John Kerry: The Moment of Truth In Iraq

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry: The Moment of Truth In Iraq
May 6th, 2006 @ 10:28 am

John Kerry speaking at Grinnell College in Iowa today The subject of his speech will be “his thoughts on Vietnam, and how his experience there changed his priorities in life.” We will have the text of the speech as soon as it is available.

The Des Moines Register published the following OP/ED by John Kerry today:

The Moment of Truth In Iraq
By John Kerry
Des Moines Register

Thirty five years ago this spring, I testified before the United States Senate. I was a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran who believed the war had to come to an end.

It was 1971. Three years earlier, Richard Nixon had been elected president with a secret plan for peace — a plan he kept secret from the American people as young Americans continued to die.

We were a country deeply divided. Many people did not understand or agree with my act of public dissent. To them, supporting the troops meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping my mouth shut.

I couldn’t remain silent. I felt compelled to speak out about thousands of Americans losing their lives in Vietnam while politicians in Washington schemed to save their political reputations.

Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, history is repeating itself. It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a course in Iraq that weakens the nation.

True patriots must defend the right of dissent and listen to the dissenters. Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are branded unpatriotic by politicians trying to avoid accountability. Those who are right should never fear public scrutiny.

The War in Vietnam and the War in Iraq are now converging in too many tragic respects.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2889

[rodeodance]

1. -most important way to support our troops is to tell the truth.-

I believe as strongly as I did 35 years ago that the most important way to support our troops is to tell the truth. Patriotism does not belong to those who defend a president’s position — it belongs to those who defend our country, in battle and in dissent. That is a lesson of Vietnam worth remembering today – and a lesson worth applying to Iraq.

[pat_k]

2. Now, if he would just get that the road out of the quagmire in Iraq must

. . .go through Impeachment.

The truth is hard, but every day, more of our fellow citizens are facing it and coming to understand that a rogue regime seized the power of the American presidency on January 6th, 2001.

The people and the leaders of other nations have long known that they can no longer appeal to good will of the American people because when we allowed a man we did not elect to take office, we violated the principle of consent and surrendered the sovereignty of We the People.

As long as we leave governing power in the hands of men who are a law onto themselves, options that would be available to a legitimate American President will remain closed to us.

The conflict and chaos that is spreading inhumanity and destroying lives in the Middle East is not inevitable. We can transform resignation into hope right now by reasserting our collective sovereignty, forcing Bush and Cheney out of power, and turning them over to the Hague to answer for their war crimes.

If we restore legitimate leadership in the White House, the doors of possibility that are closed to the fascist war criminals will open

Legitimate American power can be transformed into a force for good overnight. We can commit our nation to the task of engaging the critical players (Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish blocs, ourselves, the EU, Turkey, Russia, China, the Arab League. . . ) and helping them to find solutions that can work because all the parties have a stake in making them work.

If, because of our complicity in the horrors committed by this regime, our continued involvement is rejected, we must get out of the way, withdraw our troops, and begin to redeem ourselves by setting aside reparations that would be paid as negotiated milestones and conditions are met.

[karynnj]

3. Impeachment starts in the House

He is a Senator - and I believe the only Senator who has mentioned the word in the Senate. (Not calling for it but comparing Bush's lies to Clinton's lie about sex.)

[Terran1212]

4. If Bernie Sanders goes to the Senate he will say it definitely!

A socialist in the Senate? Can American handle that? Bernie can.

[karynnj]

6. It still has to start in the house.

Any of the Senators calling for accountability are in essence asking for the substance that will be needed to back up an impeachment. The two muost important the I know of are the various Senators (including Feingold) who have demanded investigation of the illegal spying on Americans and even more importantly the Senators who signed John Kerry's letter demanding that the Intelligence ccommittee investigate the way the information was intentionally distorted to lead us into war.

I assume those investigations will start if the Democrats take the Senate. (The spying one is easier as the Republican chair has not completely clamped down on the issue.

[pat_k]

9. Anything short of telling the truth -- that Bush and Cheney . . .

. . .have nuked the Constitution with their claims to unlimited power and must be stopped by any means necessary, including being forced from power through Impeachment, is to be an oathbreaker.

Implying that "I'll speak up later" when it's safe (when we have control of Congress) is cowardly.

As long as they skirt the truth, they are acting as accomplices after the fact by providing cover. (Bush and Cheney can point to Congress and say "The unlimited power we claim must be constitutional; if it weren't more members of Congress, who are sworn to support and defend the Constitution, would be calling for action.")

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime. Kerry just needs to look at his failure to take a stand against the Iraq war for proof.

The public believes he voted for the war because he feared they would be called names ("unpatriotic" or whatever). He has paid a serious price for giving in to threats of "backlash" then. The world is suffering irreparable harm because so many in Congress, like him, chose to be complicit in Bush's criminal war of aggression.

[karynnj]

10. The majority of the public saw Kerry as anti-war

It's strange that on this the RW was more honest than the far left.

Kerry has explained any number of times why he voted as he did - his vote did not make the war more likely. He spoke out loudly against the war before it started. There were more than 5 months between the vote and the invasion, during that time inspectors were in Iraq. What was known in March 2003 was different than in October 2002. Kerry said he would not have invaded and his statements throughout that time -which are in the record - back him up.

So, if you want to diminish Bush's culpability, fine but you are not being honest.

[pat_k]

13. The public doesn't buy his explanation (nt)

Perhaps he rationalizes his failure to vote against the resolution that way, but it is nevertheless a rationalization for complicity.

[wisteria]

14. You can speak for yourself, but don't think for a minute you have the

"in" on what "the public" thinks. I for one do not agree with your take on the vote.

[pat_k]

16. So, if not complicity, what?

[ProSense]

17. It's being against Bush's illegal war! n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1015710

[pat_k]

26. How is giving away your power and handing over a blank check opposition?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2609662&mesg_id=2610212

[ProSense]

38. That is not accurate!

The 2001 legislation was an open-ended resolution authorizing Bush to go after anyone responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, it's clear Bush was intentionally making that the Iraq-9/11 linked because he had this authorization. He intended to go to war and would have done so based solely upon powers granted under the War Powers Act, which allows the president to commit to war and report back to Congress within 60 days. The 2002 IWR laid out very strict criteria (48 hrs), and Bush still violated the resolution. He did then what he is doing now, operating above/outside the law.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2581907&mesg_id=2581907

[pat_k]

42. Sounds like a pretty big blank check to me

[ProSense]

43. Your opinion! n/t

[karynnj]

18. Wouldn't it be better to say, you don't

I'm part of the public too. I believe Kerry. I don't see it as "rationalization" as there was consistency in what he said. He was one of the first, clearest voices in 2002 saying that Bush needed to go to Congress and the UN. His September op-ed was very much against Bush going to war, but saying that we needed to get inspectors in.

His floor speech gives that same reason and he did speak out against the war before it started. Throughout 2004 he did speak of Bush misleading us into war and that it was the "wrong war" and that you should only go to war as a last resort. The press referred to him as an anti-war critic through mid 2003. (He criticized the war in March 2003 when over 70% of the population was for it.

If you look at the totality of his remarks and actions, Kerry wanted to avoid war. The fact is Bush could have not gone to war in 2003 and declared his success in getting the inspectors in and destroying the only advanced weapons the Iraqis had a huge success. He would have been right. that was what some of those who voted for a resolution that they described as not what they wanted would have wanted. At the worst, Kerry is guilty of believing a President wouldn't lie on just important issues. He doesn't rationalize his vote, he says he profoundly regrets it. He alone knows his real motives - I trust they were what he consistently said they were - before it was known that Bush would go to war and before it was known that would be a disaster.

[pat_k]

27. I'm sure he believed his own rationalizations. People usually do

Like most of the other members of Congress who rationalized handing Bush a blank check in the authorization to use military force and abdicating their Congressional duties and power in the matter, I'm sure he believed his own rationalizations. People usually do believe their rationalizations. That's the problem.

Our job is to challenge their rationalizations, not excuse them.

Kerry is just one of many members of Congress who are failing to support and defend the Constitution by failing to speak up loud and clear about the incredible damage Bush and Cheney have done to the principles and institutions established in our Constitution, or about the incredible danger the nation is in if we allow them to continue to wield the executive power they have so horribly abused.

Each day a member of Congress fails to fight to remove Bush and Cheney from power, they are saying "Fine. Go ahead. Torch the next bill we pass with your signing statement. Shredding the Constitution isn't really so bad. Go ahead and nuke Iran."

