Kerry on the Loss of the 2,000th American Service Member in Iraq

[kerrygoddess]

Statement from John Kerry on the Loss of the 2,000th American Service Member in Iraq
October 25th, 2005

Senator John Kerry released the following statement today the loss of the 2,000th American Service Member in Iraq:

�We learned today of the 2,000th American military fatality in the war in Iraq - Staff Sgt. George Alexander Jr. Throughout our history, brave men and women have stepped forward to serve our country and selflessly put their lives on the line in times of war and great danger. We are America the free because of them.

�This is another tragic milestone in the war in Iraq, a heart-wrenching day for more than 2,000 American families who have lost sons and daughters, husbands and wives. America honors the service of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and we join their families and loved ones in mourning their loss. Today as we laid another son of Massachusetts to rest in the soil at Arlington National Cemetery, I am reminded of the way our state of Massachusetts continues to answer the call to service. Each day is a blessing and a gift made possible by those who have answered the nation�s call. Their service and that of their families is as noble as their selflessness is humbling.

MORE -
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=941

[blm]

1. I'm going to be travelling tomorrow and will miss his 1pm speech on Iraq.

If it's shown at all, someone please snag it.

I expect his speech tomorrow will convey everything Bush is incapable of expressing.

[Hobarticus]

2. And Dubya won't say a goddamned word...

May their souls torment you for the rest of your life, George.

[Jacobin]

3. Okay, don't get me fricking started

Kerry, you VOTED for the IWR and I've heard all of your 'reasons' for doing so, but it does not wash.

there is no 'right' way to illegally invade and occupy a country that has not threatened you.

It was wrong to sanction it then. It is wrong to continue it now.

You protested the Viet Nam war effectively. Now you have forgotten all those lessons and you have blood on your hands along with most ( BUT NOT ALL) of congress who authorized the neocons to go on their rampage.

I don't EVEN want to hear you bloviate on this milestone

[Mass]

4. But others want.

[blm]

5. Reading and Comprehension will make this world a better place.

Irrational hatred never does.

[Jacobin]

24. Tell that to Kerry

What is more hateful than authorizing an illegal war that kills hundreds of thousands when you know its based on lies?

[LSK]

27. technically, Bush violated the IWR

Go read it.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf

[Jacobin]

29. Technically

Every living breathing sentient being knew to a moral certainty that if congress gave him the power to invade, he would do it and would not 'negotiate'.

Many on DU including me faxed, emailed, called and begged congresscritters not to go along for this jalopy ride to hell.

He KNEW it and all the caterwauling of his supporters will not change the truth.

fuggedaboudit

[blm]

34. And he was going in ANYWAY, so Dems put GUIDELINES into the IWR that

needed to be met. Guidelines he wouldn't have had for the historic record, like weapons inspections.

You would prefer he had gone in with no IWR and NO weapons inspections? TThat would have led to certain planting.

You would prefer he extend the arena into Syria and Iran right after taking Baghdad like he wanted, but the negotiators on IWR wouldn't let him have it?

Blame the IWR. That's REALLY smart caterwauling....if you're a fan of Rove's.

[Jacobin]

36. if over 100 congresscritters could vote against it

then enough could have joined in to stop the madness. Keep that in mind. Over one hundred voted against it.

everyone, EVERYONE knew that Bush had to be stopped or he was going in regardless of wording.

hell, Bush has ignored treaties, the law and the fucking Geneva Conventions!! who the hell was naive enough to believe that some wording in a resolution AUTHORIZING WAR would stop him? oh, thats right, it gave Kerry 'cover'

Any politician STUPID or NAIVE enough to have thought that some silly wording in a document would stop the neocons has NO PLACE IN POLITICS

[LSK]

39. ummm

(a) AUTHORIZATION.�The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to�
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.�In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that�
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.�
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.�Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.�Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.


------------
Editted to include (b) and (c)

[Jacobin]

42. LOL

Are you one of those people who thought Bush didn't see that as a blank check for war????





:rofl:


:rofl:

[LSK]

43. read the whole thing

[Jacobin]

49. Okay fine

I'm glad Kerry voted to authorize war.

We are winning and democracy will flourish in the Middle East.

It wasn't about WMDs everyone knows that.

Its about bringing Jeffersonian Democracy to the Middle East.

And according to Hannity its working great.

I'll stop being a naysayer and encourage other people's kids to join the military to be cannon fodder for the next ten years.

Happy now?

[LSK]

53. hell no

Look, Im just as pissed about the war as you are. I was one of the few who protested the war before it happened. I know damn well there were no WMD. I know damn well that this stupid war is about making money for defense contractors and securing oil fields. I know damn well we are creating terrorists. I know damn well that Saddam posed no threat or he had any links to Al Queda.

All I am saying is that BUSH VIOLATED THE IWR. I ask you to read it. You refuse to. So I quote it. I dont see why you cant seperate the emotion of the issue and get down to the facts.

[Jacobin]

55. If the IWR hadn't been passed, he couldn't have gone to war

Congress wouldn't have funded it.

I'm surprised you say that you were 'one of the few' to protest the war.

It was the largest world wide protest in the history of the world, before it even started.

I was there too

[Mass]

58. Wrong - he would have anyway/

He would have invoked national security and had 60 days to send the troops, after which the Congress would have voted funds to support the troops.

[Selatius]

75. It's not that easy

Reread the War Powers Resolution of 1973. While it is true the president has the authority to dispatch the armed forces within a 60 day time frame, the fact is he would have needed to consult with Congress before doing anything. He cannot simply go, "OK, I just sent troops into Iraq. Now give me some money, Congress." He would have to get Congress to authorize him to use the full might of the armed forces and the funding required to fuel the war machine after 60 days if he has not requested an additional 30 day extension.

If the IWR was stopped or at least tarnished because the Dems unified and made a serious effort to kill it, it would've conceivably undermined Bush's drive to war before it got off the ground as it would further cast into question the reason for unleashing the war machine, and that was a discussion that was desperately needed but not given.

