Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

“I was wrong. I apologize. Now let’s move on.” - A Speech for John Kerry

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 09:02 AM
Original message
“I was wrong. I apologize. Now let’s move on.” - A Speech for John Kerry
Published on Friday, May 21, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

“I was wrong. I apologize. Now let’s move on.” - A Speech for John Kerry

by Gerald Epstein

John Kerry’s vote for the Iraq War resolution has left him tongue tied on Iraq and his campaign in a state of paralysis. Here is a speech for Kerry to help move his campaign and our country past this deadly logjam:

My fellow Americans,

In the fall of 2002, like most of my fellow Senators, I voted in favor of the resolution giving George Bush the authority to invade Iraq. I did so in the belief that before invading Iraq, George Bush would establish that Iraq was a clear and present danger to America, that he would put together a true multinational coalition, and that, finally, he would exhaust all peaceful options.

I now realize that I was wrong. And, unlike George Bush, who can not think of any mistakes he has made since 911, much less apologize for them, I apologize to you, the American people for my error.

At the time that I voted for the resolution, I did not know that George Bush had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq since even before he was inagurated President; that the Bush administration was lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Bush’s own intelligence officers were doubtful about the case for WMD’s; that George Bush’s war plans did not include enough troops, enough body armor or enough tanks for our soldiers; that our brave men and women would have to write home to beg their families to send water and batteries, because our war planners had not taken the trouble to send them enough basic necessities; that George Bush and his advisors had no plans for what to do after the war was won because they believed that the Iraqis would throw flowers at our troops, when, instead, they threw rocket propelled grenades; I did not know that George Bush would sit back and let an Iraqi minority riot and loot, and thereby undermine the U.S. from the very first day of “victory”, or that Bush’s defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld believed at the time, that Iraqi’s, like teenagers, were just harmlessly sowing their wild oats; I did not know that in order to invade Iraq George Bush would secretly drain crucial resources away from our fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and not tell the Congress or American People about it; that George Bush had no exit strategy, no strategy for a real victory; far from it, that George Bush would say “bring ‘em on”, dangerously taunting the Iraqi insurgents to attack our troops, even though it would be they and not him, who would have to pay the terrible price; I did not know, that George Bush had no ability to hold prisoners in accordance with internationally acceptable standards, so that now, America’s claims to the moral high ground in Iraq are increasingly seen as hollow and hypocritical; I did not know the depths of the venality, incompetence and arrogance of this Administration, so I did not realize that this administration was about to lead our country into the biggest foreign policy blunder of a generation, if not a lifetime.

Perhaps I should have known. Certainly, there were plenty of critics, writing on the internet, marching in the streets, appearing on radio and TV, who predicted with uncanny accuracy, many of things that have now come to pass. Perhaps I was blinded, by my trust in our President, our Commander-in –Chief, when he told us that Iraq represented an imminent threat. I can see now, sadly, that, along with the American People, I was clearly wrong to place my trust in George Bush. Continues: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0521-12.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. He's already said he was wrong and apologized. He doesn't need...
Edited on Sat May-22-04 09:14 AM by wyldwolf
...to jump through hoops for "commondreams."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
92. When? Where?
Got link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #92
106. Here. There. Got link
“Senator,” said Alterman, “I think you may be the most qualified candidate in the race, and perhaps also the one who best represents my own values. But there was one overriding issue facing this nation during the past four years, and Howard Dean was there when it counted, and you weren’t. A lot of people feel that moment entitles him to their vote, even if you have a more progressive record and would be a stronger candidate in November. How are you going to win back those people who you lost with your vote for this awful war?”

(snip)

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”

“The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

(snip)

The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. “Senator,” he said, “the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.” Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.” And then he was gone.
...more...

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
110. I haven't seen him apologize. It looks as if he's avoided that.
Before the war, I heard him quietly tell someone he was against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:10 PM
Original message
here it is again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radwriter0555 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
121. Why should kerry apologize for being LIED TO? BUSH should apologize and
RESIGN for lying and forcing GOOD MEN like john kerry to do the WRONG THING.

SCREW THAT. Kerry didn't do ANYTHING wrong.

Shame on you for buying the rovian lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. A lot of people had the same position as John Kerry

A lot of people thought Saddam had WMDs

A lot of people thought that was a bad thing

A lot of people thought the President wouldnt lie about something so serious

A lot of people thought Colin Powell wouldn't lie when he said that they would do EVERYTHING they could to avoid going to war

A lot of people still think it is bad for a bad person to have bad weapons.

So I really don't see what the problem is. Sure there were some people who held a different position, like me and you and commondreams, but I am realistic enough to know that JK's position was the same as many - they don't want bad people to have bad weapons, and they thought Colin Powell wouldn't lie about something so serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
27. fallacy ad populum
Edited on Sat May-22-04 11:52 AM by Marianne
I agree with the writer. Kerry needs to wipe that slate clean. He can do so gracefully and with dignity. I do not think it will cost him. In fact, a case could be made by some, that because he does not, he is actually looking forward to being in control over Iraq, likes the occupation, and all of the business opportunities available to American business. :shrug: As it is, we are left to wonder or subscribe to some magical thinking and insist that Kerry has our wishes at heart--to get out of Iraq and give the stuff back to it's owners, the Iraqi people. I may be wrong, but in my way of thinking, that is the "right thing to do"

Until then he will be continually sidestepping and will miss out on making a strong case against Bush, who is running almost solely on his war.

As far as I am concerned, that is, and I know I am not the only one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. exactly, wipe the slate clean!
Some people here seem to miss the point of the concluding paragraphs. Kerry needs to stop saying he will change the course and that we can't run high and dry, blah, blah, blah ...

We need to get the fuck out of there. PERIOD. And he should say HE will lead the way OUT. This business of working with an international coalition is now complete folly and wishful thinking. We need to LEAVE Iraq for the international community. WE ARE THE PROBLEM: we have blown all credence and lack any moral authority to be part of the solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
45. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. I disagree with Epstein's premise
John Kerry’s vote for the Iraq War resolution has left him tongue tied on Iraq and his campaign in a state of paralysis. Here is a speech for Kerry to help move his campaign and our country past this deadly logjam:


I agree with the things expressed in the speech, but I don't need to hear Kerry say it. Why doesn't Epstein just speak for himself?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. Epstein is VAIN and STUPID. He doesn't UNDERSTAND that Kerry's vote
Edited on Sat May-22-04 10:29 AM by blm
wasn't FOR war, it was for war as a LAST RESORT.

Kerry already apologized for TRUSTING a president to implement the IWR as written.

If Epstein doesn't understand that then he is STUPID. If he understands that and just wanted something to feel smarter than Kerry about, then he is VAINGLORIOUS.

Either way he's an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. that would be a good argument`
would like to hear more dems make it more often though instead of agreeing even to this very day that saddam was a threat and it is a good thing he is gone and now that we are in there we have to finish the job.

they come off sounding like bush bots with all these bs slogans.

they need to articulate a plan that ackowledges the MANY mistakes made on all sides and express some legit OUTRAGE that we've all been lied to.

but whadda we expect from a bunch of politicos :shrug:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Semantics.
Would you trust a man like George Bush if he told you he would use war as a last resort?

Would you?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. As a Senator, you're SUPPOSED to trust a president to implement
the resolutions as written.

Kerry apologized for trusting Bush to do it...he is exactly where most of the American people SHOULD be at this point. - recognizing BUSH'S duplicity and incompetence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. blm...that is a bit disingenuous
the resolution was quite clear...the president could use the military as he saw fit. I agree Kerry needs to do a big ol mea culpa. That and start harping on BBV or he is not going to win...unless of course he owns the programmers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
56. So did Biden-Lugar, yet look at all the devoted Dean supporters
who claim that was an antiwar position....including YOU for quite a while.