Their denial is understandable. The truth is hard to face. They are just people. But they are people who are charged with supporting and defending the Constitution. They are subject to OUR advice and consent. If we don't challenge their rationalizations and do whatever we can to help them confront the hard truths head on, we are abdicating OUR responsibility.

And this takes us back to my original point http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2609662&mesg_id=2609695

[karynnj]

36. I was at Faneuil Hall - He spoke up and spoke up strongly

against what Bush/Cheney are doing. There is NO constitutional way for Kerry or any other Senator to get Bush out of power.

Exactly what do you think Kerry (or any other Senator) can do. Even our (I see you're also from NJ) good Senators aren't speaking out even as much as Kerry - and I think Lautenberg is fantastic. I've heard Kerry speak about the Constitution many times and is a strong defender.

[pat_k]

40. Did he say that their abuse of the Constitution is intolerable?

Did he say that their claims to unitary authoritarian power poses a clear and present danger that demands impeachment?

Speaking "against" Bush and Cheney, without making the case that Congress has an obligation to Impeach them for their extraordinary abuses, is complaint no more.

Are you saying that because he isn't a member of the House, he can't tell Americans the truth of their predicament and the truth about what Congress is duty bound to do when holders of high office are using their power to destroy the Constitution?

[pat_k]

5. Every member of Congress has sworn to support and defend the Constitution

. . .Every member, whether of the House or Senate, has a duty to do whatever they can to fulfill their oath.

With his Censure resolution, Feingold is saying "No Way" to the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive -- he is declaring them rogues who must be stopped. Censure is his warning shot.

Kerry says he would vote to Censure, but he hasn't co-sponsored it. He continues to tip toe around the truth -- that Bush and Cheney have nuked the Constitution and that we cannot move forward on ANYTHING as long as governing power is left in the hands of men who are a law unto themselves.

You don't negotiate with terrorists, but when members of Congress call for action from the illegitimate Bush White House, that is precisely what they are doing.

[karynnj]

7. Two can play that game

Feingold didn't sign Kerry's letter demanding that the promised part 2 of the WMD investigation be done. Why didn't he support that?

I think in both cases, it might be that they didn't think that was the best way to handle the issue. I don't question either of their motives. (On censure, Kerry had already said he thought Bush broke the law and had called for investigation. It's likely Kerry prefers to push for investigation until it's absolutely precluded before going for censure. Or until the results of investigation make censure more winnable. To tyy for censure and fail may be seen as a Bush victory.)

[pat_k]

11. Ask Feingold. . .

. . . about his decision.

And I don't know what you mean by "it's absolutely precluded."

By his own admission, George W. Bush ordered the illegal surveillance of Americans without a warrant (violation of 50 USC Sec. 1809--Unauthorized Surveillance).

George W. Bush is continuing the illegal program, claiming that, unitary authoritarian power puts him above the law. With nearly every bill he signs, he adds statements that replace the will of the people with the will of George W. Bush.

We know that Bush's claim to unrestrained power has torched the Constitution for the United States.

Investigation to determine the full scope of the administration's crimes must go forward, but the FIRST order of business is to take the massive power of the American Presidency out of the hands of men who overrule the sovereign will of the people.

[ProSense]

19. Feingold on how the Patriot Act obtained the release of that information

Updated: 08:44 AM EDT

FBI Investigated 3,501 People Without Warrants

Received Details From Banks, Credit Card, Telephone and Internet Companies

By MARK SHERMAN, AP

WASHINGTON (April 29) - The FBI secretly sought information last year on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents from their banks and credit card, telephone and Internet companies without a court's approval, the Justice Department said Friday.

It was the first time the Bush administration has publicly disclosed how often it uses the administrative subpoena known as a National Security Letter, which allows the executive branch of government to obtain records about people in terrorism and espionage investigations without a judge's approval or a grand jury subpoena.

Friday's disclosure was mandated as part of the renewal of the Patriot Act, the administration's sweeping anti-terror law.

The FBI delivered a total of 9,254 NSLs relating to 3,501 people in 2005, according to a report submitted late Friday to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. In some cases, the bureau demanded information about one person from several companies.

more...

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428191709990025

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Administration Secretly Seeking Information
on 3501 Americans Last Year

April 29, 2006

"I am pleased that one 'sunshine' provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization has given the public a chance to see how often the administration has obtained the business records of Americans. It should not have taken an Act of Congress for this information to be made public. But it does demonstrate why Congress must make a few more critical changes to the Patriot Act, including a check on the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records. Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter has introduced legislation containing those modifications, and I hope that we can pass that bill this year."

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/04/2006429.html

[pat_k]

28. and this has what to do with Kerry's failure to take up the . . .

. . .fight to remove Bush and Cheney from power?

[karynnj]

37. the point is obvious

The NEW provisions of the patriot act, that most Democrats and a small group of Republicans fought for,have provided new information that previosly wasn't available. Only with substantial information will the majority of people really see what is going on.

People here on DU still vilify all the Democrats who voted for this new compromise version of the Patriot Act. But, if it didn't pass the old one would still be in effect and there would be on-going negotiations where we still would have no additional leverage. As it was thenew bill is in effect and Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin and several other Democrats already have a bill written that would correct the remaining problems. It couldn't pass now, but with a change in Congress and in the nation, it could.

So, there are 2 conclusions:
1) The new bill is better than the old
2) They are working to uphold the Constitution, but it might have to be doen gradually because they don't currently have the votes.

[pat_k]

47. You don't remodel your house when it is on fire.

Their assertion of unitary authoritarian power is the "fire." Impeachment is the way to put it out. Censure is a call to the fire brigade.

The people occupying the executive branch do not believe they are subject to our laws. As long as we let them stay there, our laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Trying to make a bill better when our laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on is not productive.

When high officials in the Executive or Judiciary are subverting the Construction, our representatives in Congress are sworn to act, whatever the consequences. ("Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum" -- "Let Justice Be Done, Though the Heavens Fall")

Their oath is an individual oath. Whether or not a member believes they can get sufficient votes to remove Bush and Cheney from power, they each have a duty speak out, if only to say, "When high officials abuse the power entrusted them, Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution by removing them power. Bush and Cheney assert they are above the law. They are shredding our Constitution. I call on my colleagues to act."

Instead of excusing their failure to act, it is time to remind each other

• that the Constitution is a contract among ourselves;


• that we yielded NONE of our collective sovereignty to ANY institution we established;


• that we gave NO party to the contract the right to usurp or surrender our collective sovereignty.

If standing up for the values we most cherish as Americans loses elections, so be it. If we allow the fear that we'll lose elections silence us, then shame on us.

[ProSense]

48. You're using this thread to run a personal campaign. Write Congress! n/t

[pat_k]

61. I'm just replying to posts directed to me

[ProSense]

65. Still doesn't answer why you chose this thread to push your campaign. n/t

[pat_k]

68. I'm just anwering posts like yours.

My first post was a direct response to the OP. Since then I've been responding to posts directed to me. If that's a "campaign" mea culpa.

[karynnj]

50. What was the name of the Senator , not on the Judiciary

committee who lead the Alito fillibuster precisely to speak out on the issue of " Their assertion of unitary authoritarian power"? Kerry (and his wife) were delegates at the Davos International Economics convention. Kerry spent 1 day there to participate in a forum as a member of the Finance committee. He cancelled a speech he was scheduled to give at as part of prestigous series in Ireland, to fly back and give two speeches on Friday and Monday to try to stop Alito.

It would seem there are a Senator or 2, who are more quilty, why fight with one who likely agrees on the problem - but not your solution.

[pat_k]

66. I expect every member, even the Republicans, to carry out their sworn duty

I am responding to your efforts to excuse or rationalization Kerry's failure to stand up for Impeachment. I didn't single him out, I'm just not giving him a pass.

[karynnj]

90. That's BS - This is a thread put up to talk about a speech Kerry

gave. Even your first post was about impeachment which was not what the topic was about.

I can't speak for the other Kerry group people, but I honestly think that the Senator is working as hard and as intelligently as he can to get the country off the awful track we are on. As I thought he was intelligent and wise enough to be President, I trust that his judgement on which actions to take and what to say is sound. The speeches he has given and his actions in the Senate are consistent with the type of person I thought he was in 2004.

He led on Alito, he led to get oversight on the clandestaine prisons, he's led on an exit plan for Iraq and he has defended the right to dissent better than anyone else. These are 4 very significant issues. His constituents have every reason to be proud of him.