[Mass]

80. Operational word: consult

He would have consulted, gone, and then ask money to support the troops.

If you think the Bush that lied about WMDs would have hesitated one minute, I cannot agree with you.

After that, with a Republican House and a tied Senate, he would have had no pbs asking for funds.

It may have been better if the Democrats had been unified, but I dont believe it would have changed anything to the end of the story. Had they have to choose between Dems and Bush, people like Lugar or Specter would not have hesitated one minute, and my guess is that even Chafee would have voted them (to support the troops, of course).

[Selatius]

89. War may have been a foregone conclusion with Bush, but...

I believe if we stripped him of the IWR or at least put up a horrendous fight over IWR and made it comparatively more difficult to pass, it would've given enough time for a more serious debate to take place instead of a cursory one, maybe even more time for the UN, and it would be on the record that the Democratic Party, at least once, just once, drew the line in the fucking sand and fought instead of breaking ranks and scattering.

This is Congress. There are rules and procedures that can be used to delay the ramming of this bill through Congress. The least that could have been done was attempt to strip Bush of some amount of legitimacy that he could use to give cover to the war. Besides, I think there is language in the War Powers Resolution that could've been used to impale Bush had he decided to go without getting a resolution.

[Mass]

91. We have to disagree on that. I think that on the contrary, he would have

gone to Iraq more quickly.

This said, I would have prefered the fight, no question about that.

[Selatius]

97. He would've done so at his own risk

Because if there was no IWR to give him cover, he would have to fall back to the UN resolution exclusively, and legal scholars generally believe that it would have taken another resolution to authorize the use of force because of the manner it was written, and that was probably not going to happen. Even folks within the British government thought so. If he had gone in without the IWR, a much more solid case could be made that he broke the very same international laws against aggression Hitler broke 60 years prior when he attacked and occupied Poland because all Bush had was that UN resolution, and many believed that wasn't enough for war.

[Mass]

99. We have to agree to disagree on that.

[LSK]

60. i knew a lot of people for the war at the time

Yes, I know the world was against it. But this country is slow to catch on. I felt in the minority at the time here in the US.

[karynnj]

77. AS CIC he would have gone - he already

had money and authorization to fight terrorists, which he claimed allowes this too. The soldiers were already in the Persian Gulf - he delayed doing anything for about 4 or 5 months while the inspecters were in. In early spring, 2003 Bush wanted to invade before the weather got too hot. At that time, with Saddam destroying missles and allowing invasive inspections there seemed a better chance than in the summer when they said they were going to attack Iraq of avoiding war. But, then Bush attacked.

I protested in Jan, 2003 in DC and in Feb in NYC - Kerry wrote op-eds and gave Senate speeches then saying not to invade. When Bush invaded he was angry enough to say we need a regime change here. The IWR had been working to achieve what was needed - Bush broke the rules and ordered the military to attack.

Do you really think that with a huge amount of our millitary in the Persian Gulf, having bombed (with the UK) many facilities in Iraq prior to the "start" of the war, that Bush would have ordered the troops home if the IWR failed - or would he have instigated an attack - say on our planes flying in the no fly zone.

[blm]

79. That's not true. He was going in with original UN res from 1991.

And that would have given him greater legal standing, but Bush and Rove wanted a resolution so they could use it to divide the Dems before the 2002 and 4 elections.

[blm]

41. And then there would be NO GUIDELINES when Bush went in anyway.

That's what YOU prefer.

So you blame those who DARED to negotiate for something better than the only other option.


And you continue to blame the IWR instead of the ONE man who violated the IWR to have his war.

YOU help Bush get away with that every time you blame the IWR.

[Jacobin]

46. My preference?

that would be for politicians in congress not to authorize war unless we are attacked.

Bizarre and radical, I know but that's just me

[blm]

52. So you wanted NO guidelines for Bush.

Because you wanted NO resolution at all.

And how would the historic record be written honestly when WMDs are discovered the first week Bush went into Iraq because there were NO weapons inspections first?

[Jacobin]

54. ahem

I've read and re-read your post.

I cannot understand what you are trying to say.

I know you are earnest and sincere.

I simply have a different view of things.

the IWR was not inevitable. It was passed by human beings in congress.
They could have told bush to go fuck himself and the historical record shows that would have been the correct thing to do.

peace

[Mass]

56. You realize we still would be in Iraq anyway, only more quickly

(Bush was going without it and he would not have needed to go to the UN),

Which is why I dont bother with IWR. But it is time to call for withdrawal NOW.

[TayTay]

112. That is not true

Certainly the American people didn't believe that. The polls were in favor of that vote. There were voices in the Admin, like Powell that assured people that this was a vote for inspectors.

This is hindsight. People at the time thought it was to get tough fir Hussein which would force the inspectors in.

You can't rewrite history. This view also absolves Bush and his people of the responsibility for what went wrong in Iraq. Kerry didn't make the plans for Iraq, conduct the war or preside over the initial screw-ups. The Democratic Party is not responsible for what went wrong over there. Bush and his Republican backers are. I refuse to fall into the right wing trap that says that the Dems are more responsible for this than the people who actually screwed it up.

This is false reasoning and is based on a false reading of the facts.

[blm]

30. Blaming the iWR that should've PREVENTED War works great for Bush.

Keep it up.

Bush can blame IWR, too...see...they MADE me do it.

Bush can't be held accountable for not adhering to the guidelines in the IWR because too many on the left and in the corporate media cling to and repeat the lie that IWR gave Bush a blank check and war is what everyone supported.

Nice how that worked out for Bush. Kind of you to help.

[Jacobin]

40. That's really quite bizarre

I have no fucking clue what you are talking about

good day

[keta11]

32. Thats right. Mr. Phony himself

Nothing irked me more during the elections than hearing him say that we should have invaded in a "multi-lateral" way.

He figures he is good at Triangulation.

[blm]

35. Nixon planted the phony meme. Cheney planted the conspiracy theorist meme

and it's interesting that so many use their attacks to this day.