BTW...NAME ONE LAWMAKER WHO HAS INVESTIGATED AND EXPOSED MORE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION THAN KERRY. I'd like to see you at LEAST TRY, Gbnc...then maybe you'd have an ounce of legitimacy to YOUR own claims that somehow it's Kerry who is corrupt.

Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #56
84. Didn't say he was...just real silent on an issue that is
going to affect him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #56
85. You should just change your nic to Biden-Luger
save some time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #85
111. If the same old weren't singing the same old, then
the lyrics might be different....however....the song remains the same.

So good of you to hold me to a separate standard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #111
122. lighten up Gunga Din
it was meant in good humor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. same here....
if you knew me better it would be more apparent.

btw...I'm way more a fan of your posts than you may be aware, mainly for the slightly abrasive humor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. As a Senator, you are SUPPOSED to use common sense.
Kerry doesn't live in a vaccum. He knows good and well what the Bush family is about...and it isn't about being trust worthy. Remember Kerry was gunning for them during the Iran-Contra trials so he KNOWS what their agenda is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Kerry didn't vote for the war though.
Kerry authorized force as leverage against Saddam Hussein, but only supported it as a last resort. Keep in mind we didn't even have inspectors on the ground in October 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Again...the argument that it was only for "last resort"
This canard needs to be put to rest. Kerry knew full good and well that the Bush's can't be trusted to keep their word. He more than likely knew of PNAC and their plans to invade Iraq.

Kerry doesn't live in a vaccum people. He is very aware of the real plans that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy had for the invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Consequence or Right?
If you are making an argument strictly on the goodness of consequences, then Kerry is allowed to use any means at his disposal to attain office and enact liberal policy.

If you want to shift the debate to grounds of right, Kerry clearly can give the president authority to deal with foreign tyrants, since what the president does is the president's responsibility, not Kerry's.

Either way, you lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Framing the debate your way...
Would put me in an untenable position. Kerry does have the right but I fail to see HOW you got to your position from what I said. It begins to walk into the territory of a non-sequitor.

In order for the people to believe that Kerry's vote for the war was based SOLELY on the fact that Kerry believed Bush would be a man of his word is a huge stretch of the imagination.

It is almost as if there is some alternate universe that people believe in...one where Bush is good and very trustworthy...and another where he isn't...some how they intersected for a minute during the vote but now they are gone again.

Kerry and all the other Democrats know full well the reputation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest. They have lived in the Beltway for years and years. To believe that these people can be trusted is a cruel joke and it was a cruel joke that was played on America and America's military.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #35
68. Bread and Butter philosophy, my friend.
Edited on Sat May-22-04 07:10 PM by JHBowden
You can either build an ethical case on teleological grounds or deontological grounds.

If it is all about knowing the consequences of what would happen, the resolution would have passed anyway, and Kerry is allowed to take whatever action he sees fit to win the election.

If it is about right, giving the president the leverage to get the inspectors in was the responsible thing to do on Kerry's part; Kerry isn't responsible for Bush's lack of judgment.

It isn't obvious how you have a case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #68
88. Please explain something for me.
What is the relationship between teleological and deontological ground and the consequences argument you are making.

Are you saying that because Kerry may have known before hand that the resolution would pass that it makes it OK for him to vote for it? Based simply on the notion that he knew it would pass anyway so it didn't matter how he voted?

On the "right" (morally right or "rights") argument...surely Kerry would have to take into consideration that IF he voted FOR this that he would also bear some RESPONSIBILITY if war broke out and people were killed.

Kerry should have known that Bush was going to start this war. Bush wasn't going to stop with inspectors...his whole cabinet was chock full of PNAC'ers.

So either Kerry was duped or Kerry was FOR the war. I have a hard time believing Kerry is stupid enough to be duped by these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. then those who supported afghanistan war should apologize also
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
47. Kerry was just plain covering his
electoral ass with that STUPID vote. And now he is tongue-tied or rather he's talked himself in knots justifying and explaining that vote. Trust Bush?! Please. If he trusted Bush, failed to heed Ritter and didn't think for one minute that Bush and his PNACers would take that authorization and run with it, then he's the stupid one.

Besides after Bush failed to get a real coalition and thumbed his nose at the UN in early 2003, where was Kerry's outrage? In fact, until Dean spoke up and out last summer and fall, where was Kerry's outrage?!

He'll get my vote 'cause I have no fucking choice but this is the very reason I turned against him after October 2002 and I WILL NEVER GET OVER his wimpazoid enabling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. How was Kerry supposed to justify all of that publically?
Was he really to go to the American people with a conspiracy theory? PNAC and Ritter? Are you kidding? These are not the only two forces in the universe. Clinton, for example, was fairly certain that Saddam had WMD's.

And whether or not you like Bush, it is not as easy to disregard the office of the President as you might think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #48
76. How?
by joining the 23 other Dems, including his senior senator Kennedy, who voted NO. If many on this board and throughout the world didn't trust Bush, why would Kerry. And no, I'm not saying he should have gone to the American people with the PNAC stuff, though he surely could have since the bastards laid it out like a friggin road map in black and white! All I'm saying is HE knew what these Bush bastards were about going back to Iran-contra, BCCI ... and still stuck his finger in the wind. And despite what Clinton MIGHT have believed about Saddam, he didn't launch a pre-emptive war.

Also spare me the bullshit about the presidency, the repukes disregarded the office of president for all 8 Clinton years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #76
97. Those 23 Dems were not all knowing.
Kerry didn't launch a pre-emptive war. Bush did. Commander-in-Chief isn't just a title.

Clinton didn't launch a pre-emptive war, but he was completely ready to. Brinkmanship is a dangerous game, but it kept Saddam under control. Kerry followed Clinton very closely during his term, and talked about Saddam just as tough as Bush did. All the world opinion wouldn't have changed whether or not Saddam had weapons.

>>Also spare me the bullshit about the presidency, the repukes disregarded the office of president for all 8 Clinton years.<<

Good for them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #97
99. No, Kerry didn't launch a pre-emptive war
but like shake and bake, Kerry HELPED Bush launch one. At the time of the IWR vote Kerry was first and foremost a Senator representing his MA constituency. That constituency was overwhelmingly opposed to war and let him know so through calls and emails. He thumbed his nose at the people of the great Bay State for his political expediency and now it has mighty costs: death, destruction, financial ruin and Kerry's credibility!

And as for your "Good for them" comment. WTF. You MISS the point. Many here and across the country only asked that elected reps do their friggin homework and job ... question and challenge a regime that was hell bent on war rather than rubber stamp one. That's a lot different than tit-for-tat and a far cry from 2 wrongs ... blah, blah, blah.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Well, then riddle me this...
Would you have gotten over the media barrage inflicted by the GOP painting Kerry as UN Patriotic for his "NO" vote and IF they had found WMD...if Kerry made a "mistake" voting no to the war and the US was in fact imperiled by WMD it would have ruined his chances for the presidency forever...

zat make you feel better?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #50
77. he's being pilloried
and depicted by the press as Bush wants ANYWAY; shit he's being put on the fucking defensive about his medals and ribbons and what he did or did not do with them ... so why not have stood for the fucking truth when it mattered. There was plenty of evidence that there were no WMDs, that inspections were working ... And if he'd been wrong, so what about his career, his chances for the presidency since if Bush had been right, Bush would be invincible now and Kerry's vote would not matter one way or another. As it is Bush was wrong as hell and it's still a close race. So your point is NOT well taken.

And yeah, I do feel better!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #77
89. And...
Your statements are dubious and intellectually dishonest. For example:
The press is and has always been pro Bush. There is nothing that can be done about this until the press decides to report the Truth. Several news services, AP, API and CBS have broken ranks with the rest and refuse to cover for Bush any longer albeit slowly, the news has become more accurate.