Some things to think of:
-Impeachment starts in the House and almost certainly won't happen without a Democratic majority. So, getting a Democratic majority sounds like a good idea
-The Senate acts as a "jury". So, before impeachment, whichin a sense is a trial, Senators typically don't state their positions.

[pat_k]

94. No

[karynnj]

20. I am meaning that Kerry is likely

going to wait for investigations - until it is clear that they will not happen.

The point id that although it's clear that Bush violated the law - there are still outstanding issues that would likely determine who was spied on and how wide spread it is. The answers to that could increase the public support for censure and possibly impeachment.

Kerry doesn't have the power to take the government out of Bush's hands - and I note you aren't asking that of Feingold.

[pat_k]

29. When a criminal is holding a gun, you don't investigate. . .

. . ."other issues." You do whatever you can to TAKE THE GUN AWAY.

Then you can investigate.

The massive power of the American Presidency is perhaps the most dangerous weapon on the planet. We keep tight controls on how that power can be used for a reason. Bush and Cheney nuked the controls. Every minute, every day that they continue to overrule our will and abuse that power they do more irreparable damage.

They must be disarmed. NOW.

Like any law enforcement agency, Congress is sworn to act.

We need to stop excusing their dereliction of duty and challenge the rationalizations that are stopping them from doing their duty.

What I ask of Kerry is that same thing I ask of Feingold, and of every other member of both the House and the Senate: Take action to fulfill your oath to support and defend the Constitution.

With his resolution, and in every appearance on the matter, Feingold has been crystal clear. He has told the American people that Bush's assertion of unitary power is absurd and that Bush's claim to unrestrained power is an intolerable violation of our Constitution. He is calling on his colleagues to join him in saying "NO WAY" to the abuse of power via Censure. He has also made it clear that Censure is a warning shot, and that if Bush and Cheney continue to claim and exercise dictatorial power, Congress would have an obligation to Impeach.

[karynnj]

44. What precisely do you think Feingold's censure

will do - take away the gun?????? Also, it seems likely if the vote happened when Feingold first spoke in the Senate about it, it would have failed. Do you want Bush to have that to point to? Why do you think that so few people supported it?

Why enter a thread - where Kerry is speaking out on the war - which was what everyone has wanted him to do - and now say - no no no - he's bad he's not speaking for censure, when he's one of less than 10, possibly 5 Senators willing to be on record as one who would vote yes.

He obviously agrees with the goal of holding Bush accountable - which has been a constant theme in his speeches, but he may think a different method is preferable. Aren't there any other candidates that you can pick on. (Any that have a worse position on Iraq, that you can bash part of the time.)

It just seems at bit strange that you pick a thread discussing a speech which is as tough as any anyone is giving, to rant about things Kerry did 3 1/2 years ago. Yet I didn't see you on any threads of people wanting Kerry, Feingold et al to tone down their calls to get out of Iraq.

[pat_k]

69. Yes. It is a statement that Bush and Cheney are shredding the Constitution

. . .Censure is a warning shot. If they don't drop the gun (give up their claims to unitary authoritarian power), he's made it clear that he will carry out his Congressional duty to stop their abuses. He is carrying out his sworn duty. He is standing up and telling the truth in defense of the Constitution. He is calling on his colleagues to join him.

[ProSense]

74. You certainly are rewriting Feingold's statement.

Feingold's censure measure called on Bush to stop warantless searches and apologize. Feingold himself said he does not support impeaching Bush during a time of war.


But since censure is only supported by a handful of Democrats and no Republicans, what's next?

[pat_k]

98. Challenge more members to fulfill their oath and speak out

and support those, like Feingold and Conyers who have led the way.

There is nothing trivial about calling on Bush to acknowledge that his claim to unitary authoritarian executive power is a fantasy, which is what the Censure resolution is all about.

[ProSense]

105. Didn't say trivial. It has no legal impact. It's not impeachment. n/t

[pat_k]

108. Censure is a verdict/conclusion, and as such, could be viewed

. . as more powerful than bringing articles of impeachment (accusation).

The chances that Bush will "drop the gun" in response to the warning shot are slim, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given the chance drop it on his own. Then, when we have to use "lethal force" (impeach) no one can say he wasn't given that chance.

[ProSense]

109. Censure is a reprimand and is not more powerful than impeachment. n/t

[pat_k]

111. A conclusion that a wrong was done (Censure) is more powerful than an

accusation from the House.

I did not say it was more powerful than a verdict of guilty in the Senate.

[ProSense]

113. This is about Kerry and Feingold. They are in the Senate. n/t

[pat_k]

117. Your point?

[Dr Ron]

8. Kerry has been speaking out against Bush and Cheney

He certainly is not softpedalilng the truth.

Kerry is also a cautious prosecutor. It's against his grain to call for the punishment before the trial. He's been talking about the many crimes committed, and will likely be a major force in investigations should the Democrats take control of Congress and have the ability to hold true investigation.

Beyond that, Bush and Cheney are the elected President and Vice President regardless of our questions as to the legitimacy of both their elections and their actions. As long as they are in office they have no legal choice but to go thru the Constitutional system and send bills to the President as well as call on the President to perform the normal functions of the Executive Branch.

Democrats in Congress can follow whatever is allowed Constitutionally allowed to try to limit their power and to investigate them, but if they try to act outside of the Constitution based upon the belief that Bush/Cheney are illegitmate they would be repeating the same types of misconduct as Bush/Cheney.

[pat_k]

12. Yes, he is soft-pedaling

"Speaking out against" without demanding they be stopped is soft-pedaling and a dereliction of duty.

Anything short of calling for action to take the massive power of the American Presidency out of the hands of men who overrule the sovereign will of the people is soft-pedaling.

[karynnj]

21. Are you asking that of any other Senator?

Kerry is speaking as loudly as any and louder than most.

[pat_k]

30. Yes. Starting with meetings with my own Senators and Rep.

. . .and I am recruiting Citizen lobbyists to challenge the rationalizations that their Senators and Representatives invoke to justify their failure to co-sponsor Censure (or in the House, Conyers' resolution) and call for Impeachment

[karynnj]

39. Would you undermine Menendez as he faces re-election?

Would you rather have Tom Kean Jr? Wouldn't it be better to try to elect Democrats?

[pat_k]

49. Who's undermining anyone? Campaigning on Impeachment isn't just . . .

. . .the right thing to do, it is the winning thing to do.

And, even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. I would still be challenging candidates for the House or Senate to support and defend the Constitution in the ONLY way they can when high officials are nuking the Constitution -- via Impeachment.

If standing up for the values we most cherish as Americans loses elections, so be it. If we allow the fear that we'll lose elections silence us, then shame on us.

For more on why running on Impeachment is the winning thing to do, see "On the Eve of Battle: Unfounded Fears and Realistic Rewards" in the following:

http://january6th.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html

[karynnj]

51. I'm in a more conservative part of NJ obviously

because I honestly think it would not be a really good idea here - people are negative on Bush - which will help if Democrats are seen as constraining Bush. Why not wait till the middle of November? Also, who will you vote you if Menendez only goes as far as Senator Kerry has?

[pat_k]

57. Actually, people who identify themselves as conservatives are . . .

. . .very big on accusation and punishment. Accusing Bush, loud and clear, and demanding "punishment" is just the ticket for many. (Removal from power is really a defensive action, but it doesn't hurt to let "get 'em get 'em" people see it as punishment.)

When you start listening for it, you hear Republicans says things like "Bush is like a teenager who was never spanked."

The grave danger posed by their claims to unitary authoritarian power and the necessity for action is easily conveyed to the American people (as Feingold, Harkin, Boxer, and Kerry have demonstrated in interviews). When confronted with the truth, Americans understand that such absolute power is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

From http://january6th.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html

The most serious problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak

Contrary to what many Democratic strategists believe, the perception of weakness has NOTHING to do with stance on national security. It is rooted in:

1. The reticence that centrists seem to have when it comes to accusation and punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) Instead of going after wrong-doers, Democratic leaders seek to "investigate" or "make sure it doesn't happen again" (and the Republicans chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.")


2. The tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.

Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?

[ProSense]

59. So this is a campaign against the Democratic Party? n/t

[pat_k]

70. I don't bother with straw man assertions

[ProSense]

77. I guess you didn't write this:

Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?

[pat_k]

99. You guess wrong

[welshTerrier2]

64. the perception of weakness

Democrats have seen the "McGovern wing of the Party" as a group to be hidden away from public view ... the core message the Party wants to send is that we are macho ... they won't stand against the war in Iraq because that would reinforce the old images that have hurt the Party for so long ...

truly this is madness ...

while i may not agree with you on tactics (did you write the article you linked to?), Democrats need to understand that an overly cautious approach will be seen as a sign of weakness ...