[IndianaGreen]

37. and millions marched, wrote letter, sent e-mails, made phone calls against

the war, and they were ignored by many of the same unrepentant Democrats that want our votes for President.

[blm]

44. And IWR gave guidelines that Bush wouldn't have had. The historic record

that witnessed weapons inspections turning up no WMDs happened BECAUSE of IWR, and Bush would have gotten away with planting them if there was no IWR guide that called for the UN weapons inspections.

IWR gave us the opportunity to get a more honest view into Iraq that we wouldn't have had if Bush had his way and went in without IWR guidelines.

[Jacobin]

50. and which guidelines, exactly, has Bush followed?

I'm waiting.


(oh and remember, the Geneva Conventions are 'quaint')

[IndianaGreen]

62. Kerry has been silent about torture and Bush's gulag

and he has never called for the troops to come home now.

Kerry supports the war, and he said so explicitly when Kerry said that he would have voted for IWR even had he known then what he knew now.

[zulchzulu]

153. Um...Kerry called for Rumsfeld's resignation in January 2004...

I know facts about Kerry are something you just can't stand...but...I personally remember and have on video of him speaking about the torture stories in Iraq as far back as the spring 2004.

I know...facts....bad...

[blm]

73. That's the point. He violated IWR and rushed to war without implementing

the guidelines honestly.

But whenever any Dem says Bush rushed to war without letting weapons inspections work properly, he's shouted down by the left and the Bush media screaming BLANK CHECK - IWR is a vote for war - how does Bush get held to account when media and left insist he had a Blank Check?

[Selatius]

82. I'm having trouble understanding your argument

Giving Bush the IWR is like giving him a legally purchased firearm instead of sitting by and waiting for him to illegally obtain a firearm. True, in either case the outcome would be the same, but Congress bears its own responsibility in entrusting Bush with the gun, but Bush bears the responsibility of pulling the trigger. In such a situation, both parties are held liable. It is not an either-or dichotomy. If Congress had become deadlocked over the IWR or even killed the IWR entirely, Bush would bear full responsibility for both grabbing the gun and pulling the trigger.

[blm]

94. And there would STILL be war with no weapons inspections first to

document that the WMDs were never there.

Of course, then it would have been alot easier for BushInc to plant them and then he'd be the big hero today wouldn't he?

The historic record does make a difference.

[Selatius]

101. War was most likely a foregone conclusion, but Bush would've had no...

legitimacy at all in doing so, and those UN inspectors would've gone back in regardless of IWR or not because Iraq was put back into the spotlight, and the UN resolution was now on the books, and Saddam was looking to live, not die. Also, I doubt Bush would be able to plant anything without something leaking from his government into the public domain. He pissed off enough people in the CIA.

[blm]

103. Yes, he would've. The UN res of 1991 actually gave him greater legal

standing, and it was what Blair preferred, but Rove and Bush wanted to force a vote to divide the Dems before the election.

[IndianaGreen]

64. Democrats suffer from revisionist history much as the GOP does

We are not gullible Sunday Bible school students!

[Mass]

66. You're right, particularly you, or are you not a Democrat.?

[IndianaGreen]

68. I am actually a Marxist-Leninist that votes Democratic

Is Mass for Catholic mass or for that eastern state where the Boston Red Sox prowl?

We do have a 2-party system... very democratic!

[blm]

107. Gullible is anyone blaming a resolution instead of Bush.

If the blame was on the resolutiuon, then Bush did nothing wrong and acted as directed by the IWR.

[High Plains]

111. Oh, stop it with the non sequitur!

It does not follow that if you blame Democrats for voting for the IWR, you let Bush off the hook. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[blm]

158. You're just not getting it. IWR would PREVENT WAR administered accordingly

So to blame a guideline to PREVENT war is wrongheaded when the blame belongs on the person who VIOLATED the guidelines.

You play into the spin whenever you blame the guidelines themselves.

[zulchzulu]

57. Kerry voted for the UN to continue inspections...not to invade Iraq ...

...unilaterally.

I guess I understand that some people are just not intelligent enough to see what the IWR vote was about...it was to allow the President the power to go to war AS A LAST RESORT and after allowing the UN to continue inspections AND to go into Iraq to get rid of any WMDs AFTER the UN inspected and FOUND and to go into Iraq with a full multinational force AS A LAST RESORT...

Would Kerry have wanted Bush to go into Iraq unilaterally? No!

Some people just wanker off that Kerry "voted for the war". That shows their lack of any understanding on the issue.

On the message Kerry gave today, that was a tragic message about how it has not only affected him as a soldier, but as the state he is from and represents...

[IndianaGreen]

63. IWR = Iraq War Resolution

I don't think it was called Iraq UN Inspection Resolution.

Besides, Saddam had allowed the UN inspectors in the country.

Kerry lies as much as Bush!

[Mass]

65. Not at this time. When they voted, the UN had not asked for the inspectors

to enter Iraq. It was voted by the UN one month later.

[zulchzulu]

69. Well gee, what does this say?

While I would personally have voted against it, the IWR (which is actually called "Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", certainly says that the UN was to very much be a part of ANY decision to go into Iraq.

What Bush did was to ignore Section 4 and report back to Congress every 60 days and instead unilaterally go into Iraq.

From the text of the ACTUAL document (http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/10/02-10-11.shtml),
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to -

1. strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

2. obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to -

1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

Kerry had mentioned MANY times that he would have worked with the UN and expected Bush to follow the words in the resolution.

Bush instead committed the US to an illegal war that bastardized the UN resolution that was signed.

[IndianaGreen]

74. Did Kerry call for Bush's impeachment for violating IWR?

No, he didn't!