Kerry did stand up to defend his war record. In case you missed it, here is a brief recap: USA Today

And as far as this being a close race... the numbers again prove you inaccurate. Never in the history of elections has an incumbent at this time of the year with poll numbers lagging in the 40s ever been elected to the presidency. As far as playing the blame game as to his vote giving the president War Powers..here is an excellent article by Ted Kennedy explaining perhaps what you need to hear:
Bush's Distortions Misled Congress in it's War Vote

Believe it or not, I'm as angry as you are about the turn of events. But I want to direct my anger at the right person. BUSH!
Bush needs to be held accountable for his actions. His lying to the world, instituting a precedent never before heard of, the US initiating a preemptive strike on a soverign to fight terrorism. Bush has a laundry list of treasonous acts that need to be addressed.

Meanwhile, I will support Kerry for the presidency and although he may not meet your criteria as the "perfect" warrior. He is willing to take on the job and do the best he can to fix the damage Bush has done to the World and hopefully restore the peace and prosperity we enjoyed for eight years.

If venting at me has made you feel better...then great!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #89
91. No, your statements are dubious and intellectually dishonest
since as you say: The press is and has always been pro Bush, then
therefore (going back to your prior response), no matter how Kerry voted on IWR, the press would have been creamed him. That's exactly the point. Since the Bush loving press will level him anyway, he should have stood up for the truth. At least then, he'd have more integrity, credibility and ability to fight NOW.

He needs to stop pandering to the press, to stop weighing his words to see how this or that is going to play. It's the same crap that doomed Al Gore during the Florida debacle (see Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close to call).

As for Kerry standing up for his war record, again you MISS the point. The press has him on the ropes defending, being another defensive Democrat. Defend your vote, defend your record... How weak. Kerry SHOULD be on the fucking offensive. Bush has a record to defend and Kerry needs to speak the way he in did in 1971. People want strength, not someone constantly having to answer for what he did, blah, blah, blah. And I have heard Ted Kennedy defend Kerry's vote ad nauseum. Still rings hollow; too bad Kerry isn't more like Kennedy.

As for poll numbers which actually I don't trust. The fact remains Bush may be dropping but I don't see Kerry rising significantly

And finally, since Kerry has gone along with Bush on so much, I have little faith he can fix the mess HE HELPED CREATE.

I'll vote for him too, but only because I have NO CHOICE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #91
102. Al Gore wasn't doomed because of the press..
Why do you keep mixing facts with fiction?

Al Gore WON the popular vote by 500,000 votes. The court appointed Bush not the people..."Gore WON"!...You think Gore lost because of pandering.... In spite of all that Gore did wrong in your estimation...HE WON!

This is my last response to your post because until you have command of the facts and understand strategy, it's no use.

Kerry will do better than Gore. For the time being, Kerry HAS to weigh his words to the press until they stop spinning his words in Bush's favor. Good strategy has nothing to do with his integrity or credibility. I applaud him for running his own race because it is the only race he CAN run...He can't run it your way because HE is not YOU..and besides, you(and I) are not aware of all the factors that may be going on behind the scenes.

This is Bush's War and Bush has to be held accountable for his actions. If at the end of the day, meaning after the elections and Bush's loses. Then it's Kerry's problem. If you access his site he has outlined a contingency plan for Peace in Iraq. John Kerry

I think afaic..we can agree to disagree on *facts*.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. I really sick of your crap
about my intellectional dishonesty, command of the facts, etc. You have consistently missed my points. I say what I know to be true and I do have facts. You pick, choose, distort and peddle your own fictions.

And I'll be delighted if you quit responding since yours are losing arguments

Carolina M.D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
112. No,No,NO
Senator Byrd saw his duty, Senator Kennedy saw his, Waxman saw his, Kucinich saw his duty as a congessman all plainly enough. Kerry still has not separated himself from the Bush policies and comes off as vacillating and phoney!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
29. Except that it let Bush launch the war...
and it wasn't really a last resort, was it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
54. Which he could have done WITHOUT a resolution.
The resolution DID get weapons inspectors in and prevented Bush from further action into Syria and Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. This thread will bring out the venom.
Already 4 pro-Kerry supporters are attacking Epstein. A five-year old on LSD could have seen that this war was a farce. The fact that Kerry voted FOR it, especially given who the CIC was, is a slap in the face to Democrats.

Every Democrat who voted for this illegal war should be held responsible for it along with the Republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Does that mean denying them a vote? Then Congress is solid Republican
Edited on Sat May-22-04 10:57 AM by jpgray
This does not create an environment more conducive to progressive views; it does the opposite. The idea that we have to burn down everything that's imperfect in order to build something better is silly. We work with what we have, we may have a shot; we tear down what we have, the Republicans will fill the vacuum. Then the secret service will continue to detain Green party leaders via the 'no fly list', the FCC will continue to turn the media into a state propaganda arm, and fear/bigotry-based war and propaganda will rule. In this environment the progressive utopia you evidently envision will have its leaders divided and removed from public view before anything even gets off the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. 95 to 3 says you are wrong.
We don't have shit to work with anymore. So the only option we have is to purge the whole lot of them and start over.

There is no utopia and I'm not silly enough to believe in one. But there can be balance and right now we don't have it. The power is going in one direction and we need to change its course and we can't do this by sitting around clucking our tongues at people who want change from the status quo.

You can be part of the problem or part of the solution...what is it going to be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. How do you purge these people?
How do you replace them with superior politicians when the district/state is far too conservative to ever elect such a person? If you're going to ax conservative Democrats in conservative states/districts, they will be replaced by Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. There are no easy answers but...
there is a lot of hard work to do. I live in a very conservative state (Indiana) yet I have managed to find a candidate that I can get behind and support his campaign. He is very progressive, anti-war, and thinks Bush is a crock of shit.

I have gotten involved with his campaign because what he says motivates me to work for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Your work is pretty much worthless
if Bush gets three or four more scalias on the bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. And who's fault will it be if Bush does?
The current Democratic leadership in Washington should tell Bush to fuck off when it comes to appointing judges. Yet, they continue to play the charade that Bush is duly elected when he isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. You have no idea how to get Democrats elected.
Here in Illinois we've been putting foot to Republican ass for decades. Sometimes one has to play the game and talk to talk in order to win and make policy. In the end, that is all what counts. Senator Durbin, for instance, is very good at talking moderate while voting very liberal. Kerry also has this ability.

Public pledges of ideological purity only results in losing over and over again. Think about it; the Republicans don't make Bush hold up an AK-47, bash immigrants, diss poor people, and so forth. It is not an accident a lot of the Clinton-Gore-Kerry haters on this board are from conservative states like Utah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. yup, look at where Barbara Boxer got elected
the state where reagan and nixon are from. we aren't as comfortable left wing as massachusettes or even new york yet as can be seen with arnold's election. but it shows improvement from a time when reagan and nixon got elected here. and also the immigrant bashing by pete wilson which wasn't too long ago. and while california voters voted FOR the anti gay proposition a few years ago even though all top democrats opposed it, there is now mostly support,e ven from the republican governor on civil unions and he also opposes a congressional amendment banning same sex marriage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. "Public pledges of ideological purity "
Really? This works very well for the Republicans and last time I looked they control the House, Senate and WH.

Tsk, tsk...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. The Illinois GOP destroys itself for this reason.
The Republicans can be competitive in this state, but the base here always wants to GOP candidates to appear extreme on all sorts of issues. I remember seeing an Oberweis ad during the primaries bashing immigrants, and there has been all sorts of sucking up to the weird fundie types that live in DuPage county. As a result, the GOP here is in complete shambles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. "they will be replaced by Republicans"
yup, there ARE actually people who agree with conservatives and want what they have to offer. remember during the pennsylvania senate republican primary with toomey vs. specter. many on du wanted toomey to win because he was very extreme right wing and specter is more moderate. why was this ? because most americans are not extreme right, but they aren't all very liberal either and they like peoplelike specter. so liberals wanted toomey to be the nominee to make it easier for hoeffel to win. but if the country is already more left winning, why is this an issue. just the fact that hoeffel is more left than specter should be enough. but it's reality. many are not totally left or right. some are very conservative on issues like abortion rights and gay rights yet against things like nafta and other trade deals. and many are very pro gay rights and abortion righs, yet also support nafta which is seen as a liberal issue many on the left.

right now in louisiana a conservative democrat like john breaux is trying to help kerry get elected. and on many issues they disagree but by breaux helping kerry get elected, kerry would be able to oppose many things breaux supports such as drilling in alaska wildlife refuge and raising cafe standards. and he can oppose many things breaux supports such as bans on abortion rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. I agree 100%
they should be held accountable.


