I wish he had said that in 2004. I know that not one word I say will change anything you think about this, it never has. I think there are better candidates for the Presidency and for that reason, I'm willing to point out what I believe to be flaws in Kerry's political conduct as I would hate to go through another debacle as 2004 was. (I am certain, however, that he would have attained the Presidency had it not been for election fraud by the Republicans. So, it's not like I'm saying that his is a total loser.)

[blm]

88. Uh...what nutcase would stick with a May 15 date that has passed?

Kerry adjusted to bring on more to support him on withdrawal - Feingold, Boxer, Harkin and Durbin. It's not his perfect withdrawal plan, but it gets more voices out there so he isn't on his own.

[INdemo]

74. This is a product of republican propaganda at its best...

even Democrats absorb it and repeat it.....That statement was made at a different time and certainly different circumstances. What was the exact content of Kucinich's statement?

[spag68]

83. Kerry

I don't mind discussion of any dems. But it does none of us any good to flame a dem. just because he or she does not hold exactly your position. Flame any rethug you want but please keep the discourse on dems. civil.

[Moderator]

89. Locking....

A similar thread was locked earlier. Please
repost without this subject line.