[zulchzulu]

76. Actually, yes, he did...

I witnessed many speeches that Kerry gave in 2003-04 where he called Bush careless, wreckless and demanded that he be called to justice for his lies and deception about the war. And he did in fact call fro Bush's impeachment after the DSM:

Kerry To Push For Bush Impeachment
Posted by News Reporter on 2005/6/3 10:29:52
By Sher Zieve

John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported by the London Times 1 May 2005. As reported by NewsMax, the memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair ostensibly said that President Bush’s Administration “fixed” intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war. In an interview with the Standard Times, Kerry said: "It's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

[karynnj]

84. Iraq did not let the inspecters in until AFTER the IWR

Their presence was due to the UN demand after the US went to the UN after the IWR passed. Kerry is an extremely honest person.

[keta11]

71. I dont know why you guys are slow to read into the man

He is a calculating politician who knew he was going to run for President and at that time (mid-term 2002 elections) only the brave dared contradict Dumbya and the Republicans on anything terrorism related so soon after 9-11. Think back to the nationalist frenzy extant - The Repubs were tarring anything that moved as unpatriotic. Poor Tom Daschle was even harried and bullied into scheduling the IWR vote a month before the mid-term elections so the electorate could see who voted no and who voted yes.

Mr. Phony was just scared like many of the other coward politicians in Washington - straight and simple.

[Mass]

93. Thanks for your opinion and a nice list of talking points

Can we disagree with you or do you know everything?

[blm]

106. You're wrong. Kerry was first to point to Bush's failures in Afghanistan

and even many Dems like Dean sided with Bush PUBLICLY on a June 2002 MTP and over Kerry then.

For months Kerry spoke about Tora Bora and how Bush's strategy allowed Bin Laden to escape with most of his men.

Media wouldn't discuss it, Dems stood by Bush against Kerry, and Reps said Kerry wasn't telling the truth. They even got Tommy Franks to say Kerry was wrong.

Now, of course, we know Kerry was right.

[LittleClarkie]

108. Oh my God, was he ever. Like a drum. Tora Bora, Tora Bora, Tora Bora

He was the only one who kept saying it during the primaries.

And again on Letterman, then again in the first debate.

And he said he'd be among the first to squawk if Bush didn't find what he said he'd find in Iraq. And he was.

[PunkPop]

6. I am reminded of the way we were lied into a war

that has nothing at all to do with nobility or service to the nation.

[endarkenment]

7. Sorry John

�We have a sacred obligation to all our brave men and women in uniform to make the right decisions in Iraq so that we can bring our forces home as soon as possible, leaving behind a stable Iraq."

'Must complete the mission.' Wrong. Think John, think. What was it you said so many years ago? It starts like this: "How can you ask a man...". Remember John? Remember who you were and where you came from?

It ain't election year and I'm not cutting any of our Democratic 'leaders' any slack on their position on the stupid awful bloody war in iraq. Hopefully John Kerry will have something more courageous to say tomorrow.

[welshTerrier2]

8. can you guess the missing word ...

Kerry's speech was great ...

it included all the right words ... he had "brave", "selfless", "free", "honor", "sacrifice", "mourning", "loss", "service", and "noble" ...

not a bad list, eh???

it makes the hypocrisy that much worse ...

did you spot the missing word ???

WITHDRAWAL

[IndianaGreen]

10. No "PEACE NOW" from Kerry

Obviously this is not the same Kerry that co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

[Mass]

12. No peace NOW for any Democrats in the Senate at all.

This is unfortunately very close to what Feingold said today.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Dennis Kucinich remains true to form

I posted Dennis's statement in this forum.

Check his website:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=35940

[Mass]

16. That is an excellent statement,

[dennisnyc]

100. Kucinich is right

Support the troops by bringing them home now!
In NYC we'll be outside Clinton and Schumer's office building at 6:30 to protest their doing NOTHING to stop this illegal war.

[welshTerrier2]

13. "leaving behind a 'stable' Iraq"

yeah, whatever you say, John ...

give me a call when it's stable ... you and i will be in nursing homes by then ...

[sandnsea]

17. "bring our forces home", entire statement

Here's the entire statement,

�We learned today of the 2,000th American military fatality in the war in Iraq - Staff Sgt. George Alexander Jr. Throughout our history, brave men and women have stepped forward to serve our country and selflessly put their lives on the line in times of war and great danger. We are America the free because of them.

�This is another tragic milestone in the war in Iraq, a heart-wrenching day for more than 2,000 American families who have lost sons and daughters, husbands and wives. America honors the service of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and we join their families and loved ones in mourning their loss. Today as we laid another son of Massachusetts to rest in the soil at Arlington National Cemetery, I am reminded of the way our state of Massachusetts continues to answer the call to service. Each day is a blessing and a gift made possible by those who have answered the nation�s call. Their service and that of their families is as noble as their selflessness is humbling.

�We have a sacred obligation to all our brave men and women in uniform to make the right decisions in Iraq so that we can bring our forces home as soon as possible, leaving behind a stable Iraq.

�I hope that everyone will take a moment and say a prayer for peace and a prayer of thanksgiving that there are people like these so willing to serve our country.�

[welshTerrier2]

18. yes, i read that ...

when you read the entire statement, you see that Kerry is calling for more American deaths in Iraq ... that's because he included the phrase (in his "entire" statement): "leaving behind a stable Iraq" ...

that's exactly what bush, PNAC et al are saying ... it's what Dean is saying ... it's what Clark is saying ... it's what Hillary is saying ... and it is the exact opposite of:

WITHDRAWAL

[Mass]

20. Do me a favor and add Feingold, for those who still think he is calling

for withdrawal.

[welshTerrier2]

22. and ....

Feingold ...

his statement about Iraq was bullshit !!!

how's that ??

[Mass]

23. Fine. No pb.

For the record, I dont think that Clark,Dean, Feingold, and Kerry are looking for the same solution and goals as Bush. I just think they are misguided if they think that keeping troops in Iraq any longer will help stabilize Iraq.

Bush wants to keep troops in Iraq, period. Not sure what to think about Clinton.

[IndianaGreen]

70. "leaving behind a stable Iraq"

How many dead are we going to have by 2008?

I don't recall fucking Kerry saying anything about leaving behind a stable Vietnam!