Vote em out...wait we can't...they have Diebold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Again, if you 'vote them out,' Republicans will fill that vacuum
It's really eye-opening to see how little that matters to some here. When they have all three branches, they can do whatever they want. An ineffective opposition is bad, a nonexistent opposition is much worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
38. Does it matter if Republicans fill the vacuum?
95 to 3 says it doesn't. There is no real opposition party these days. Yes, we have some players who talk the talk but in the last 4 years look at what they have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
53. YOU aren't the one going in front of the American people
Edited on Sat May-22-04 05:34 PM by blm
to debate the whole issue, are you?

I'd put my money on the guy who goes in front of the American people and says that he's sorry he trusted Bush to implement the resolution in good faith and that he expected greater competence from a president and his cabinet WAY OVER the guy who gets in front of the American people and says "See...I told you Bush couldn't be trusted, but you wouldn't listen."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. I never trusted numbnuts. NEVER!!!!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. Neither did I. But, Kerry is in a position that NOONE else is in.
Edited on Sat May-22-04 06:34 PM by blm
He HOLDS the stronger argument with the American people and one that a million Epsteins, you or me will NEVER have over the course of the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #64
83. Bold times...demand bold actions blm.
Edited on Sun May-23-04 01:06 AM by God_bush_n_cheney
the nuanced political BS is not going to work.


We need the man that spoke these words...

"atrocities on a day-to-day basis," and "how do you tell a man he's the last man to die for a mistake."

John wants to keep us in Iraq for 4 more years. I guess he does not want to tell the last man...he died for a mistake.

We talk about George not attending any of the funerals of our dead. How many has John attended?

Andy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #83
114. YOU don't want Kerry to win....FINE. Go enjoy your life.
Edited on Sun May-23-04 03:19 PM by blm
I will keep fighting to defeat Bush in November for my child and planet while you and your friends try to pile more undeserved crap on Kerry, holding him to a different standard than anyone else and all the while hoping for four more years of Bush because YOUR vanity is more important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #64
87. What does that have to do with the fact his IWR vote was....
...either opportunistic or naive? Whichever, it has led to more than 10,000 people being killed. If Kerry had voted against it, I admit that the war would have happened anyway. If numbnuts told me the sun was shining outside, I would take an umbrella. If he said "white", I'd believe "black". And I have felt that way since I first knew he would run back in 1999.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #87
113. I don't buy your assessment. Kerry consistently believed that Saddam
needed to be dealt with since 1998 when he was first in violation of the original UN resolution.

And the IWR itself was NOT a wrong resolution and would have prevented war with thorough weapons inspections if Bush had implemented the resolution honestly.

Blame the IWR and you let Bush off the hook. Blame Bush for not IMPLEMENTING it properly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. Epstein to Kerry -- Pander to me, even if you lose the election
Edited on Sat May-22-04 10:50 AM by jpgray
What Commondreams and many dilletante progressives in general always fail to grasp is that nowhere near a majority shares or even sympathizes with their views. They look at themselves, they assume everyone thinks as they do, and then they look on in shock as the candidates who espouse their views, who built such exciting organizations, become spectacular failures once the votes are cast. Howard Dean did the half-and-half of values and establishment and his excellent and exciting grassroots campaign was instantly torpedoed when voters came on the scene. My favorite, Dennis Kucinich, went all values and was marginalized out of existence, beyond a few good showings in Hawaii, etc. Nader barely garners 3% of the vote in national elections.

The myth that the 50% who don't vote are waiting for some truth-talking progressive is really appalling in its ignorance of reality. It's a nice fairy tale, but that's as far as it goes--this mythical progressive non-voter bloc did not come out for any of the three progressives mentioned above; Kerry defeated two, and any major candidate will defeat Nader.

That's no indictment of their views on the issues--I agree with many of them. But expecting Kerry to hold to a line that will satisfy a group who are notorious for spectacular failure in national elections is just preposterous. Winning isn't everything, and if Kerry were equal to or worse than Bush it would be less than nothing, but in this case it's worth a hell of a lot more than Epstein's delicate sensibilities. Don't count on his recognizing this any time soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
11. Bullshit. Can I have a president who was smart enough not to have been
Edited on Sat May-22-04 11:03 AM by Tinoire
misled by the village idiot? This blah blah blah "move on" because I was stupid inspires NO faith in me. What else will Kerry be stupid about?

What is this GARBAGE?
Too late for apologies. Go repent somewhere- OUT OF SIGHT. John you have 14 years worth of repenting to do. I ain't buying your last minute repentance amd even if I did, I need someone a hell of a lot smarter than you to lead my country. Misled by the village idiot indeed! You were warnedl you were begged to, you were pleaded to but you deliberately choose to ignore. Screw the hypocrisy & screw the lies.

“I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

“If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

“I Am Prepared To Hold Saddam Hussein Accountable And Destroy His Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Differ On War In Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 10/6/02)

“There Is Nothing More Destabilizing Or Threatening Than Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8321)

“Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.”(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)

“If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ....” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369)

“Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. ... The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

Fuck these lies. The list goes on and on.

Die Kerry say those things or did he not?

Fuck the nuances. Too many people are dying for the NEO-con/liberal nuances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. What a surprise! Kerry gives convoluted pol-like speeches!
Edited on Sat May-22-04 11:07 AM by jpgray
Politicians (the successful ones) will say whatever is politically expedient, without any intention of following through on those statements. As you know, there are an equal number of quotes in those speeches that strike a decidedly anti-war tone--he's a politician, and convoluted ass-covering is what pols do. The only way to parse out how a candidate will behave in office is his/her record. Kerry's record is far superior to Bush's record. The no fly list, the FCC, the courts, the control Bush is consolidating over all three branches matter less to some here than some dumb statements and votes by Kerry. Kerry is very easily attacked from the left, because it is actively encouraged at every point by the media, and people love easy work. What people lose sight of is how dangerous it is to leave right wing authoritarians in power--rather, they like to tear down what meager opposition we have. But yes, screw Kerry, let's shove a few failed third party candidacies down Bush's throat, I'm sure that will leave him trembling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
57. So Jp... kerry & Political Expediency
Edited on Sat May-22-04 05:57 PM by Tinoire
with NO harshness towards you I ask:

It was politically expedient to ramp up the 13 year bi-partisan war against Iraq because damnit we NEED that oil. Was that ok? That's what Kerry did- he sacrificed all moral principles for political expediency. What will be politically expedient next? Attacking Syria? Iran? Korea?

I don't accept that as an excuse nor do I accept Kerry's arrogance in not apologizing. Kerry honoring Q's request for an apology would go a long way but Kerry is incapable of doing that because it wouldn't be "politically expedient".

I am a vet. A retired vet. Kerry should have been my first choice but do you know why he can't be? Why he went from no 2 to absolute dead zero last place with me? Because of his fondness for "political expediency".

It was for political expediency that Kerry hypocritically "pretended" to toss his medals engendering a maelstorm with Progressive antiwar vets that non-combatants cannot possibly understand.

It was for political expediency that when Nancy Lessing and families of soldiers from MFSO went to John Kerry's office 1 year ago, he twice REFUSED to see them and eventually sent an aid out to tell them that he fucking "stood by his vote".

It was for "political expediency that Kerry shilled for Israel and jumped on every bandwagon demonizing the Palestinians.