Democrats have done nothing but write blank checks to bush for his insane war since the invasion ... criticisms have narrowly focused either on pre-war lies or on bush's incompetence in conducting the war ... the message from Democrats? they more or less support the war ... do Americans see this as bold ideas and strong leadership? it really is very hard to see how they do ...

[pat_k]

73. the link was one of a couple working drafts on the topic

. . .intended to capture ideas that a couple people (myself included) have been kicking around.

http://january6th.org/drafts.html

If you want to go way off topic, started pulling together one on immigration:
http://january6th.org/borders.html

[karynnj]

79. "more conservative" doesn't mean conservative

My point was simply that I didn't think this was a great idea. Obviously you disagree.

[ProSense]

52. Standing up...loses elections, so be it? Before it was "Do Not Concede"

We The People Do Not Concede
http://january6th.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page7.html



Why not start your own thread for your persoanl campaign, instead of hiding out in this one?

[karynnj]

54. Because here she can post 18 posts

all of which ignore the topic of the thread. In her own thread, she would be real real lonely and it would sink quickly. What's the definition of a parsite?

[pat_k]

118. Just answering your posts. You would prefer I ignore you?

[pat_k]

58. Do Not Concede to stolen elections

[ProSense]

63. A majority believe it was lost. If they heed your advice: so be it. n/t

[pat_k]

75. When the state fails to meet the burden of proving their reported

results are correct, you haven't had a valid election.

http://january6th.org/election2004_burden_of_proof.htm

[ProSense]

80. OK! Kerry's speech was great and withdrawal from Iraq is gaining support.

Have you signed the petition?




http://www.johnkerry.com/action/deadline/?sc=e.20060418

[pat_k]

101. Yes

[TayTay]

23. I see. Well, the rest of us live in the United States

which is a democracy with rules of law. The rules of law, which we don't break because we belive in the rule of law, states that impeachment starts in the House of Representatives. If the House votes up an impeachment then the Senate sits in trial. A guilty verdict results in removal from office.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is using extremist views to justify inaction. The are enabling the Republicans in their quest to retain all power to the Executive. That is how it works.

Senators, like Kerry and Feingold and many others are trying to get a change in the makeup of the Congress by bringing the possibly illegal activities of the Admin to light. This is done, under a rule of law, within the structure of Congress. The fact that the Republican Congress will NOT allow any hearings is part of what must be fought.

Or we could all sit around gazing at our navels and complaining that no one is fighting. Cuz that's what the rest of it is, so much navel-gazing that can be ignored.

[pat_k]

33. They all have mouths. They just need to use them to tell the truth.

Every member of Congress takes an INDIVIDUAL oath. Every member of Congress must make an INDIVIDUAL decision. Duty or complicity.

It doesn't matter if they are the sole voice speaking out to defend the Constitution; they are sworn to do so. It doesn't matter if their battle to move Congress to Impeach and force Bush and Cheney out of office has little chance of success; they are sworn to take up the battle for our Constitution.

No matter what their Constitutional role in the Impeachment process, they must speak out against the bushcheney nuking of our constitution or be complicit.

Perhaps you are sitting around gazing at your navel and complaining. Some of us are turning complaint into action. Some of us are calling and asking questions to find out what is stopping the members of Congress who represent us from acting, and challenging the rationalizations they invoke. Some of us are sitting down with staffers and challenging their rationalizations in one-on-one dialogs. Some are seeking to meet and speak directly to members.

Our collective will IS THE LAW. We are a nation of people, not laws. It is OUR WILL that is codified in the principles and institutions we established in the Constitution and in the laws and resolutions passed by our Congress. The rogue Bush regime is overruling our will. To protect the expression of OUR WILL, we gave Congress -- OUR VOICE -- the power to impeach.

It is time for them to do their job and Impeach the usurpers. It is time for us to make sure they understand their job.

[karynnj]

45. Did you even read Kerry's speech - He is telling the truth

I trust Lautenberg because he has been very strong on many issues. I really don't know that much about Menendez but liked what he had to say in the Senate during the Alito hearings, where among other things he was concerned with Alito's interpretation of the constitution. At this point, I just want him re-elected and will work for that.

Speaking of the constitution, did you bother to hear or read Kerry's brillant speech before he voted against cloture. Kerry made the case, that the judiciary committee should have made. The hearings were pathetic. None of the members did an exceptional job - Kennedy and especially Biden were awful. This was a battle that could have been won. (Bush was going to get a pro-life judge, that's not the issue - the fact was if the Democrats would have focused on the balance of power between the branches of government and the balance between citizens and law enforcement, several libertarians could have been swayed. Kerry did speak out for the constitution strongly in that speech.

[pat_k]

53. The Senators who stood against Alito were great. . .

. . .and most of them were pushed there by the pressure of ordinary citizens. They were inundated. It was great to see (I was down there, walking the halls of the Senate Hart Bldg, delivering letters and talking to any Judicial LA I could get my hands on.)

I appaud every step in the right direction, but will not make excuses for their failures and betrayals. I will keep pushing my fellow citizens and our leaders to challenge the boundaries of "politics as usual."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/1

[karynnj]

55. so, do you remember the Senator who led them

shouldn't you say he was "great". Incidently, no one pushed him - he was the one who said this was the time to stand up.

[pat_k]

60. On that, sure. He was great. Doesn't buy him a pass.

[karynnj]

76. So, how long was he "great" for after that action

How many Senators who did less have you bashed?

[pat_k]

92. To filibuster or not filibuster; To impeach or not impeach

These are separate choices. In each case there is a right choice and a wrong choice. I am thrilled with every member of the Senate who chose "filibuster Alito."

I am thrilled with every member of the House and Senate who is chosing "Impeach."

I will give no member who is choosing "not impeach" a pass. I do what I can to motivate my fellow citizens to challenge them to make the right choice.

[Dr Ron]

32. He's taking a course to bring about change

If the Democrats resorted to sensless rants as you propose they will increase their seats in Congress and extend their hopes for a "permanent majority."

Kerry has rationally called for stopping Bush every step of the way.

[pat_k]

35. Standing on principle ALWAYS benefits the leader who does so. .

And who said anything about rants?

The truth is the truth.

Bush and Cheney ignore constitutional controls on executive power whenever it suits them.

We know this because when we catch them at it, they make the ridiculous claim that they were given the power to overrule our laws in the Authorization to Use Military Force. When they are called on that BS, they make the equally ridiculous claim that they have some inherent power that puts them above the law. When called on that BS, they claim it was given . . . and round and round she goes (Why the two orders Colonel Jessup?)

It is difficult to believe the nation has been tolerating their egregious violations, but when countless Americans are so alienated from their own government, it shouldn't surprise us that they fail to recognize the creeping fascism that is subverting the principles and institutions established in our Constitution.

It may sound paradoxical to some, but as we fight to expose the abuses and take up the fight to remove Bush and Cheney from power, we are renewing the American spirit of optimism as we call on our fellow citizens to reconnect to their government, recognize their own power, and recommit to the task of forming "a more perfect union."

What could be more positive than reminding each other:

• that the Constitution is a contract among ourselves;
• that we yielded NONE of our collective sovereignty to ANY institution we established;
• that we gave NO party to the contract the right to usurp or surrender our collective sovereignty.

Good flows from doing the right thing. But even if there weren't so many rewards, when high officials in the Executive or Judiciary are shredding the Constitution, our representives in Congress are sworn to act, whatever the consequences. ("Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum" -- "Let Justice Be Done, Though the Heavens Fall")

If standing up for the values we most cherish as Americans loses elections, so be it. If we allow the fear that we'll lose elections silence us, then shame on us.

[karynnj]

46. If standing on principle always benifited those who did,

JFK wouldn't have written a book called "Profiles in Courage" about those who did.

[pat_k]

119. Being memorialized for courage a benefit.

[karynnj]

122. But that often doesn't happen

Many courageous stands simply go unnoticed. For example, the man who gave the speech that this thread was originally about has taken many many lonely courageous stands - which you probably would admire, but you would still reject him because he is not doing what you want when you want it.

[pat_k]

123. Where do you get "rejecting him"?

He is charged with representing his constituents and defending the Constitution. We are charged with making our will known to our representatives so they can effectively fight for our common interests.

As a member of Congress, I applaud his actions when he serves the common good and denounce his actions when he fails us. When any member of Congress is failing us, I call on my fellow citizens to help them see the light and carry out their duty.

[welshTerrier2]

34. please read this ...

here's a post i made about impeaching bush: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/31

i've seen you post this argument over and over and over and i think you're missing the larger point ... please understand, i don't necessarily disagree with your call for impeachment ... but i think we should compliment our representatives when they do things we approve of ... if they vote for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, that's good; we should say so ... if they fight to end the war, that's good; we should say so ... if they get arrested as my Congressman did protesting the genocide in Darfur, that's good; we should say so ...

if we believe they should push hard for impeachment and they don't, that's bad; we should say so ...

these issues are NOT mutually exclusive ...

and if your argument is that everything is meaningless unless we impeach bush, i strongly disagree ... we need to educate the American people on why bush, the neo-cons, the republicans, and sometimes even certain Democrats are promoting bankrupt ideas ... whether we have sufficient power to bring about what we believe in does not mean we shouldn't say the truth and teach Americans about our values and beliefs ... do you really think that if bush (and i assume you mean Cheney as well) are impeached that President Hastert won't be controlled by the same elitist swine? bush is hideous and destructive; still, we must see him as just one of many fronts in the battle ... ridding ourselves of his evil will not lead to the progress we need regardless of how gratifying doing so would be ...

i think you need a broader vision of where the battle lies ...

[pat_k]

87. Impeachment, January 6th, Filibustering Alito. . .

When principle demands action, the choices are simple. The task is to clear away the crap and expose the simplicity. Congratulating them for going part of the way doesn't help to clear away crap. Congratulating them for having done the right thing on some other occasion is just a distraction from the simple question at hand.

There are not many political battles that are as clear cut as Impeachment, January 6th, Filibustering Alito, but sometimes principle demands action and there is no moral option but to act. There are times that there is no middle ground; there is no "little bit pregnant." It's all or nothing.

When members of Congress fail to join these fights for fundamental American principle, we hear the same rationalizations over and over (backlash, they'll call us names, it's futile. . )

When we challenge our leaders to take the lead in these critical fights it's an opportunity to challenge the deeply ingrained rationalizations that have kept them on the sidelines in other fights. When we chip away at the barriers to action in one fight we may not successfully motivate them to join that particular battle, but we are clearing away some of the crap, and making it more likely that they'll "see the light" the next time duty calls.

These fights are also the fights that bring us all back to our founding principles. They are choices that force us to see who we are, and to define who we want to be, as Americans.

Questions of political expedience or strategic advantage just don't have much of a place when it comes to our core principles.

[welshTerrier2]

112. well, here i totally disagree ...

i have no objection whatsoever for strong criticism of those you disagree with ... if impeachment is critically needed and our reps won't do the right thing, i have no problem with a "let them hear it" beating ... you believe what you believe and you fight for it ...

but i have a huge disagreement with such a monolithic focus ... as i said in another post, issues are not mutually exclusive ... we just cannot afford to fail to support good ideas when our reps, regardless of our views of them, make a good case for needed progress ... we have far too little of that to begin with ...

the process of educating the American people to our values and beliefs has to be an ongoing process ... day after day events push a wide array of issues across the American consciousness ... healthcare, voting rights, racism, foreign policy, fiscal policy, civil liberties and on and on ... the idea that will you let every issue drop off the board and not support any position other than impeachment makes no sense ... and again, this isn't to argue that we shouldn't impeach bush; it's not even to argue that we shouldn't hold those accountable who refuse to do so ...

but when someone makes a strong case for healthcare for all, it's crazy to just turn our backs their ideas ... and frankly, it's not about the policymaker at all ... it's about the policy itself ... it's sort of like you want to punish the policy and those dependent on its implementation because some guy who espoused it doesn't support impeachment ...

you call getting better Medicare for grandma or getting health coverage for kids crap and "just a distraction"; it's no distraction to those who need it ...

[pat_k]

116. I am talking about citizen lobbyists lobbying their representatives. .

. . .to stand up for Impeachment/Censure (and the earlier related efforts to lobby members of the Senate to stand up on January 6th and to vote against cloture on the Alito nomination).

When you are in the office (or on the phone) talking to your Senator or Rep (or a member of their staff) lobbying them to add their voice to the call for Censure/Impeachment it is most certainly a distraction to say "Hey, btw, what are you doing about healthcare?" or "Gee, we sure liked what you did on the bankruptcy bill."

In my replies to this thread, this has been the consistent theme.

Post #27 . . .Our job is to challenge their rationalizations, not excuse them. . . . Their denial is understandable. The truth is hard to face. They are just people. But they are people who are charged with supporting and defending the Constitution. They are subject to OUR advice and consent. If we don't challenge their rationalizations and do whatever we can to help them confront the hard truths head on, we are abdicating OUR responsibility.

Post #29 . . .We need to stop excusing their dereliction of duty and challenge the rationalizations that are stopping them from doing their duty. . .

Post #30 . . .I am recruiting Citizen lobbyists to challenge the rationalizations that their Senators and Representatives invoke to justify their failure to co-sponsor Censure (or in the House, Conyers' resolution) and call for Impeachment

Post #33 . . .Some of us are turning complaint into action. Some of us are calling and asking questions to find out what is stopping the members of Congress who represent us from acting, and challenging the rationalizations they invoke. Some of us are sitting down with staffers and challenging their rationalizations in one-on-one dialogs. Some are seeking to meet and speak directly to members. . .

Post #53 The Senators who stood against Alito were great and most of them were pushed there by the pressure of ordinary citizens. They were inundated. It was great to see (I was down there, walking the halls of the Senate Hart Bldg, delivering letters and talking to any Judicial LA I could get my hands on.). . . I will keep pushing my fellow citizens and our leaders to challenge the boundaries of "politics as usual."

Post #92 . . .I do what I can to motivate my fellow citizens to challenge them to make the right choice.

Post #98 Challenge more members to fulfill their oath and speak out and support those, like Feingold and Conyers who have led the way. . .

Encouraging citizens to go to their representatives in Congress and challenge those representatives to fight for the integrity of the nation helps to restore We the People to our rightful role in shaping our government. When we engage more Americans in the fight to assert our collective sovereignty and force out those who are overruling our will, we are building a foundation from which we can more effectively fight for our common interests.

The grim reality is that as long as we permit the fascists to exercise power, they will abuse it in their pursuit of ever more power. The Bush syndicate will never submit to legitimate authority unless forced to.

There are countless problems we must solve as a nation. But we cannot make progress as long as our constitution and our laws carry no weight with the occupants of the executive branch. That is the hard truth.

I'm all for delving into specific problems and figuring out ways to advance the interests of the American people, but until we have legitimate government and have determined the full extent of the damage they done, we will be unable to implement and test the solutions (or what we do implement will just be torched with a signing statement). If we try to implement solutions before we have cleaned house, we are spinning our wheels.

I want our representatives to propose solutions, but I also want them to acknowledge that they cannot move forward on those solutions until we have taken the power of the American Presidency from Bush and Cheney and put it in legitimate hands, whether those hands be Hastert's now or Pelosi's next year.

This does not minimize the importance of protecting the environment, Roe, or dealing with any other challenge we face as a nation. Certainly, if we render the planet uninhabitable, it won't much matter whether America was a dictatorship or a constitutional democracy. But, our first job is to restore legitimate authority. Americans can only have a role in creating rational global and domestic policy if we have a functioning constitutional democracy capable of enacting and enforcing our collective will. Impeachment is the first step on the road.

As I said in my first post to this thread, ". . . the road out of the quagmire in Iraq must go through Impeachment."

[welshTerrier2]

120. two phases of progress

first, i am not suggesting that lobbyists in direct contact with our representatives dilute their core message with other issues ... i'm talking about working toward building a consensus set of values in public internet forums ... so, for example, if you dislike Senator X because of her lame support for the war, you still should state that you agree with her when she calls for investigating campaign corruption ... to conflate the two issues because they are both position held by someone you don't respect is a mistake ... that's the main point i've been trying to make ...

as for your statement: "But we cannot make progress as long as our constitution and our laws carry no weight with the occupants of the executive branch.", again, I disagree ...

there are two (or more) phases of progress ... to suggest that no progress can be made unless we have ultimate control is just not right ... i agree with other statements you made when you say we will not be able to "implement" our ideas until the corruption is resolved ... but we can certainly make progress ...

the battle we face as a minority party is to win the hearts and minds of the American people ... we need to convince voters that our values and our programs will make their lives and the country better ... if we only were to fight for impeachment and discontinued our education campaign on the wide array of problems we face, we will be seen as purely partisan and vacant of good ideas ... our position will become much weaker ...

so i strongly believe we can make all kinds of progress in areas of the battle beyond the direct focus on impeachment or even beyond any individual election ... sometimes the blows to the body are more effective than going for the knockout punch to the head ... and again, there's no reason to limit ourselves to just one of these strategies ... both are perfectly viable ...

[pat_k]

121. By progress, I mean "move forward on" (i.e., implement)

. . .as I said, I'm all for delving into and figuring out solutions, developing proposals, and building public support for changes that we can move forward on after we have cleaned house, but FIRST we need our leaders to acknowledge the fact that it is pointless to try to implement the solutions as long as the Constitution -- our common contract -- is in breach.

Focusing on proposing and building support for solutions, without first acknowledging the truth of our predicament (that the White House is in the hands of a rogue syndicate), feeds the denial of that predicament.

When our leaders acknowledge the truth of our predicament and make the case to the American people, we can work to build support for what the nation needs to do once we clean house WHILE we make the case for cleaning house.

But, until we have that acknowledgment, I'm 100% focused on getting it and am gratified that a growing number of Americans are coming to the same conclusion. I want those numbers to grow as quickly as possible. With sufficient public outrage and focus, we will repair that breach. Citizens empowered by the effort to repair the breach will be a powerful force for getting our collective needs met after we force the of urinary⁽¹⁾ authoriatarian executve and his minions out of the White House.

(1) claiming the right to piss down our backs and call it rain.

[blm]

25. He supports censure - why is it important he co-sponsor it? Did you demand

that anyone LEAD the Alito filibuster - especially since Kerry WASN'T on the judiciary committee and shouldn't have HAD to lead it? Do you even CARE that Alito will have a greater impact on generations of Americans far GREATER than any effect a censure will have?

In fact, Feingold even says there is no legal remedy that holds Bush to any account in a censure - but he hopes it will make Bush take the proper steps and have congress write the laws that he says he needs.

Geez - where are your priorities?

[kerrygoddess]

89. He has said he will support it

Maybe you missed that? He said it on The Situation Room on April 6th:

BLITZER: So you would support Senator Feingold on that?

KERRY: I am inclined to believe it, and I think the hearings are appropriate, and I would be prepared to vote for it, if there shows the appropriate linkage of what they’ve done to the requirements of the law. I believe it is, and I believe it is appropriate, but we have to have it properly vetted through the committee and I think it’s appropriate to do that. But I think it’s more than appropriate to be having this discussion and that debate, and it ought to be deeper than that.
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2556

It's my understanding that this has not gotten out of Committee yet, and when it does, Kerry said he will support it.

And FYI, incase you missed it, Feingold jumped right in with his support of Kerry's Iraq plan, so do we need to rehash this again?

In a statement about Kerry’s Iraq proposal, Senator Russ Feingold said, “I applaud Senator Kerry’s call today for our combat forces to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of this year. Senator Kerry has been a strong leader in calling for a clear, coherent strategy to complete our military mission in Iraq while engaging Iraq’s leaders with genuine diplomacy. . . Senator Kerry is absolutely right to say that the end of this year is a reasonable target date for redeploying our troops in Iraq.” http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2581

[wisteria]

15. I think Senator Kerry is going about speaking out against the war

and dissent in the most logically and rational manor. I appreciate and admire the lead he has taken on these important issues. He is able to present them in a way that makes sense and sound reasonable-not radical. He is one of the few political leaders who can do this and do it well.

[karynnj]

22. Definately agree

His speech at Faneuil Hall was absolutely awe inspiring. There are so many comments he made that would have been the "quote from the speech" for any other speech that I have heard anyone give.

[kerrygoddess]

24. Text of Speech today

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2891

[wisteria]

56. Very proactive speech. A call to speak out against what is wrong

with our country to make it right. He put it all together from dissent, patriotism, ideas, ideals and doing what is right for our country. I probably left something out, but it was a good speech to a graduating class getting ready to enter the big time.

[welshTerrier2]

31. support from other Dems?

"Iraqi politicians should have until May 22nd to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military."

has Kerry been able to build any support whatsoever inside the Senate for this proposal?

I continue to strongly support Kerry's position on Iraq (well, actually he seems to be supporting mine) but it's pretty hard to see it having much impact if the Party turns its back on him ...

the list of big name supporters i'm aware of could easily be squeezed into the backseat of my car ... or have i missed something?

[karynnj]

41. Feingold is the only one I know of that's publicly behind it

If the accounts of last week by a Clark commnications manager were accurate (they were neither confirmed or denied), Clark told the Democrats at their retreat to "tamp down the out now" message. So, the party as a whole adamantly doesn't want this message. Just a vague year of transition message. It's noteworthy that Kerry, Feingold and Harkin are speaking of plans that are much stronger towards getting out.

[TayTay]

62. Somewhat. You know this is a long road, right?

I think Rep. Murtha was right back in Nov, the American people are way ahead on this. There are still a lot of Democrats who think that they cannot support the idea that America must leave Iraq because this will tag them as 'security wimps.' They believe that the Democrats have been losing elections solely because they have been perceived as 'weak on defense.' I don't think this is the case anymore, but an awful lot of Dems still believe this.

Aside from any '08 politics for the moment, who among the class in the Senate in '02 has vocally come out for a timetable for withdrawal? There were 23 or so people who voted against the IWR. Which ones are now proposing that America set a date and a condition and get out of a war that most credible military people believe we cannot win? Which Democrats are in that camp?

Aside from '08, which Senators are willing to come out and say that the Feingold censure resolution is something that should be pursued. (I am in the camp that the pursuit of this, with hearings, is the actual goal. This is what we want, hearings and more exposure for the lies that got us into Iraq. The actual censure is a slap on the wrist. It's the exposure and the hearings and what may be revealed that is the actual prize.)

Also, remember what historian Shelby Steele wrote last week in the WSJ: the neocon response to the 'failure' in Iraq is to say that we are fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs and that what we really need is bigger and more lethal bombs and the nerve and willpower to use them. (He did mention that the loss of a few Iraqi cities might just quell the insurgency a bit.) This is the real opposition. This just might be phase two of the Bush plan, all-out, no holds barred, as bloody as we want to be, war. Just what America doesn't want. But the neocons do. It's the only way they save face, by claiming that they were held back. (By whom? The Republican Congress?)

Then where are the Dems? What happens to Sen. Clinton's position? Where does Sen. Bayh come down on this? Where is the rest of the Senate Dems? If Feingold and Boxer and Kerry are where you think they should be, then where is the rest of the Democratic Party? What are they waiting for and what are they afraid of? Where is the principle in this, cuz I'm not seeing it.

[welshTerrier2]

71. well, i'm not seeing it either ...

i just wrote some similar things in a post upthread called "the perception of weakness" ... for a party interested in showing its macho, we sure don't look any too bold in confronting bush on Iraq ... or Iran ... criticizing his competence is not the same as disagreeing with the overall policy ... it's not easy being an anti-war Democrat these days ... maybe i got on the wrong bus ...

you've asked the most devastating question: "what are they afraid of?" ...

those still out searching in the darkness for a "positive outcome" in Iraq fail to accept the idea that bush will never bring one about ... implicit in their views is that somehow bush will do that right thing, turn the corner and make things right ... it's not at all clear to me that competence is his deficiency; i fear its greed, corruption and ideology ... i'm not sure he wants what many would call a positive outcome ... i believe he, and those who pull his strings, have a very different success criteria ... look at the realities today: as Democrats criticize his failed policies, those in the oil industry who pull his puppet strings continue to realize all-time record high profits ... OPEC instability caused by Iraq has been very, very good for them ...

it's hard to know whether many Democrats are just afraid to speak the truth because of the politics or whether they ultimately genuinely believe we belong in Iraq and that bush should be given more time to work things out ... frankly, neither view is very comforting ...

[kerrygoddess]

72. I think their issue

is agreeing on how fast to get out. DiFi is behind the Center for American Progress pan which is similar to Biden's which is a knock off of Kerry's with a longer time frame.

[welshTerrier2]

78. Biden's plan

i haven't read the details of Biden's latest madness but i believe he just called for dividing Iraq into 3 separate countries ... perhaps someone else has the details ...

i've seen numerous posts on DU about how Dems are coming together and how the various plans are all good ideas and they really aren't that different ... they can't be serious ...

when the Boston Globe article was published, the pitch was something about Dems unifying around the Korb plan to get us out by the end of 2007 ... trust me, i will not be unifying around that ...

Kerry's focus on how many died in Vietnam AFTER the big boys knew the war couldn't be one bores a gaping whole in the insanity of the Korb plan ... consider this: 94% of those killed in Iraq since the initial invasion began died AFTER bush's "mission accomplished" drivel (as of May 1) ...

the Democratic Party needs to knock off the "looking macho" political consultant crap and stand up to bush on Iraq ... we have no right to be there ... we are doing more harm than good by remaining ... bush is not committed to helping the Iraqis ... the war is being fought for greedy shareholders of Big Oil ... we are on the brink of war with Iran and possibly worse if that can even be imagined ... if Democrats want to be credible on anything, they are going to have to take the risk of establishing clear, bold positions ... Kerry's Iraq stand is one; we need many, many more ...

[kerrygoddess]

82. I agree

the rest need to get on board. One thing I feel that is that the liberal blogosphere could be helpful in putting pressure on the Dems to get on board Kerry's plan, but they have by and large not spoken up about it. We know the pressure works when applied. I have been doing as much as time permits to get the word out but I see precious little from other bloggers which is disheartening. For all the complaints about Iraq, one would think they would be all over this. I can only suggest that others who feel that Kerry's plan is the one we need to push, should talk it up on the other blogs so that we can start putting the pressure on.

Edited to add: Tom Hayden dissed a journalist the other day for distorting Kerry's plan and asked a very good question "do you want endless war?"

[welshTerrier2]

83. please don't take this as criticism

it's not at all intended to be ...

i have spoken out strongly in a number of venues about Kerry's position ... i don't blog in many non-DU forums on the net but i have spoken directly to a number of groups i'm involved with ...

my view, and it's by no means just "Kerry supporters" is that candidate supporters don't have the same degree of credibility because they're always seen as supporting their preferred candidate ... i'm am beyond elated to be joined in my opposition to the war by Kerry and his supporters here on DU ... i know that one or two of you has called for immediate withdrawal, contrary to Kerry's previous position, for a long-time now ... but many endorsed his previous position (which i saw as very different than this one) and have switched only when Kerry did ... again, my goal is not criticism; at least not here ... my goal is to emphasize that "candidate supporters" may ultimately make the weakest advocates ... i think many see supporters this way not because they (supporters) lack knowledge or competence but because of how they define their mission ...

i say this to offer the suggestion that stating your own position, sometimes in opposition to your candidate's, lends greater force behind you and your ideas ... too often, it seems supporters feel obligated to always paint their candidate in a positive light ... to those who see both good and bad, this damages credibility ...

we all are doing what we think is best; that's just my two cents ...

[kerrygoddess]

91. Totally get it and understand.

Honestly, I hope he runs again and if he does I'm there, but it's about now for me and what he does in the Senate on a daily basis is good deal more than other's somedays, most days, so I blog about it. But I also blog about a lot of other stuff too everyday. That's why I would like to see other's speaking up though, because I get that coming from me, people see it as "oh, it's KG, she's always pro-Kerry." Thank you for what you have been doing to support this. I want out just like you do.

[welshTerrier2]

96. i know you do ...

i think most Americans do ...

i get up every morning and shake my head at the Democratic Party's wishy-washyness on Iraq ...

truly, i do not understand it ...

[kerrygoddess]

97. Me too!

And when it comes to little dogs... you're the best WT2! ;)

[welshTerrier2]

106. love me, love my dog ...

thanks KG ... that's very kind of you to say ...

[kerrygoddess]

110. LOL! I think this was the clincher in Kerry's speech today

that people need to get:

"So we need you to speak out. Speak out if you want an America that is finally and forever independent of Mideast oil - an America that relies on its ingenuity and innovation - not the Saudi royal family.

Speak out so that instead of making a mockery of the words No Child Left Behind when China and India are graduating tens of thousands more engineers and PhDs than we are, we build an America where college education is affordable and accessible for every student willing to work for it.

Speak out so that instead of letting a few ideologues get in the way of progress that can cure Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and AIDS, we build an America where the biology students here today will do the groundbreaking stem cell research tomorrow.

Speak out if you want to restore a politics of big ideas, not small-minded attacks.

Speak out if you're tired of seeing America divided into red states and blue states, because you know we can be one America -- red, white, and blue.

Dissent from this unacceptable status quo because you know the job of leadership is to prepare for your future - not ignore it. The people who run Washington today give in to special interests and rob future generations. Real leadership stands up to special interests and sets the course for future generations. You must demand leadership that works to solve problems - not create them.

Our challenge today is to speak out so loudly that Washington has no choice but to make choices worthy of the sacrifice of our neighbors here at home and our troops all around the world.

When we protested the war in Vietnam some would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our response was simple: "Yes, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right and when wrong, make it right." That's our mission - to get off our rear ends - go out - and make it right today." - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2891

[karynnj]

103. I agree with your point

It is stronger when people not identified as Kerry supporters back him. I think that the best we can do is counter lies or misperceptions, by providing valid links.

I don't think it was a coincidence that you saw us switching on Iraq when Kerry did. I saw a lot of good in his October ideas - the ideas seemed like they would, if implemented, reduce the look of occupation, signal we're leaving, put the soldiers in a safer place and lead eventually to leaving. I think Kerry suceeded slightly in moving the discussion. It sounds like more of the policing etc was given to the Iraqis moving the soldiers somewhat away from the front. If this perception has any validity, Kerry did some good - he can't do anything on his own.

From the time the mosque was destroyed there were discussions in the Kerry group with people asking when his position would change. There were barely publisized comments that it already had - the 3/17 Imus show and some comments in MA to a small paper signalled Kerry saw the window closing. The covil war did change things - and Kerry's position changed. I know my position changed because the circumstances changed rather than because Kerry's position changed.

[welshTerrier2]

107. fair enough ...

i call that the umbrella argument ... you see two people both opening their umbrellas at the same time ... you conclude that one copied the other but perhaps they were both just caught in the same rain storm ...

understand, though, that when this pattern repeats across many issues over significant periods of time, some still see it as blind following rather than a simultaneous reaction to circumstances ...

perhaps it's a bit of both ...

[karynnj]

114. I think it's also that there was a fair amount of self selection

Many of us in the Kerry group have said that in reading his positions and history in 2004, we found that we agreed with him and the way he deals with issues more than any politician in our live time. Kerry, as the 2004 candidate, was as defined as a politician could be before the forum was put together. Even so, there have been posts, more in the group itself, but even out here, where people from the JK group have respectfully disagreed with a position.

With some of the other candidates, this may be truer as that person's world view or positions were less well known. I do think loyalty is sticky - especially for people allied enough to have posted often in support of someone. It may take a lot to shake that loyalty.

[welshTerrier2]

115. you may have misconstrued my meaning

first, i am certainly NOT suggesting that people should avoid being loyal to a candidate nor am i suggesting they shouldn't make a strong defense of his positions ...

i was trying to respond to a point raised by KG asking why more in the "liberal blogosphere" may not be as outspoken as she would prefer (as would I) on Kerry's Iraq position ...

i merely speculated that there is a perception, at least here on DU and perhaps elsewhere on the net, that candidate supporters always push their candidate's positions no matter what they are ... the focus was on the perception of the "liberal blogosphere"; not on whether the perception is or is not justified ...

again, the point is NOT whether statements from candidate supporters are or are not usually factually accurate but rather that they may be perceived as biased and therefore may carry less influence ...

[welshTerrier2]

85. part II

after reading my last post, i realized i may not have been very responsive to what you wrote so i'll add this ...

i think the relationship between Kerry and the anti-war left (if i must have a label) is still very, very fragile ... trust is not by any means fully established here ... i hope that changes ... this may explain a less-than enthusiastic treatment of Kerry's plan from the "liberal blogosphere" ...

if we can work together on Iraq and fight side by side, i think that's great ... ultimately, i think Kerry is going to have to "let it fly" and move left and "set himself free" ... who knows if i'm right??

but concerns remain ... i was troubled by all the Dems in the Senate voting for more war funding ... i'm troubled by Dems in the Senate, unlike the latest from DeFazio in the House, refusing to pre-empt bush's march to war in Iran ... the Senate has been much too quiet ... i'm hopefully that Kerry will lead on these issues; i'm worried no one will ...

so, building trust will take time ... for now, we stand together on Iraq ... i don't write this to excuse those who haven't endorsed Kerry's plan but rather to speculate on why they haven't ...

[kerrygoddess]

86. I hear you

I think a lot of why other bloggers haven't endorsed Kerry's plan is that they feel if they do they endorse him for the possibility of 08, which is not the case.

I had a long talk last weekend with a well known blogger about this subject and he is like me dismayed that other's aren't getting behind it. I don't care if people want to vote for Kerry in 08, I care about getting out of Iraq and this has always been a catch22 issue for me, because I supported his campaign, and I still support his work in the Senate but I have never ever wanted anything but Out of Iraq.

People need to get that supporting his plan to get out is simply supporting that plan. Do they want out of Iraq or do they want an issue to hold on to?

MoveOn, Tom Hayden, one of the founders of UPJ have all endorsed his plan. What are the rest waiting for? The time is now to put the pressure on. Write LTTE's, ask other bloggers if they want out or to stay? Just my 2 cents.

[welshTerrier2]

93. i'm hopeful the relationship can be strengthened ...

the left would be foolish to reject those who join them and fight for their views ... we cannot afford to reject those who are now allies because we have been foes, or at least disagreed in the past ... the focus has to be on getting done what has to be done ...

the anti-war left felt almost kicked out of the party in the last election ... Kerry was the Party's standard bearer and may be a symbol of those times to many on the left ... if Kerry wants to win the support of this constituency, he has work to do ... i think he will ultimately move further in that direction ...

for now though, the anti-war left must understand that we have no room for petty differences ... you are exactly right; this should have nothing to do with '08 ... this is about ending the damned war now ... if you're committed to that, and we have a Senator of Kerry's stature supporting the cause, "i don't really care for him" doesn't really make any sense at all ... i think when more know of Kerry's plan and he begins to bridge the gap by continuing to lead on the issue, there will be more support for it ... still, it's incredibly disheartening to see the lack of support from his Democratic colleagues in the Senate ...

[TayTay]

100. It's also a process

It is no coincidence that some of the strongest anti-war voices in the Dem Party are veterans. They have been talking to each other, that much is pretty obvious.

[kerrygoddess]

102. Some I expected would be on it

Haven't and it's really odd in my opinion. One of my readers said it "they need to have an issue to hold on to." I think for some that's it. In the Senate - well, what's up with some who have been sayuing out - where are they now? Offering differing plans with out as much teeth!

[TayTay]

84. There are a lot of puzzlements here

I think Rep Murtha may be the biggest of them all. He is a centrist Dem, who is now and has been since he was first elected, a hawk on defense. That's who he is. His opposition to this war is not based on any particularly pronounced 'dovish' tendencies, but on his evaluation that the military cannot win this war. The mistakes and lies that were told to launch this effort in Iraq have damaged the US military and we have to withdraw before the damage becomes catastrophic. Murtha was not waxing eloquent on this, he was simply stating his view, based on his interviews with rank-and-file people on the ground in Iraq that the US has to implement an exit strategy sooner rather than later.

The Repubs are going to paint this as 'cut and run' though those arguments are not winning over the American people. The percentage of people who feel that the war was worth it and that think we should stay is decreasing by the month. There was a time when Americans thought this was a 'winnable' war, but that time has passed.

So why are the Joe Biden's of the world still advocating plans that seem designed to say, "Democrats do not cut and run?" Aren't those people, politically, still fighting the '04 election? A lot has changed since '04. The American people are not where they were then. Why are the Dems still playing that '04 game? It doesn't make sense. (Then again, my own point of no return was when the Golden Mosque blew up in Feb '06 in Samarra. That was my own signal that this was never going to be put back together again by America and that we needed to get out of this civil war and do whatever we could on a diplomatic and humanitarian front. I had decreasing hopes of America being able to do anything before this. I had none after it.)

[welshTerrier2]

88. Americans seem unable to truly discuss foreign policy

and i think Democrats are doing very little to help ... it's perfectly legitimate for Murtha to say we should leave because we can't win; still, we get no discussion of why we're really there ...

there seems to be this general acceptance among the Democratic Party's elite that 1. bush lied 2. bush mishandled the war but 3. we're there for legitimate reasons ... that really troubles me ... it fails to recognize the stranglehold Big Oil has on our government and on our foreign policy ... it let's us still be the good guys ... bush lied, he's inept, but he's doing the best he can and he's trying for a "win" ...

if we don't recognize the enemy after all this, how much confidence should we have in those we hoped would represent us?

it's sort of the same pattern with the Dems attacking windfall profits ... of course, i strongly support the idea ... but why now? high gas prices are hurting Americans so the Dems now stand up to help them? well, that's fine ...

the problem is, Big Oil has poisoned our democracy ... the problem goes way behind the easy political target of high gas prices; we have a serious corruption of our democracy and our institutions ... that's the real enemy here; but the Dems are much to timid to engage that battle so they attack the symptom rather than the disease ... it truly is very troubling ...

some see this as lefty talk or radical or extremism; i prefer to simply see it as leadership and good governance ... we just don't seem to have much of that these days and we will pay dearly until our representatives start fighting like hell to save the country ... we're in very, very serious trouble and politics, rather than truth-telling, seems to be far too much in vogue ...

[TayTay]

95. There is, and was, a moral argument to the 'stay the course'

argument, as spoken by many Democrats. There is a moral side that says that the US is responsbiel for the condition of the Iraqi nation right now. We bear a moral responsibility for the fact that the country has no running water, no electricity, a horrible infrastructure and no functioning central government. There is, and was, a moral argument that we need to fix what we can fix.

That is the problem right there though. What is it that we can fix and what is it that we cannot fix? America cannot wash her hands of what has been done. (Although I deeply suspect that this is what we will try and do. First the bombings will become more intense, which will ratchet up the insurgency. Then, when the Iraqis don't sufficiently surrender or give up or do whatever it is the neocons want them to do, they will be blamed for their own predicament and abandoned as anti-democratic and fundamentally ungrateful and unable to appreciate America's great sacrifice in this liberation. This is nuts but I it's what the war apologists will do. It's what Steele wrote about in the WSJ this week. Bomb the crap out of them, then when it still doesn't work, blame them for it and get out.)

We can't have a decent foreign policy discussion because too much of what the US did to achieve 'cheap oil' is too awful and too buried. We sold out souls to the corrupt regimes in the ME for oil back in the '40s. We have actively condoned murder, corruption, the overthrow of democratically elected governments and supported the cruel repression of whole groups of people in order to achieve cheap oil ever since.

[welshTerrier2]

104. the moral argument

i have no problem at all with the "moral argument" ... i am not a pacifist and, while i never would have condoned attacking Iraq, i strongly support the idea of helping with the rebuilding of Iraq and even the idea or staying for some limited engagement to help stabilize the Iraqi government and infrastructure as long as the Iraqi people welcome our presence ...

so, if we stop there, i could support the "moral argument" ... but that's the whole problem; you can't just stop there ... we have a totally greedy and corrupt oil cartel running our foreign policy ...

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MAKERS OF THIS MORAL ARGUMENT BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT THING; all that matters is that those in power are never going to try to achieve the "moral" objectives ... that's why i keep saying that those who say we can't leave, regardless of their reasons, are implicitly arguing that bush's motives for being in Iraq are legitimate even if the reasons he provided before the invasion were lies ...

that's where i get off the bus ... when someone argues for one more day or two or a month or two or six months or the end of 2006 or 2007 or whatever, i say: "not with bush - NO WAY" ... and what they're saying is: "yes, we have to stay there until we achieve the goals bush has laid out even if he's made some mistakes and lied about the reasons we needed to go to war." ... they believe bush is trying to do the right thing; i don't ...

[ProSense]

67. Story being picked up by papers nationwide. Probably because of the title:

Kerry accuses White House of intolerance
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3845700.html

[saltpoint]

81. In recent American politics, it is a better bet by far to be drawn to

those who oppose Bush's foreign policy than those who pretend it's working.

Over many months -- now over many years -- we are told by Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney et al that "progress is being made."

This is a lie.

Iraq is a disaster in just about every respect. Bush and his administration now preside over one of the most calamitous foreign policy events in U.S. history. It has Bush's name written all over it, top to bottom. It's Bush who ignored the intell, Bush who ignored and taunted the UN, Bush who humiliated our allies, Bush who presided over countless deceptions about WMDs, Bush whose name will be emblazoned under "Ill-Fated Iraq War" in every account of the last few years forever more.

Kerry does the nation a presidential service by encouraging citizens to be more accutely vigilant in their role as citizens. He admirably represents Jefferson's criterion of healthy dissent as the highest act of citizenship in a constitutional republic.

These men set themselves up as models of American citizenship. I believe Kerry's model is far and away the most presidential.