[sandnsea]

102. Vietnamese weren't globalizing

There wasn't a global Vietnamese network of terrorists. Sadly, very sadly, terrorism does make this a bit different. And oil. And Israel. And Iran. I'm sure if he thought the terrorism threat was as dumb as the Communist threat, he'd have a different view. 9/11 did change that aspect. Unless you believe Bush caused 9/11, Iraq as another terrorist state has to be considered. He prefers not to do that, although he recognizes that it's getting more unlikely every day. He's delivering a major speech tomorrow, I'll wait until then to make my final judgment on where he's at on Iraq exactly.

[IndianaGreen]

120. Iraq was not a terrorist state until US troops arrived

Are you now saying that Kerry believes in the same shit as Condi Rice?

[sandnsea]

140. That's the point exactly

Terrorists are there. It isn't really delusional to believe that it would be helpful not to leave behind a government that actively supports them. There are no sure fire answers to Iraq, now that Bush has totally fucked it up. Unnecessarily as it was.

Believe me, I am not thoroughly convinced staying is the answer. In fact, if we just keep going along Bush's course, I know staying isn't the answer. But if we were to wrest control away from the cabal, which may just happen thank god, and stop antagonizing the piss out of everybody in Iraq and the ME, maybe there's still hope to calm things down and really rebuild before we leave.

[eridani]

146. That's not what the warhawks said at the time

A blast from the past--remember the Domino Theory?

So what is Kerry's evidence (or your evidence) that staying in Iraq is reducing the threat of terrorism? Seems like the exact opposite to me.

[blm]

21. Too bad, welsh......sometimes you hear what you want and don't hear what

you say you want.

Your harshness is amazing since you know Kerry is speaking tomorrow on Iraq.

[welshTerrier2]

25. let's be fair here ...

first, i didn't know Kerry is speaking tomorrow on Iraq ...

and second, what i hear was Kerry saying that we can't leave Iraq ...

he included the phrase: "so that we can bring our forces home as soon as possible, leaving behind a stable Iraq."

that's a smokescreen they all have been using to call for more, not less, war, death and occupation ...

you either call for withdrawal (now or with time limits) or you call for a "litmus test" before we can withdraw ... there's NOT going to be any stability in Iraq ... and anyone who denies that is calling for more war and NOT calling for an end to the war ...

so if you think i'm misreading exactly what Kerry said, please elaborate ... it seems pretty clear to me ...

[blm]

38. You never factor in that Kerry has the ear of the top people at UN, NATO

and all of our traditional allies. I don't. You don't. Few do. Kerry is one of those few.

He speaks to them directly and knows what they would offer and what they feel they are capable of doing.

He will weigh all considerations carefully before he speaks.

He didn't get the name of the Tough Dove for all those years for nothing.

[welshTerrier2]

47. there is no hope in Iraq

i want those troops out of there NOW ... i'm not going to factor in any more than what i see reported everyday ... we're bombing Iraqi cities ... a hotel right next to the "Green Zone" in an area that should be the most secure got blown up yesterday ... the training of Iraqi troops is a disaster ... even if it succeeds, all we're doing is arming a murderous militia ... how many American families are being ripped apart by this insanity? how many Iraqi families?

most of us believe the war is putting this country at greater risk ... continued occupation is doing nothing but building more hatred for the US all over the world ...

a very recent study done for the British Ministry of Defense showed that 45% of the Iraqi people support attacks by the insurgents on US and UK troops ... and a poll this past August showed that 82% of Iraqis want the US to get the hell out of their country NOW ... in this country, an early October CBS poll showed that 52% of Americans want the US out of Iraq ASAP even if that means leaving before Iraq is stabilized ... a Pew Research poll puts the number at 48% ... and i think it's more than fair to argue those numbers would be much higher among Democrats ...

Kerry and the rest of them who call for stabilizing Iraq as a "litmus test" are wrong ... i've seen enough and the American people have seen enough ... what many of us have now is a Party that refuses to represent us on this critical issue ... it's time to throw the bumbs out ... all of them who keep funding bush's war and calling for success-oriented solutions ... and if that means voting out the entire Senate, so be it ... they've all put this country at greater risk with their stupidity ...

[blm]

92. You don't know what he's going to say tomorrow but you'll condemn him

anyway.

I don't know what he's going to say. But, I do know he's a brilliant, compassionate man who hates war a heckuva lot more than most lawmakers and for all the right reasons. He will weigh what is possible and what isn't.

You keep forgetting that in early Sept. Kerry said he saw only a two month window to turn things around and then the US would need to begin a pullout strategy.

If you're going to focus on Kerry as a key figure for your critical attention, then pay attention to everything.

[IndianaGreen]

114. Kerry's timing is as flawed as his Presidential campaign was

Tomorrow is Fitzmas and everyone will be talking about the indictments, not about what a loser from Massachusetts had to say about Iraq.

BTW, I predict that Kerry will adhere to the "war can be managed better" and he will propose a withdrawal date set a couple of days prior to the Second Coming.

[kerrygoddess]

117. Litmus test?

Your words not Kerry's. Maybe you could save us all some grief and wait to hear what he says tomorrow...

[welshTerrier2]

118. then don't post what he said today n/t

[liberalitch]

9. How do you ask a person to be the 2001st person to die....

for a lie!

[IndianaGreen]

11. Kerry should have said that

but he didn't. Whatever become of the Kerry that asked how do you ask a person to die for a mistake?

[liberalitch]

28. He's been missing for 18+ years..... walked up the capitol steps....

and no one ever saw him again

[welshTerrier2]

31. Capitol "Stepfords" ??

maybe they're holding him at an undisclosed location and replaced him with a Capitol Stepford John Kerry ...

the old one was great, wasn't he ?? the old one used to "honor our troops" by calling for PEACE ... the new one?? not so much ...

[blm]

48. Oh - it was YOU who uncovered IranContra and BCCI and the

illegal wars in Central America, and wrote a book about the funding of terrorism.

And all this time I thought it was Kerry who you say disappeared 18 years ago.