It was for political expediency that Kerry voted for every imperialst globalization-related bill that requested his yes vote.

Oh god, the Leftist list against Kerry is as long as the sea is deep.

His record may be superior to Bush's but so is my Doberman's. That's not good enough. I do my best to stay away from bashing Kerry and am encouraging people to vote Democrat this election but not for one minute will anyone get me to pretend that Kerry is anything but what he is- a flip flopper with no morals who sways in the wind of "political expediency" with every passing breeze and from whom I expect absolutely NOTHING because he stands for everything Bush does but just a smarter, more refined version of it.

I have 2 friends who have died in Iraq- you know who I blame? Kerry. Kerry! for KNOWINGLY handing the blow torch to that idiot arsonist squatter in the White House. I don't even know how many of the young soldiers I trained will be coming home alive, safe, or sound but for everyone who doesn't- I blame KERRY & the rest of the DLC PNAC signing whores and not that idiot arsonist.

It is time Kerry supporters started trying to understand the RAGE that curses through our veins instead of shilling and pretending that Kerry is the greatest thing since sliced bread. We are angry. ANGRY at all this carnage (by the way, I sincerely regret the notable absence of the biggest Kerry supporters in the torture threads! Why so little representation from the avid Kerry supporters there? Is it the responsibility of his IWR vote too much to handle?)

So yeah, I'll probably vote for him but from now until November, every waking morning I get down on my knees and ask God to work a miracle and get both Bush and Kerry off the ticket and I do not care how God works it- I am tired of imperialistic war-mongerers & pushers of globalization to maintain the great American "way of life" (aka "They hate us for our freedoms".)

You've gotten me ALL worked up now. I HATE Bush but I LOATHE Kerry. I do my BEST to stay away from Kerry threads but when they spill over from GD 2004 to GD, I will NOT shut-up. I work damn hard to get people in the military community to vote against Bush but don't expect me to shill for Kerry or to restrain myself when the shilling spills into GD.



(rest of the chart here: http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionSequencePictures.htm)

Homo habilis (Bush) To Neanderthal(Kerry) to Homo sapiens (what we need at a minimum).

((You can also now find Brian Willson's letter posted at Military Families Speak Out which should tell you EXACTLY what we think of Kerry: www.mfso.org/Kerry.html))

======================
VETERANS FOR PEACE
Veterans Working Together for Peace & Justice Through Non-violence. Wage Peace!

Military Families Speak Out and Veterans for Peace members meeting with Senator John Kerry's Staff

Military Families:

On Thursday, March 6, members of Military Families Speak Out and Veterans for Peace met with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's staff in Boston. Because Senator Kerry has announced that he is running for President, and because he was one of the founders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, we wanted to find out more about his current position on war in Iraq (he voted for Bush's war resolution in October, 2002).

We raised a number of issues in this meeting, but boiled it down to two questions that we wanted immediate answers to:


(1) Does Senator Kerry believe that George Bush should be making the decision whether or not the U.S. invades Iraq?

(2) Does Senator Kerry believe that NOW is the time for our kids and loved ones to start coming home in body bags -- which will happen if this decision to go to war is unconstitutionally left up to George Bush?

The reponse from Senator Kerry's staff: "He voted the way he voted in October; he stands by that vote."

We left the meeting and reported back to the press and a group demonstrating against the war outside. Our press conference was covered by several TV networks and print media.

While we were not at all happy with the response we got from Senator Kerry's staff, at least it was finally some kind of answer rather than absolutely waffling, ducking and covering.

Tomorrow, in commemoration of International Women's Day, there will be a large Women Against the War demonstration outside of Senator Kerry's office at noon.

We encourage everyone to keep the pressure up on our members of Congress who have abdicated their responsibility to discuss and debate the most momentous decision a nation can make: the decision about taking a country to war. It is time to bring democracy back to the United States.

In Peace and Solidarity,
Nancy Lessin and Charley Richardson
www.mfso.org

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/msfo_vfp_kerry_030306.htm


======================

Ret’d Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff’s March 20th to the Fayetteville/Ft. Bragg rally

Welcome to all the partisans of peace. Welcome to Fayetteville. Welcome, people of conscience. Welcome, families, whose loved ones are under arms in the service of a system they don't yet understand. Welcome, soldiers, because I am one of you, and welcome veterans who can say to soldiers, as if we were the dead, that as you are, we once were, and as we are, you shall be. Welcome home to those who have been sent to inflict and to suffer pain and grief in the service of avarice and ambition. My own son is among you. I was among you. Welcome back into our sight and our hearts. Welcome home. There have been too many of you who have not come back whole, and far too many who have come home not at all.

These are hard times and harsh times, and they call for harsh words, and they call for clarity that sometimes seems almost cruel, and they call for a sense of purpose that has passion.

The Bush administration is a gangster administration, and they have used gangster tactics at home and abroad, and they have signed our names to their crimes, and they have spent our treasure on their crimes, and they have spilled out children's blood and the blood of the children of others to commit their crimes, and we have had – by God – enough.

And we are not going to sit idly by and pretend about this. We are not going to pretend that we haven't heard that John Kerry's only criticism of this war is that is isn't being fought competently. We are not going to pretend that this is not about oil. We are not going to pretend that this was an intelligence failure. We are not going to pretend that this is something we can change by being civil or by being obedient. We will not be civil with gangsters, and we'd better learn to quit obeying them. Because it is our obedience that do-signs their crimes, and it is our silence that will make us complicit.

So we will not be silent, and we will not be obedient, and we will not stand down - no matter how long it takes, no matter the cost, no matter the effort, because we are fighting for our children and our grandchildren who we will not surrender to gangsters.

We are not going away. This may be called the instant gratification society, but hear us right now, George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and John Kerry for that matter — we are not an instant gratification movement, and we are not here to make deals with the lives of our children or the children of others.

NOT ONE MORE DAY.
NOT ONE MORE DIME.
NOT ONE MORE LIFE.
NOT ONE MORE LIE.
BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW!


http://www.traveling-soldier.org/4.04.march20.php

About Traveling Soldier before some Kerry supporter starts yelling the typical tired lame accusation of "right-wing smear"

What is Traveling Soldier all about?

Telling the truth - about the occupation, the cuts to veterans benefits, or the dangers of depleted uranium - is the first reason Traveling Soldier is necessary. But we want to do more than tell the truth; we want to report on the resistance to those on top - whether it’s in the streets of Baghdad, New York, or inside the armed forces.

For this, we might be criticized for not being “objective” or “balanced”. We aren’t. We proudly take the side of our class - working people and the oppressed the world over - against those who use their wealth and power to make our lives hell. But producing this newsletter for people in the armed forces is about more than telling the truth. Our goal is for Traveling Soldier to become the thread that ties working-class people inside the armed services together. We want this newsletter to be a weapon to help you organize resistance within the armed forces - and that can’t happen without you.


http://www.traveling-soldier.org/au.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. Kerry ALREADY APOLOGIZED FOR TRUSTING BUSH to use war as a last resort.
You call that arrogance....fortunately enough people don't.

Y'know, aloty of people who used to post here were tombstoned after major fights early in the primaries when DK entered. They were staunchly prochoice and that was THE issue for them. Some were pro First Amendment and that was THE issue for them.

They loathed Kucinich and had ZERO trust in his sincerity because his turnabout on abortion just before an election just seemed TOO politically expedient to them.

Fortunately enough people see the truth in Dennis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Kucinich has NOTHING to do with this thread. Unlike Kerry he did not shill
Edited on Sat May-22-04 07:12 PM by Tinoire
Kucinich has NOTHING to do with this thread. Unlike Kerry he did not shill for this war.

Why do you keep bringing him up?

Would you mind posting Kerry's magnificent apology? I would love to parse it and see how convincing all the nuances are. If Kerry has apologized, I missed the politically expedient grovelling.

====
We raised a number of issues in this meeting, but boiled it down to two questions that we wanted immediate answers to:

    (1) Does Senator Kerry believe that George Bush should be making the decision whether or not the U.S. invades Iraq?

    (2) Does Senator Kerry believe that NOW is the time for our kids and loved ones to start coming home in body bags -- which will happen if this decision to go to war is unconstitutionally left up to George Bush?


The reponse from Senator Kerry's staff: "He voted the way he voted in October; he stands by that vote."

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/msfo_vfp_kerry_030306.htm

I see no mention of Kucinich there, who we all know voted against it. Why do you drag Kucinich into this? It won't work. I'm mad at Kerry the war/occupation/Sharon-can-do-no-wrong shill, not Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #67
116. The standards are different aren't they?
Your standard is the IWR as the all enconpassing evil. If it was implemented honestly it would have prevented war with its weapons inspections clause. But you let Bush off the hook by blaming the IWR itself.

Other people I have fought with for years had the prochoice standard that was most important to them. I relate my experience arguing for Kucinich's position and change of position (with all its nuances) in much the same way.

Everyone has different issues and any politician could be derided unfairly for some standard they fail with some group.

And yes, you did miss his apology for TRUSTING Bush to implement the IWR honestly, but you already declare it to be "politically expedient" and don't trust a word he says, so what does it matter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhite5 Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #57
69. Tinoire, THANK YOU!
It is time we discussed this realistically. We may be stuck with Kerry as the only viable choice, but let us not pretend he is something that he isn't. And let us not pretend for a moment that electing him will solve all our problems or that we can celebrate a "Mission Accomplished!" by getting him into the Oval Office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. This is about who would be the better president, not who is pure
If you want purity, you had best write yourself in, because no one else qualifies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #74
90. It isn't about idealogical purity either...
It is about pulling the blinders off of the Democrats. It isn't enough to just get rid of Bush. We need to get rid of all of his enablers too.

Kerry is a Bush enabler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #90
95. Are you saying "get rid" of Kerry?
Is that the goal at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #95
98. If he is a Bush enabler...
he needs to go...

It isn't enough to vote Bush out of office. The man must be made to PAY for his crimes. This neo-conservative bunch of criminals have been getting away with murder for so long they think they are un-touchable. And who can blame them...one brief look at the Iran/Contra files and you can see...it isn't that they "think" they are above the law...the "are" above the law...and they are there because of the enablers.

In the slim case that one of them actually does get "justice" it is a slap on the wrist and that person usually wins on appeal or when they get out of jail they are elevated to hero status much like in a crime family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #98
100. But Kerry was instrumental in uncovering Iran-Contra, wasn't he?
I understand the anger about Kerry's IWR vote and I certainly understand what you're saying about Bush and the other neo-cons. But I don't understand saying Kerry "needs to go" at this point in time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #100
101. Maybe not at this point and time...
I'm not sure exactly what Kerry's role in the I/C uncovering was. I know he was somehow involved in the process. But the bottom line is perhaps he was a voice in the wilderness because almost all of the principles in I/C walked away from it as if it never happened and the Dems walked away from it looking weak on National Security.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #74
104. That deserves a toast
Edited on Sun May-23-04 02:15 PM by nolabels
:toast:

On edit:Okay so I screwed even posting for a toast, thank goodness I have a steady job that doesn't require too much writing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
36. well done--
Edited on Sat May-22-04 12:13 PM by Marianne
we knew that would be the political schtick of an excuse, by those who voted to let a maniac invade and murder thousands of innocent people without much thought.


"We didn't know"

I did not buy it then, and I do not buy it now. These people are not newbies to the Washington scene. They did know. We pay them to know. Our corrupted congress OK'd the rush to war and the rush to murder on flimsy evidence. and now--well, they "did the best they could" and "they did not know"

Well some did know--the ones with some conscience and some integrity did know. The ones who respect the Constitution and expect that only Congress can declare war be adhered to. It has been ignored far too long and asses and stupid greedy little frat boys who are appointed president simply barge right in like bulls in a china shop, invade a country they knew could not defend itself and in tjhe middle of the night dropped tons and tons of bombs upon the sleeping people.

I will never forget Senator Robert Byrd standing alone on the Senate floor, speaking and pleading, shaking with palsy, but nevertheless putting himself out there with all the energy an 85 year old man could muster, with virtually no one listening to his pleas to postpone a rapid fire, rush to war, rubber stamping of an invasion and a war before we had all the facts. He spoke of mothers sending their little lambs off to war--and we see what has happened to the daughter of Mrs. England. Her little lamb turned into a demon. I will never forget Hillary Clinton's being turned either ;at the time I felt betrayed by her,believing her a liberal, but now I am grateful that I saw that DLC side of her. I will never forget Powell's act before the UN either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
61. I do not forget those moments either!
Byrd... How we loved him! DUers sent him a HUGE bouquet of flowers to thank him for his moral and politically correct stand. I distinctly remember that time and how proud we were when they were delivered to him. Not a single even weed did we send to Kerry at the time.

DO NOT HAND THE BLOWTORCH TO THAT IDIOTIC BOY KING Byrd begged in ALL our names. Yet what did we get? A bunch of "Yea because we know better than everyone else and trust Bush" votes.

I still have Jerry & Feinstein's "Kiss my ass you stupid voter because we're voting for it anyway" letters on my desk. Kiss my ass they said? Fine. Do not expect me to kiss your ass. That kind of stuff is reserved for the horrors you unleashed on Abu Ghraib.

Byrd. What a HERO! The saddest part is that his stance wasn't necessarily based on being anti-this-war; it was based on protecting the constitution! A constitution that Kerry desecrated.

John Kerry could have co-sponsored Robert Byrd's Resolution like Ted Kennedy did, in January 2003, after Bush's State of the Union speech basically saying he was going to war with or without the UN. He didn't. There were no provisions in the resolution that passed that would have restrained Bush. Anyone who thought the resolution was anything other than a vote to go to war wasn't paying attention.

I USED to like John Kerry. But when we anti-war supporters were looking for heroes to vote no, he wasn't there.

He should not expect us to be there for him now.

The DLC has ONCE AGAIN miscalculated. Fuck them. This election should have been handed to progressives on a silver platter with parsley around the meat but it won't be because they think that "Anyone but Bush" is going to rouse people out of their beds to go vote for someone whose main difference from Bush is that sigh, he's not Bush. Whoopedy doo. Tom Delay isn't Bush either.


I am so with you Marianne. Even down to Lynndie England.

Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #61
79. Thank you, Tinoire
for articulating so well how I have felt about Kerry and the other enablers of the DLC since October 2002. I'm bookmarking this thread because of your eloquent statement(s) of fact.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. Tinoire:
Edited on Sat May-22-04 12:16 PM by Q
"Bullshit. Can I have a president who was smart enough not to have been misled by the village idiot? This blah blah blah "move on" because I was stupid inspires NO faith in me."

- That about sums it up. BUT...as bad as this 'mistake' was...a strong leader can turn things about by ADMITTING it was a mistake...one that he won't soon repeat.

- Some have the impression that good leaders never make mistakes. That's just not true...they make them ALL THE TIME. But the mark of a true leader is one that LEARNS FROM THEIR MISTAKES and changes direction.

- And something else that needs to be addressed by Democratic leaders: The US is the leading producer and exporter of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Enough of this do what I say but not what I do political hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Exactly.
You hit the nail on the head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
62. Q. I agree with you. I am just VERY angry.
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
105. I wake up angry, go to bed tired and wonder through the day
Did somebody here post they were happy that you have been our friend so many times? :donut:

http://www.wordspy.com/words/defensivepessimism.asp
(snip)
Earliest Citation:
The optimist, it's been said, sees the doughnut where the pessimist sees only the hole. Psychologists are nearly unanimous in recommending that you keep your eye on the doughnut.