[liberalitch]

51. I'm just quoting others....

and yes.... what would you do if I said: YES!!!! I did all of those things and more!!!!!
I also discovered America and the breast cancer gene!

[blm]

95. Well, you seem to believe Kerry did NONE of those things or none of those

events were worthwhile to you over the last 20 years.

[bunny planet]

105. save your strength blm, from what I've seen, the Kerry haters around here

are as close minded as the * lovers on other sites. It is distressing to me to see it over and over again too, especially on a thread that was supposed to be about Kerry's words about the sad loss of our 2000th troop in Iraq. JK is a decent, honorable man but some people just refuse to even entertain that notion. The judgemental invective just never stops, it makes me very sad.

[IndianaGreen]

121. There is nothing decent or honorable about the war in Iraq

Kerry's failure to even join Rep. Conyers and ask for hearings on the Downing Street Memo, is what is pathetic.

Should we remind you of Kerry's declaration that he would have voted for IWR even had he known then what he knew in 2004?

There is neither decency nor honor in what Kerry said.

[politicasista]

129. She was talking about Kerry, the person

How do you know he isn't working with Conyers? He is the one that is calling for senators to sign the DSM? He has been one of the most visible people speaking up on the * administration. Too bad you can't put the blame and anger where it should be, instead spend valuable time eating your own.

[bunny planet]

154. You don't have your facts right. Kerry demanded hearings on the DSM and I

believe also signed Conyers letter asking for those hearings. The media of course, did not cover it.

Whatever, you apparently feel like you know the inner workings of Kerry's heart and mind, there will be no dissuading you.

I'm basing my opinion on what he's done for over 25 years. Go and read his speech being given today and see if you still don't hear a decent and principled man. You probably won't see that even if you do read the speech, as you deem yourself the arbiter of all that is good and principled and there can't possibly be room for an honorable person making a mistake and admitting it.

And btw, just because I support Kerry, and believe him to be an honest and decent man, does not mean I think there is anything honorable and decent about the war in Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

72. That was 30 years ago!

This is like having a prostitute brag about having been a virgin when one was 15.

[Mass]

83. More like 15 to 20. But who cares about history.

[LittleClarkie]

136. And I didn't know that uncovering corruption had an expiration date

after which it no longer counts.

Actually, as of December 2004, he was still trying to get justice for those who lost their money in BCCI. I read about that in an India newspaper, referring to a call he made over the holiday to push the Bank of England to help those people. It's not even as if any of them will ever vote for him. God knows no one in America gave a shit what he was doing over there. So it would be hard to claim he did it for votes or to get elected in 2008.

A decent man, indeed.

[blm]

86. I'm sure you can count better than that, IG. The poster claimed Kerry

disappeared when he entered the Senate.

I say he uncovered IranContra and BCCI and the illegal wars in Iraq, and the global funding of terror, worked on Kyoto Protocol for 190 years, crafted SCHIP bill, the Violence against Women act, and many other accomplishments over the last 20 years.

Go ahead and try to match that record with the record of any other lawmaker of the last 20 years.

[welshTerrier2]

14. that's excellent !! n/t

[RethugAssKicker]

19. Typical political speech bullshit!!!

noble, selflessness, brave..etc.etc..

What a crock of BS. Where does he say we need to get out!

[IndianaGreen]

26. I'll trade all of the "noble, selflessness, brave" words of a politician

for having all of them back home alive!

Obviously Kerry is not bothered by having 2,000 names on a future Iraq War Memorial for he is not calling for PEACE NOW.

[karynnj]

90. Even if Kerry came out screaming that he wants all the troops out now

Nothing will happen. He is not the President

[IndianaGreen]

115. But he would have taken a stand for peace

Sometimes one has to take a principled stand even if one does not win. Funny that on the same day we celebrate the life of Rosa Parks, and her courageous stand she took when she refused to give up her seat to a white man, that we still have political leaders that flunk the courage test.

Kerry should re-read "Profiles in Courage" and take a clue from the author.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[blm]

45. If you can effect history more positively than Kerry has, then run against

him.

Get rid of the knownothing who never lifted a finger for this country. Do your duty, if you think he's that bad.

[MrTriumph]

61. Whoa, blm. We respect Kerry for his service to our country.

But that does not negate the case that the IWR was a blank check for Bush to go to war. Sure there where provisions. But Bush had a record of breaking agreements. And congress had a track record of giving Bush pass for his many transgressions.


But make no mistake, blm, we respect Kerry for his service to our country.

[Mass]

67. Yuo do. Obviously, some people in this thread dont.

[IndianaGreen]

78. Kerry betrayed himself

Today's Kerry is a far cry from the Kerry that opposed the Vietnam War.

I don't respect Kerry at all!

[Mass]

81. So, I was right. I was answering to somebody who said people respected

Kerry. I told him some here did not.

[blm]

88. The poster said he doesn't want Kerry as a senator. And IWRs NOT a blank

check for Bush, but Bush and Rove took advantage of that to spin it as if there is no reason to hold him accountable for VIOLATING the guidelines of the IWR....you know...since the left and the media popularized the idea that there WERE NO GUIDELINES for Bush.

Many Dems came forwrad and tried to say Bush was not letting the inspections work and rushing to war, while too many were helping Bush by screaming loudly IWR IS A BLANK CHECK and a IWR MEANS A VOTE FOR WAR.

Cheezus Keerist......and the media followed along blissfully....and noone would discuss how Bush rushed to war without adhering honestly to the guidelines they pretend don't exist.

[LittleClarkie]

113. Are you a Massachusetts person?

You said you didn't want him as Senator, so it sounded like it.

[enough already]

59. Every Democrat that voted for this bullshit war has blood on their hands

including Kerry

[brentspeak]

98. Did they send us into war?

Answer: nope.

[enough already]

151. Answer: Yep

They voted for it, they sent us in, they bowed down and kissed the chimp's ass, and now they don't have the balls to simply say "get the f*** out now".

[LittleClarkie]

104. What about that chimp-looking fellow in the White House

You remember, the one that lied. The one that trumped up false intelligence and even more false evidence. That guy.

Think we could save a smidgeon of blame for him? After we're done blaming every last single Democrat, of course. I do realize that's first priority.

But I'd hate to see the retarded cowboy be left out. Not to mention the Whigs. They should get some too. If there's any left, of course.

"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."

[SlavesandBulldozers]

125. nice post

especially the retarded cowboy bit. ;)

[LittleClarkie]

131. Thanks. I actually stole that bit, from Devo of all people

They were in Japan before the election, and that's what one of them called our glorious leader. I was quite amused. I wonder how you translate "retarded cowboy" into Japanese.

[enough already]

152. I expect the chimp to do stupid, illegal, immoral shit

Sorry, but I expect better from Democrats.

[politicasista]

85. Another positive Kerry thread turning into a flamewar

Go Figure. :(

[Mass]

87. I wonder if they will trash Dean's thread as well

He is asking for a plan for victory. Does not seem better than a stable Iraq.

[eridani]

147. Before we bother with a "plan"

--how about a DEFINITION of victory?

[Mass]

96. �Stay the course� and �not out now� are not the same thing.

�Stay the course� and �not out now� are not the same thing.

Some people have the feeling that we have a responsibility to help the Iraqis. No reasonnable people would say leave now if there was an easy solution to help the Iraqis.

Bush is not interested in helping the Iraqis and leaving, he is interested in staying and having military basis and cheap oil.

This is the major difference. I dont believe the first goal is achievable, but it is an honest and noble goal. The second one is bad.

[LittleClarkie]

110. And I think even Kerry has a breaking point

if things aren't significantly better by the end of the year, I think he may reach it. That is my prediction.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[pox americana]

116. And that's the tip of the iceberg.

How many thousands more screwed up for life or just left out of what has to be a conservative calculation? (not to dispute the accuracy)

[frogmarch]

119. Kerry and the other senators

who gave a yes vote not only believed the neocons' WMD lie. They also believed the lie that all diplomatic options would be exhausted before waging war on Iraq, and they believed the lie that if war turned out to be the only option left - that is, if Saddam refused to allow WMD inspections - then a large international coalition would be formed to fight the war and to assist in putting Iraq back together when the war was finished. Kerry said, "Nobody on our side voted for the war. We needed the legitimate threat of war to get our inspectors into Iraq." At the time, he believed that Saddam may very well have had WMD and that the USA needed to twist his arm to force him let inspectors back into Iraq.

I don't understand why Kerry, Clinton and others are villified on this board and accused of being pro-war. That's not how I see them, nor do any of the staunch Democrats I know personally.

[IndianaGreen]

122. Did Kerry scream "FOUL" when the war began? No!

Did Kerry accuse Bush of rushing to war when Bush was pressuring the UN inspectors to leave Iraq? No!

Has Kerry called for an immediate end to the war? No!

[LittleClarkie]

128. Is December 3rd 2003 soon enough?

Considering the war started on March 20th, 2003?

He appears to have given it about 9 months before he started railing against Bush's policies. He did say in his IWR speech that if WMD's weren't found, he'd be among the first to raise his voice.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6576

"Today we have an administration that has turned its back on those values and principles. We have a president who has developed and exalted a strategy of war -- unilateral, preemptive and, in my view, profoundly threatening to America's place in the world and to the safety and prosperity of our own society.

Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history. In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the world rallied to the common cause of fighting terrorism. But President Bush has squandered that historic moment. The coalition is now in tatters, and the global war on terrorism has actually been set back. The president had the opportunity to unite the international community and hold Saddam Hussein accountable and, in doing so, to perhaps have avoided war altogether. But he refused to take the time or to expend the true effort of diplomacy. He went to war in a rush, and he rushed into war almost alone. Now the United Nations is divided, years of work is torn apart, and we are fighting an increasingly deadly guerrilla war in Iraq almost single-handedly. We have lost the goodwill of the world, and over-extended our troops, and endangered rather than enhanced our own security.

I believed a year ago and I believe now that we had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and that we, the United States, needed to lead in that effort. But this administration did it in the worst possible way: without the United Nations, without our allies, without a legitimate plan to win the peace.

So we are left asking: How is it possible to liberate a country, depose a ruthless dictator who at least in the past had weapons of mass destruction, and convert a preordained success into a diplomatic fiasco? How is it possible to do what the Bush administration has done in Iraq: win a great military victory yet make America weaker? "

[LittleClarkie]

124. Indeed. And inspectors were let back in. They found nothing.

But that was never the point. They were only sent in because the Bush Admin was going through the motions of looking reasonable.

Kind of like, on another part of the board, there's a thread that talks about Bush Co. not taking "yes" for an answer from Syria. They try to cooperate, but the Bushites don't accept that, because they want Syria to be next.

I can't believe they are even considering it, with all that is going on. I have a bet that we will go there before the end of Bush's administration. It's a bet I'd like to NOT win.

[IndianaGreen]

126. And like he did on Iraq, Kerry voted to give Bush authority on Syria

Kerry was a sponsor of the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, which laid the basis for future US military actions against Syria.

Syria and the Double Standards of John Kerry

It would take quite an effort to find someone willing to defend Syria�s government as a beacon of openness and freedom. Syria�s inhabitants are ruled by a dictatorship that maintains a tight grip on most aspects of public life. Aside from the viciousness of its internal police agencies, Syria�s military continues to maintain a large and suffocating presence in neighboring Lebanon.

And yet, there are many people who are willing to defend similar conduct by other nations in the region. Condemning Syria for its appalling domestic and foreign policies, while letting the governments of Israel and the United States off the hook for the atrocities they�ve committed in the region � as the Syria Accountability Act has done � is just one example of how U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is laden with double standards.

One of the U.S Senate�s co-sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act was Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The act, signed into law in December 2003 by President Bush, directs the president to impose sanctions against Syria and to ban U.S. sales of weaponry and dual-use items to the country.

Critics of the act complained it represented yet another example of the U.S. government helping Israel so as to diminish any potential threat to that nation�s military supremacy in the Middle East. Bush signed the act into law two months after Israel launched military air strikes against two sites in Syria. The U.S. government has yet to condemn those strikes.

Kerry was not alone in his support of the Syria act. All of Congress, except for four senators and eight members of the House, voted in favor of act. The four senators who voted against the act were Robert Byrd (D-WV), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT). The eight members of the House who voted against it were John Conyers (D-MI), John Dingell (D-MI), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ron Paul (R-TXCritics of the act complained it represented yet another example of the U.S. government helping Israel so as to diminish any potential threat to that nation�s military supremacy in the Middle East. Bush signed the act into law two months after Israel launched military air strikes against two sites in Syria. The U.S. government has yet to condemn those strikes.

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/hand02192004/

[LittleClarkie]

127. I suspect he wants that vote back too

I reckon.

[politicasista]

130. Why do you always single out one person?

Why not direct your anger at the other senators who aren't holding * accountable? It's time to put the blame and anger on the REAL warmonger that occupies the WH.

[IndianaGreen]

133. Kerry is running for President again

If it is any consolation to you, if it came down between Hillary and Kerry, I would be a strong Kerry backer to save ourselves from that unprincipled woman.

[LittleClarkie]

149. I assume these folks are also ahead of Kerry on that list

Sen. Hillary Clinton of NY
Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Gov. Mark Warner

as From was listing them as DLCers who are likely running for Prez. Note the absence of either Kerry or Edwards. Too liberal, I reckon.

[IndianaGreen]

156. Hillary thinks she is entitled to the nomination

and some people want us to believe that her nomination is inevitable.

[LittleClarkie]

157. I'm hoping cold hard reality hits her square in the face

come primary time. I suspect that she will only be the frontrunner until somebody casts a vote.

[LittleClarkie]

134. I've never heard of that site

What's it about, exactly? Thanks.

[IndianaGreen]

143. Check out the articles on its front page

http://www.pressaction.com/news

[LittleClarkie]

144. I did. It seems quite far to the left. Is that a fair assessment

or is it more of a mixed baggie?

[IndianaGreen]

155. That's a fair assessment, LittleClarkie

It is well to the Left.

[wisteria]

123. Nice, poignant words from John Kerry!

It's sad he has to write these words because Bush did not heed the advise of Kerry and other Dem's, and allow the inspectors to do there job, get the UN involved and use force as a last resort.Kerry never wanted to go to war, he expected that our President would not abuse his power and lie about his intentions towards Iraq.

[Dr Fate]

132. The fact that Kerry even adressed this awful milestone says enough.

This is not the moment for Kerry to take outright swings at Bush- just adressing it on this day is enough for now.

[politicasista]

135. Well said Doc.

[karynnj]

150. good point

and he was aloquent and caring too - which Bush could do on either count.

[frogmarch]

137. And remember the missing explosives

in Iraq?

27-Oct-04

Bush Failure

AP: "A U.S. military unit that reached a munitions storage installation after the invasion of Iraq had no orders to search or secure the site, where officials say nearly 400 tons of explosives have vanished key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents in Iraq have used in bomb attacks.... The disappearance of the explosives - first reported in Monday's New York Times - has raised questions about why the United States didn't do more to secure the facility and failed to allow full international inspections to resume after the invasion. It has also become a heated issue in the U.S. presidential campaign. The Kerry campaign called the disappearance the latest in a 'tragic series of blunders' by the Bush administration in Iraq." The UN knew where explosives were, but Bush ignored them, threw out inspectors, then rushed to war with no plan. Bush's 'blunders' got American troops killed. No sane, honest person can contradict Kerry on that, although Bush and Cheney try to.


http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Bush+Failure

[wisteria]

139. Yeah, the media dropped that story fast. n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

138. Hear hear

We could only wish that we don't have to wait for another thousand soldier deaths before Rethugs and the DLC hawks finally wake up to reality and realize that we're really not welcome there in Iraq and never will be. Leaving probably would promote instability there-- and frankly, so would staying. There's no way out of a painful interlude there, but our own soldiers are only exacerbating the transition and making ourselves targets.

[frogmarch]

141. Will someone please

tell me why Kerry wanting a stable Iraq is worse than Dean wanting victory in Iraq?

Howard Dean on the 2,000th US fatality in Iraq:

(snip)

"Sadly, in delivering yet another speech about the war in Iraq that lacked a clear plan for victory, President Bush failed to mention the tragic milestone we mark today. This is not the type of leadership that the brave men and women serving in Iraq and their loved ones here at home expect or deserve from the Commander in Chief. Now, even though we have lost 2,000 servicemen and women and spent more than $218 billion over the last two years, just 800 Iraqi troops have been fully trained. The need for a clear plan for victory in Iraq could not be more apparent."

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/10/president_bush_2.php

[LittleClarkie]

142. Simple. It's a popularity contest. And Dean is more popular than Kerry.

Hence, he can say the same. damn. thing. and people will cheer him and boo Kerry. It's quite maddening, isn't it.

[welshTerrier2]

145. exactly !!

for some reason, some of Dean's followers believe he's the peace candidate ... it's nonsense ... Dean is calling for continued occupation and continued death in Iraq ...

from the way Kerry worded his statement, and i'm sure he chose his words very carefully, it seems very clear that he is conditioning withdrawal on stabilizing Iraq ... Kerry said:

"We have a sacred obligation to all our brave men and women in uniform to make the right decisions in Iraq so that we can bring our forces home as soon as possible, leaving behind a stable Iraq."

i interpret that to mean that we can't "bring our forces home" until we can "leave behind a stable Iraq" ...

the bottom line is that neither Kerry nor Dean is calling for withdrawal or a timetable ... and worse yet, they both are ignoring the will of the American people and the Iraqi people who want to put an end to the occupation ...

[LittleClarkie]

148. I can't take it anymore!

The dog! He keeps STARING at me. Iiiieeee!

[jonnyblitz]

159. iin other words, if you are vehemently ant- war like myself

they all suck. :P