But now two researchers are suggesting that for some people, a little pessimism may be a good thing. According to Julie K. Norem and psychologist Nancy Cantor, these people are able to use "defensive pessimism" to prevent the prospect of failure from immobilizing them. . . . The researchers conclude that when well-intentioned people reassure pessimists that everything will be fine, they may not be doing them a favor. Defensive pessimists may need to play their little cognitive trick on themselves in order to do well. The best way for them to get the doughnut may be to prepare for the possibility of getting only the hole.
—Carol Wade, "The power of negative thinking," Psychology Today, May 1987
(snip)

Don't let any body fool you about donut holes, my family has made many Donuts (mom and dad donut makers)

The holes are there for many reasons, one is so you can pick up quite a few of them at the same time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. Excellent post Tinoire
It really isn't even funny how blind some folks are to this mess we are in. They seem to believe that removing Bush is going to change everything.

It isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #39
63. Bush is just one of the 7 heads of the Hydra
Cut off Bush's head and two more spring back in its place.

I am so with you but how the hell, short of a revolution, do we kill the entire thing before it kills us?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #63
72. Maybe...
There are many paths for us to take...

There is the peaceful and non-violent route...but this won't work.

There is the getting involved at the local level route...which is the preferred method because it gets everyone involved and doesn't require bloodshed. It is also the most difficult to do because...how the hell do you get everyone involved?

Then...there is revolution...or armed conflict...civil war...take your pick...the bloodiest and dirtiest way of ridding us of this disease.

Even a brief glance back through history shows that the last choice, though not the best choice, will probably be the one we need to take.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
55. Geez...and all those who said Kucinich was nuancing abortion and aligns
with the GOP on VERY important First Amendment issues like flagburning...well, guess what??????? Those who cherish the First Amendment and a woman's right to choose above all else could easily make condemning posts about Kucinich and his very real record.

And they'd be just as wrong for attacking Kucinich as you are about Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #55
65. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Are we discussing Kucinich here? Or are we discussing the disastrous war-mongering Kerry?

I never explained Kucinich's votes on abortion by hiding behind "nuances". To this day, I stand behind Kucinich- I think abortion is wrong but that it is an uneccessary evil in a world that men like Kerry have formed because they're more interested in bloating the Pentagon budget and sending BILLIONS of dollars to exploit the Palestinians than they are in ramping up the very necessary social safety nets that women & children in this country need.

Kerry is a hypocrite. I do not care if you are my friend or if Kerry was handsome as a young man; he is a hypocrite. If you want to believe that Kucincich is a hypocrite for having been anti-abortion it's honestly no skin off my nose, you know he wasn't a hypocrite & I know he wasn't.

I'll ask you... Did Kucinich get 800 American young people & millions of Iraqis killed? The answer is NO.

If this is where we part ways my friend, then so be it but I can't & I won't shill for Kerry when every bone in my body is appalled at the things he has done.

Yeah, he's superior to Bush (not saying much) & more "acceptable" to the establishment than Kucinich (that is sadly saying way too much) but that is NOT good.

You know full well that he was my number 2, that I savaged Dean for months saying that he was no more antiwar than Kerry but I was wrong, Dean was more antiwar than Kerry because no matter how opportunist he was when he saw the antiwar marches building up, he didn't spend 14 years voting for the "politically expedient" and nuancing his words.

I am sorry my friend. I may vote for Kerry. I may work to get people to vote ABB but I will not shut up about how I see him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #65
115. Because Kucinich is yopur standard so that is the proper standard
Edited on Sun May-23-04 03:33 PM by blm
to use. I have plenty of experience in dealing with those who badmouthed DK unfairly and I will continue to do the same with Kerry.

I disagree with every judgement you made against Kerry in your post.

You think it was politically expedient for Kerry to write the first senate legislation protecting gays?

You think it was politically expedient for Kerry to spend his first seven years in the Senate investigating and exposing more govt. corruption than any lawmaker in modern history and pissing off every DC powerstructure within the GOP, Dem party, FBI and CIA?

It was politically expedient to advocate for felons to receive back their voting rights after serving time?

It was politically expedient to advocate for gays to serve openly in the military?

It was politically expedient to advocate for public financing of campaigns?

It was politically expedient to help other nations around the world to craft the Kyoto Protocol for ten years while most of the powerbrokers and big corporations were lining up against it?

The EASIEST thing for Kerry to do would have been to cover up the rampant government corruption that he found and reaped the rewards that are showered upon the "fixers" but he persevered against great odds. Not one of his detractors here at DU has named ONE lawmaker who has done more than Kerry in that regard.

I'm sorry, Tinoire, you remain dear to me, but your hatred for Kerry has been blown up out of proportion. He is nowhere near the evil you perceive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
78. Touche, Tinoire
We weren't fooled, yet Kerry supposedly was. Sure and pigs fly. That's why he has had to waste so many words explaining and justifying! As I said above, he was hedging his bets and covering his electoral ass. So now his knickers are in a knot.

And to those who say: if Bush had been right, a 'no' vote by Kerry would have doomed Kerry's potential for the presidency ... I say if Bush had been right, Bush would be unbeatable anyway!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
13. The insanos will never accept an apology.
In fact, I suspect they would regurgitate the RW flipflopper nonsense that was thrown Al Gore's way in 2000.

Hence, I'm not sure what the benefit would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
119. That is not an apology. That's an excuse. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
32. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
And don't hold your breath waiting for a tearful apology from Kerry, because it'll be long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
40. How about a Bush apology for deceiving Congress, and the World?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
43. Apologize? Nah, he'll get the troops kinda out in only 4 years.
Maybe. But, only if the polls show that it's OK with the "moderates".
And, the DLC approves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Hey, that's peanuts as far as military occupations go.
We're still occupying Japan. Four years is nothing, especially in an area as complicated as the Middle East.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Are peanuts the same as collateral damage?
I doubt that 4 years is "nothing" to the Iraqis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. That seems to be our situation.
No, it's not nothing, but getting out in four years is a hell of a lot more realistic then just bailing ASAP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #51
81. What's so "realistic" about staying there and killing people?
Please explain the difference in staying 4 years trying to extricate ourselves, or getting out now? The result will be much the same whether now or 4 (or 8, or 12). At some point the Iraqis will decide what to do with their own country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #81
93. Because we don't know what will happen to Iraq.
And we don't know that it will be the Iraqis that will decide what will happen to their country. Maybe some ayatollah from Iran will decide to come in and take power. Maybe some remant of Saddam's regime will decide to retake their rightful place. Maybe somebody else. And maybe the fight for power will result of years of civil war. People will certainly suffer and die if any of the above happens, in FAR greater quantities than they are now.

You can't just look at the damage our occupation is causing, you have to look at the alternatives. Spare us the self-righteousness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
44. Why are we talking about the past, when it's our future that is at stake?
I want Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld and Asscroft prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The only qualified person in that position right now who can accomplish that goal is John F. Kerry..

NOBODY ELSE...Just him...

If you people can't figure that out and consider waiting until your idea of a perfect, infallible, candidate, comes along that meet your specific criteria. I've got news for you. We'll all be dead by then.

I believe John Kerry has the way to go to get us out of this mess and put our country back on the right track. Even more importantly, I believe he will prosecute Bush and his cronys after his election because the World demands it!

If you want to whine and continue to pic nits...all your doing is undermining the strongest candidate we've got to get the job done..
So as they say...If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

If Kerry wins, Iraq becomes his war, and he'll have to answer the question he posed more than three decades ago: "How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?" Not his mistake...George Bush's mistake!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
58. This is a non-issue.....Jeeeez
The Congress along with the American Public was lied too. Kerry, based on what he was told, made the right decision for him. There is nothing to apologize for. He should frame the argument in terms of Bush decieving us.

I did like how he mentioned DU, albeit indirectly:

Perhaps I should have known. Certainly, there were plenty of critics, writing on the internet, marching in the streets, appearing on radio and TV, who predicted with uncanny accuracy, many of things that have now come to pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. It doesn't seem to be a 'non issue' to many, many voters...
...not just the 'insanos' on this board.

- It MATTERS why we're in Iraq and how we got there. It matters that many of our representatives voted for this illegal slaughter and still say it was the 'right decision'.

- Don't underestimate the anti-Iraq war feelings in this country.

- And it's been said before: what kind of argument is it that Democrats were 'fooled' by the village idiot? Americans know by now they weren't deceived...but complicit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #60
70. If dwelling on why we're there would have one iota of impetus to get us
out...I could agree with you. Do you think for an instant the troops fighting in Iraq, fighting for their lives, would think this conversation is going to help get them out of Iraq and home to their families? Just because your sensibilities need to be satisfied?

You are just wasting time beating a dead horse when in fact I haven't heard one suggesting from you as to a viable strategy of leaving Iraq with some shred of dignity, if there is any such thing left, after this fiasco..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. My 'sensibilities'?
- I protested and marched against the Vietnam (police action) War. We were told the same thing back then...that we were 'wasting our time' and that we didn't have a plan to withdraw troops from that hellhole. But it was the chorus of millions of voices that made it impossible for the warmongers to continue to send Americans to die and kill in our name.

- I'll say the same thing I said back then: There can be no good ending to something grounded in lies and deceit. Vietnam and Iraq had/have nothing to do with protecting or defending our country...the VERY REASON our military exists.

- The Bush* cabal abused the power of their offices and lied this nation into war. This is a known fact and it's TREASON. Democrats are complicit if they continue to cover for the liars and pretend that anything other than more death and destruction can come of the occupation. There won't be any democracy and we're not liberators. The US has replaced the Nazis with it's own brand of torture and brutality. The only sane course is to leave Iraq and hope the international community will step in to help the Iraqis become self-sustaining and 'allow' them to rebuild their own country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Your statement doesn't wash with mine, Q-
You've been whining about how Kerry's should apologize for voting for the War. I said, you're wasting your time beating a dead horse.

Now you've brought in demonstrating against the Vietnam war..claiming that you were told you were wasting your time demonstrating...We're not talking about demonstrating. The topic is talking about How kerry should apologize..How will any apology from him make you feel better? I substituted the word sensibilities (same thing).

yes, the Bush cabal abused the power of their office...How will an apology from Kerry make you feel better...that seems to be what you initiated this thread for isn't it?

lets pretend for a second...Kerry just apologized on national tv and explained himself as I did a few posts ago...now what? We've wasted a half a day trying to soothe egos here and accomplished nothing in the way of constructive ideas on how to get those troops home and save a little dignity for the ones who weren't involved in the prisoner scandal.

Any ideas?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. The quoted article says Kerry should apologize...
Edited on Sat May-22-04 11:48 PM by Q
...it's my position that Kerry shouldn't have voted for it in the first place. There is simply no excuse for it and Kerry and everyone who voted for it knew what was going on. They KNEW and still voted because they wanted what Bush* wanted.

- I bring up Vietnam only to show a consistency in the anti-war movement. There is a time for war and a time for peace. Bush* and his enablers chose war when there were other options...simply because it advanced their agenda or the agenda of those who fill their campaign chests.

- Iraq is a political war and it has nothing to do with the 'war on teror'...as Bush*, Kerry and other hawks continue to insist. They're bullshitting us and anyone still capable of critical thinking should be offended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-22-04 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #60
75. IMO this is the key:
Kerry, based on what he was told, made the right decision for him.

He did nothing to violate his own principles from what I have seen. He has stated as many other politicians that he took Bush on his word.

I would not have voted for the conflict, but would have demanded that a declaration of war be made or close the matter. That would have insured a more thorough investigation and analysis process and, most importantly, the Legislature would be RESPONSIBLE for their decision.

If the Constitution had been followed this mess would never have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_H Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
82. LOL!!! Yeaaagrrhhgghhhereeehhhaahh!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #82
86. geez
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
94. Bad advice. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
96. Kerry can't credibly say, "I should have known," because he did know.
Senator Kerry and his supporters claim that he was fooled by exaggerated reports about Iraq’s military prowess from the administration. However, there were other senators who had access to the same information as Kerry who voted against going to war. Furthermore, former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter personally briefed Senator Kerry prior to his vote on how Iraq did not have any dangerous WMD capability; he also personally gave the senator – at his request – an article from the respected journal Arms Control Today making the case that Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed. Members of Senator Kerry’s staff have acknowledged that the senator had access to a number of credible reports challenging the administration’s tall tales regarding the alleged Iraqi threat.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0301-01.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #96
107. I'll take Kerry's word over "Common Dreams" any day
WRP: Senator Bill Nelson revealed last week that he and some 75 other Senators had been given an intelligence briefing by a Bush administration official just before the Iraq war vote, during the time frame of those quotes I just read. In that briefing, they were told that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but had the technical capability to strike American cities on the East Coast with unmanned drones filled with these poisons. Nelson refused to divulge who gave the briefing. I want to take you back to this time, to September and early October of 2002. What were you thinking about during this period, in the days and weeks before the Iraq resolution? I know you can’t reveal classified briefings, but were you getting at the time data that persuaded you that a yes vote was the proper course?

JK: Absolutely. More than that. I attended one particular briefing at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense was there, as well as the Admiral in charge of all intelligence. They passed photographs around showing us very specific locations and places where, they said, their intelligence confirmed that weapons of mass destruction were being held. This was in addition to those unmanned drones, which we were told about, and in addition to the 45-minute deployment capacity, which we were told about.

WRP: I wrote a book last September called ‘War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know,’ which stated that Iraq’s WMD capabilities had been grossly exaggerated by the administration, and therefore their rationale for war had no standing. That book, over the last fifteen months, has been proven to have been absolutely correct on this point. A lot of people read that book, and have subsequently turned away from your campaign for one reason: These people believe this data was out there before the Iraq vote, that it was available to you, and they believe you chose to ignore it or disregard it and vote in favor of the war. How would you answer that charge?

JK: There were a number of people offering contrary opinions, but this was compared to the overwhelming evidence that was put in front of us in very specific and factual terms. When someone shows you a photograph and says, “Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations,” it is pretty compelling.

What’s more, what I thought was equally compelling was not just the evidence, but were the very direct promises of Colin Powell and others within the administration about how they were going to proceed, about working with the United Nations, about using weapons inspectors, and about war being a last resort. In foreign policy, traditionally, we have worked across party lines to try to have one voice to speak with as a country in the interest of our national security. Obviously, the President, we now know, broke every single one of those promises and disregarded his own word. He is not a man of his word.

...more...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. Thanks for posting the info...
I didn't know there was such a detailed account of the events that transpired prior to the vote for War!

It's so easy to tell Kerry what to do screaming from the sidelines, when none of us are privy to all the facts and information. It makes me wonder if some here think they are quarterbacking a football game, and they actually know more than the players themselves.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #107
120. Well
Edited on Mon May-24-04 10:51 AM by HFishbine
You've simply provided evidence on which to evaluate Kerry's judgment. The point that Kerry cannot say he didn't know still stands. He did know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #96
117. It's a good point.
I don't know for sure.

What I see is that there were "conflicting" reports: Bush Admin's take and then people like Ritter and others who were pointing out the BS of Bush's claims. It got down to a "who do you believe" scenario. But I don't think that the resolution against Iraq was a carte blanche' for Bush to violate the law, lie, etc. It was merely saying that if what you have given us is true then go ahead.

This does not excuse the lack of criticism from the Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
109. Good speech. It will win him votes and the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-04 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
118. Kerry needs to tell the TRUTH- there are still too many lies in that
speech.

That whole paragraph that begins with "At the time..." is false.

We knew. He knew. Everybody knew what Bush wanted to do, everybody knew it was a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC