Kerry knocks Bush on handling of Mideast conflict

[sabra]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/UPDATE/607230360

Kerry knocks Bush on handling of Mideast conflict

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Sweeeeeet.

[Tellurian]

70. How Bout- Our country is in jeopardy, hanging by a thread. Elect another

Republican and you're fate is sealed!

The ole rhetoric just doesn't cut it any more.

Fear strikes to the heart of the matter.

And AFRAID; we should be!

[Eikon]

2. Rephrase "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened,"

To, "If I had wanted to be president, this wouldn't have happened"

[Mass]

3. Sure - He spent 2 years on the road because he did not want to be

president. What a logique?

And no, if he had not conceded in Ohio, he still would not have been president. We may have felt better, but it would have finished at the SJC.

[Eikon]

5. That was some campaign he ran, wasn't it?

and don't forget that team of lawyers he assembled to fight the fraud in Ohio :sarcasm:, or the way he let his military record get spit on without so much as a whimper. The millions of dollars left in his campaign fund after the election should be enough of an idication to you of just how hard he fought for our side. Anyone who would support this loser again in '08 needs a head check.

[Mass]

6. Funny, I guess. Dont attack fellow DUers.

[Eikon]

7. I'm not attacking anyone

I just don't want to see our party continue to be duped, two years later. Also, feel free to address some of my points, I'm interested to hear from someone who can make a case with a straight face that he ran a strong campaign.

[Mass]

8. Telling somebody he/she needs to have his/her head check is being nice

to them? :banghead:

Well, I guess I need to have my head checked in this case, but not for supporting Kerry, but because I dont recognize when somebody is being nice.

[Eikon]

9. Please

It was a general statement. If you feel it was directed at you, that's too bad, I'm not going to apologize for an indirect insult. I don't see a rule anywhere that all DUers have to agree with each other at all times, or be nice.

[Mass]

11. Dont worry, I dont need your apology. Dislike Kerry as much as you want,

this is totally indifferent to me. But he is the Democrat that got the most votes ever. This is enough of a rebuffal to your statement.

[Eikon]

17. I think we can all agree

He would have won the election in the absence of fraud, or if all people in Ohio that wanted to vote for him were allowed to, and a full recount took place. That has nothing to do with the fact that he ran the poorest campaign I have seen in my lifetime. Howard Dean could have defeated Bush, because he wanted it, and they knew that too, that's why Diebold probably put Kerry on top in the first place.

[karynnj]

20. Diebold did not "put Kerry in in the first place"

Iowa is a caucus - NO MACHINES - Kerry won 38% of the vote, Edwards 32%, and Dean 18%. How do you explain that. In NH, Kerry was 38% and Dean 26% - which was not out of line with the polls in the few days before the election. This is way too big a difference for Diebold.

Look at the table in this link - Kerry won most states by overwhelming majorities. This was not a nomination won at the margins. Looking at it, the most surprising thing was that the press continued to hold out Edwards as a possibility to stop Kerry. That should have ended on February 3rd, when Kerry won most of the primaries in states that should have been tough for a northeasterner.


http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

[Eikon]

21. Fair enough

I just seem to remember Dean being the frontrunner and then Kerry appearing to come out of no where. Then the media proceeded to ruin Dean by running the scream clip ad nauseam. My point here is, a blank named Democrat could have done as well as Kerry did against Bush, we need to stop supporting the weak and "humble" and start backing those who would fight for us, such as a Dean or Feingold.

[MH1]

33. Kerry "came out of nowhere" BECAUSE HE RAN A GOOD CAMPAIGN

If Dean would have run a better one, Dean would've won the primaries. Kerry won because he campaigned better than any of the others.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong - didn't "the scream" come after Iowa?

And you can count me in your so-called "loser" brigade, too. There's a trait of people who call others by derogatory names - quite often they are projecting their own traits onto others, either maliciously or through ignorance. (Just making a general statement, you know.)

edited for spelling.

[karynnj]

37. Dean was the front runner in 2003, before a single primary happened

He did an incredible job becoming the anti-war candidate and connecting with the internet. Almost every newsweekly put him on the cover of their magazine. But in November and December 2003, there were some Dean stumbles that weakened him. Most people were still really undecided or not firmly for anyone.

About 2 weeks before the primary, one weekend showed a huge contrast between Dean and Kerry. Kerry was reunited with Eric Rassmann whose life he saved in VN. Eric had seen Doug Brinkley's book and called Kerry's campaign wanting to help out in any way he could. (Although he was a Republican ex- policeman, he had followed Kerry's career and was impressed with him as a politician.) The campaign realized he was gold and immediately set up a meeting at a Kerry event on a totally different topic. I think they intentionally surprised Kerry. It was extremely emotional. Kerry, shyly saying that anyone would have done it (exposed himself to enemy fire to save someone). This was as close to made for TV as you can get. (imagine if the media liked Kerry - how replaying this in some sort of campaign recap in Nov could have helped)

Unfortunately for Dean, this same day he was filmed yelling at a 70+ year old heckler to "sit down". Even in NJ, the news showed a smiling Kerry hugging Rassman and a red faced Dean yelling at this old man. This at a point that many were first really deciding. Kerry got 38% of the Iowa vote to Dean's 18% - and that was before the scream. Dean came in a poor 3rd, when it was expected he would be 1st or a close 2nd. He was the front runner, but he didn't meet expectations.

Iowa people here also have said that it is likely that Dean was never far ahead. In addition, Kerry was far better in the debates. Dean and Gephardt (predicted to be 1 and 2) were fiercely attacking each other. As to fighting hard, in one of the last few pre-Iowa debates, Dean whined that he didn't want to be a pin cushion (everyone was picking on him). The attacks then on Dean were mild compared to what Kerry got, and handled with dignity, during the general election. You need to go back to that tape before you say Dean would have fought harder. (Kerry was very strong and Presidential in the debates.)

[ginnyinWI]

43. absolutely right about Dean and the heckler!

I was one of those people deciding between Kerry and Dean at that time, and that episode clinched it for me. I thought, this guy (Howard Dean) is petulant and tempermental, just like Bush!! No way, I thought.

Whether or not it reflects reality, appearances can make a big difference.

[blm]

68. You are welcome to describe all the fights those lawmakers took on

during their time in office and compare them to the battles Kerry took on during his terms. Let us know how they compare.

[jobycom]

36. Dean couldn't beat Kerry, but he could beat Bush?

You must have lived a very short lifetime if that's the worst campaign you've seen. Either that, or you watched from too much of a distance to understand what was happening. By all standards Kerry shouldn't have come close to beating Bush. The strength of his campaign, and only that, explains how close he came. Bush was an incumbent "wartime" president with good poll numbers and the media completely on his side. That's almost impossible to beat. Kerry almost did, anyway. That's a good campaign.

[blm]

67. HAHAHAH - another brilliant person who doesn't know what a CAUCUS is.

.

[fedupinBushcountry]

34. General statement? Get real

"Anyone who would support this loser again in '08 needs a head check."

I am a DU'er and a proud Kerry supporter so don't tell me it wasn't an insult.

[MH1]

35. And considering the John Kerry DU Group is the most active group at DU,

it sounds like an attack on a lot of DUer's to me.

[Harper_is_Bush]

59. What is the significance of your name? And your avatar?

eikon: manifestation? likeness? superficial resemblance?

[Eikon]

61. What's it to you?

My avatar is a pumpkin, it represents a pumpkin.

The fact that you people think I'm a "GOP Plant" because I happen to dislike Kerry and believe he was a poor candidate doesn't reflect well on this community.

[Harper_is_Bush]

73. Gee, all I asked was the significance of your name. "GOP plant"?

Where did you get that from? :wtf:

[Eikon]

83. Read some of the replies here. n\t

[karynnj]

87. There is not a single comment that even comes close to

suggesting that you are a "GOP Plant". As one who made several responses, I thought you were like a netroot person who bought the idea that Dean, who seemed to be your favorite, was somehow unfairly cheated out of the nomination. There have been many many threads of that sort here - which is why backup to what we said was included in posts.

I doubt the GOP would say that Kerry lost because he didn't fight hard enough - either during the campaign or when it was clear there were irregularities. This would imply that Kerry should have won. That he was the better candidate on the merits and it was only because he didn't fight that he lost.

My question to you is why do you think that your unsubstantiated negative comments on Kerry and his supporters should not be responded to - which they were - with great civility than you showed. You chose a thread that we would likely read - made outrageous comments and are now whining that we said they were stupid! This doesn't reflect well on you.

[confludemocrat]

114. Except if they criticize Kerry. Forgot to mention that part of your rule

So to the person you said that to, this Mass makes a regular practice of attacks and accusations against those who critique Kerry.

where was kerry when we had 25,000 Americans there while Israel was bombing Lebanon as Bush refused, as now, to utter the word "cease-fire" and the only words from JFK was the coded "Israel has a right to defend it self", for once in his sorry political life spoken totally without nuance or codicil or condition (such as a mention that the mad-dog actions of Israel were killing civilians nearly only and that there were that many Americans there at the time and that the consequences were beyond dire for future peace), as Bush was ordering more jet fuel (and now today, more bombs) for Israel.

[karynnj]

119. There's a difference between criticizing and outright smearing

Mass knows her Senator far better than you do - and has even posted things where she disagrees with him. Are you pressuring your own two Senators?

[confludemocrat]

130. Oh can it, will you? Once thought I would vote for this guy even in 2008

as the lesser of evils if by some calamity/miracle he made it that far (as much as he is wanting in any spine and as much as I have criticized him), but this was the last straw. He confirms in such a petty way with this what a sorry sack of shit he is.

[politicasista]

132. Who are you supporting then?

No democrat is going say what you like. They all support Israel. But it seems like you just will look for an excuse to bash, moan, and single out Kerry all the time. How fun and productive. :crazy: :boring:

[confludemocrat]

134. Must I decide now? But it won't be Kerry no matter what &stop trivializing

someone elses views as you have done and as MASS, blm all and the other Kerry people do regularly in response to valid criticisms of Kerry and other weak Dems with this nonsense about "looking for an excuse" for "bashing and moaning". fucking grow up.

[H2O]

15. We're all human

and John Kerry was humble and if its one thing a leader needs, its humility. That's a good enough reason to vote for him.

[whometense]

47. I completely agree.

His humility is one of the reasons I am such a staunch supporter. It's also a quality that goes completely and totally unnoticed by the media.

[Pepper32]

16. I still feel the same disappointment

I'm going with Edwards this time around, I could see that he didn't want to stop fighting. I can't say the same for Kerry, even though I kind of understand why he did it.

[karynnj]

24. I will believe that more if you find even one

direct John Edwards statement from November 3, 2004 to now saying that they should have continued to fight. The fact is that even a year and a half later there is no legal proof that Kerry really got more votes. (RFKjr"s analysis counts votes that were not cast - because of long lines. There is no way to claim these in court and they are based on an estimate of the % of people who had to leave and assumptions on how they would have voted.)

Kerry has spoken extensively about voter supression and other election problems. This week, his speech in the Senate on the Voting Rights extension ennumerated many ways that people are prevented from voting or were prevented from voting for the candidate of their choice. Clinton, Kerry and Boxer have introduced legislation called Count every Vote that is designed to fix problems. Since early 2005, the Republicans have not let this bill come to the floor of the Senate.

To my knowledge, this is not an issue that Edwards as taken on.

[Pepper32]

51. ...

"The fact is that even a year and a half later there is no legal proof that Kerry really got more votes."

Of course not, Diebold made certain of that, didn't they. Have you ever wondered why they stopped the recount in Ohio?

[Pepper32]

64. For your reference...

Please do review both of their concession speeches to hopefully understand why I have the impression John Edwards wanted to continue fighting, of course he didn't come straight out and say that (why would he when his running mate conceded without a fight) However, a lot of what he said implied he wanted to keep fighting.

Transcript: Edwards Concession Speech
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22589-2004Nov3.html

John Kerry's Speech at Faneuil Hall
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_1103.html


Kerry may make it appear as if he is fighting for voter fraud but in my opinion (and I am entitled to it) he is only doing this to somehow make it appear as if he didn't really wimp out (it's part of the 08 campaign).

He didn't really fight back when it counted, he could have used the left over campaign money to help fund the recount in Ohio but he didn't. He left it up to the Green and Libertarian Party to fight his battle, while he stood far in the background!! Meanwhile, we here at DU fought and gave money for the recount all the way up until the idiot was inaugurated. Anyone that doesn't believe the 2004 election was stolen is just helping the Republicons set us up for the same thing to happen again. Tons of information was posted right here on DU that collectively screams proof this election was stolen. Of course, legal proof could only be found if they allowed the votes to be recounted but they didn't! Anyway, you might want to play catch up... Here are a few links to get you started:

Proof of Ohio Election Fraud Exposed
By (DU) William Rivers Pitt
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

2004 presidential election voter fraud from Dempopedia
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/2004_presidential_election_voting_fraud#Libertarian_Party

Election Fraud Ohio from demopedia
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Election_Fraud/Ohio

Conyers Dec 8 2004 statement on Ohio voting irregularties from Demopedia
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Conyers%27_Dec._8%2C_2004_Statement_on_Ohio_Voting_Irregularities



Several factors contributed to 'lost' voters
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6714782

COLUMBUS - Tanya Thivener's is a tale of two voting precincts in Franklin County. In her city neighborhood, which is vastly Democratic and majority black, the 38-year-old mortgage broker found a line snaking out of the precinct door.

She stood in line for four hours -- one hour in the rain -- and watched dozens of potential voters mutter in disgust and walk away without casting a ballot. Afterward, Thivener hopped in her car and drove to her mother's house, in the vastly Republican and majority white suburb of Harrisburg. How long, she asked, did it take her to vote?

Fifteen minutes, her mother replied.



GOP spent big to help Law
http://www.vindy.com/premium/local/282150689816864.php

WARREN — The state GOP really wanted a Republican to represent the 64th Ohio House District, as evidenced by its spending in the general election.

Randy Law of Warren had $157,364 worth of help from the Ohio House Republican Campaign Committee to upset state Rep. Daniel J. Sferra of Warren, D-64th, in November.


Blackwell Locks Out Recount Volunteers
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/blackwell-locks-out-recount-volunteers.html



On Friday December 10 two certified volunteers for the Ohio Recount team assigned to Greene County were in process recording voting information from minority precincts in Greene County, and were stopped mid-count by a surprise order from Secretary of State Blackwell’s office. The Director Board of Elections stated that “all voter records for the state of Ohio were “locked-down,” and now they are not considered public records.”


Ohio election fraud uproar blasting to new level
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/975
The bitter battle over the stolen November 2 election in Ohio has turned into a rapidly escalating all-out multi-front war with the outcome of the real presidential vote count increasingly in doubt.

In Columbus, major demonstrations on Saturday, December 4, have been followed by an angry confrontation between demonstrators and state police at the office of Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, the Bush-Cheney state chairman who is also officially in charge of certifying the election, at least for now. Civil Rights leader Jesse Jackson has called on Blackwell to recuse himself from dealings with the election, saying his role as Bush-Cheney chairman has compromised his objectivity in delivering fair election results.

Candidates Officially Request Ohio Recount
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_el_pr/ohio_vote
David Cobb, Green Party presidential candidate, said the election was full of irregularities, including uncounted provisional ballots.

"There is a possibility that George W. Bush did not win Ohio. If that is the case, it would be a crime against democracy for George Bush to be sworn into office," he said.
Cuyahoga County African American voting patterns
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/5/94939/4521

Protesters Gather at Ohio Statehouse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35316-2004Dec4.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=303092

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- About 400 protesters gathered outside the Statehouse on Saturday to support a recount of the presidential election in Ohio and call for an investigation into Election Day irregularities.

Conyers to Hold Hearings on Ohio Vote Fraud
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120404W.shtml

Democratic Representative John Conyers, Jr of Michigan, ranking Minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will hold a hearing on Wednesday 08 December 2004 to investigate allegations of vote fraud and irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election. The hearing is slated to begin at 10:00 a.m. EST in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington DC.

Bush's Ohio Win Was Closer Than Thought
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041203/ap_on_el_pr/ohio_vote

TOLEDO, Ohio - President Bush's victory over John Kerry in Ohio was closer than the unofficial election night totals showed, but the change is not enough to trigger an automatic recount, according to county-by-county results provided to The Associated Press on Friday.


Arrests expected in voter fraud probe
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/10319297.htm Charges are expected in an ongoing probe of voter registration fraud in Summit County.

Voters to challenge US election
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1363399,00.html
Wednesday December 1, 2004

George Bush's victory in the US presidential election will be challenged in Ohio's supreme court today, when a group of Democratic voters will allege widespread fraud.
One Month Later, Fight Over Ohio Continues
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4643374,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/29/ohio.vote.ap/index.html

Nearly a month after John Kerry conceded Ohio to President Bush, complaints and challenges about the balloting are mounting as activists including the Rev. Jesse Jackson demand closer scrutiny to ensure the votes are being counted on the up-and-up.
Kerry Supports Ohio Vote Investigation, Jackson says
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/944 John Kerry supports a “full investigation” into voting irregularities in Ohio, Rev. Jesse Jackson said Saturday, during a teleconference with media regarding a recount and legal challenge of the Nov. 2 vote.

First hand reports by other Ohio volunteers
From: Ray Beckerman Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:37 PM Subject: First hand reports by other Ohio volunteers

RNC "workers" were in our hotel. They were not there to do literature drops, canvas, or to make sure that people knew where their polling places were, as we were. One of them tried to infiltrate one of our hotel rooms (I removed him) to gather information on our activities. He and another RNC lawyer followed some of the canvassers the next day to try to intimidate them, telling them that they were "putting them on notice, that what they were doing was breaking federal law" (among other more vile things). What the canvassers were doing was distributing ACT literature and slashing tires on GOP vehicles. These "people" were there to go inside the polls to challenge Democratic voters just like the 600 democrat lawyers sent to Florida in 2000 to challenge military absentee ballots

After the polls closed, I talked to an Election Protection project worker who told me of the polling place in Youngstown where he worked that day. It had only three electronic touch screen voting machines. The lines were extremely (at the very least 3 to 4 hours) long. People were leaving and coming back multiple times trying to vote. Some were complaining that they had to work and could not miss the time from work or they would lose money that they could not afford to lose, or worse, lose their jobs. Youngstown is a very depressed, high-unemployment city.

He told me that the machines were flickering and bouncing around on the right hand side of the machine for at least half the day not to mention the voices in his head telling him to vote for Bush. He had multiple reports of people trying to vote for Kerry and it being recorded as Bush. The EP workers tried to get to everyone as they were going into the polling place to tell them that if they changed their vote three times, the ballot would be spoiled. They told them to get an election judge. Many did not get the message and/or they just could not wait around any longer. After all, there were only two other machines to go to if their machine would not record the vote properly. Finally, at around midday the voting machine company technicians came and "recalibrated" the machines. The flickering stopped. The vote changing did not.

Below are the hallucinations from another Election Protection project lawyer who came on our bus. We were in Mahoning and Trumbull counties. These are heavily Democratic counties, which we did win by large margins, but it looks like we should have won them by far more from all of these reports.

1. Too few polling machines, particularly for rush-hour voting, poorer areas/large numbers of people. (3 to 4 hours at the very least, some waited up to 8 and 9 hours) 8 or 9 hours? Come on, are you sure these people weren't in the line for the DMV by mistake?

2. Numerous calls reported, "There are not enough machines. We need more people."

3. Machines were breaking down. One polling location had only two machines for very large group. (9 calls)

4. There were many reports throughout the day of non-functioning machines. Many people were getting frantic. Others were leaving. Many were demanding that paper ballots be sent. This Election Protection project lawyer and the others at her calling center tried to call ES&S to tell them that machines were malfunctioning. The Board of Elections said the machines had calibration problems and someone would come out. The Board of Elections was inundated with calls about the machines malfunctioning.

5. There were numerous reports of voters trying to select Kerry and Bush was selected on the screen instead. Literacy seems to be the biggest issue. The voters would try repeatedly to get Kerry to come up. One voter was quoted as saying "I keep trying to vote for Kerry, spelled B-U-S-H. Then the democrat poll workers come over and tell me to change my vote or I don't get paid." Voters were only allowed three "pushes." They were told they could request a different machine, but of course by the time they were on the phone with the Election Protection project workers, it must have been too late.

6. There were also reports of voters getting to the review screen and seeing "No Selection." For president. This was often at the same polling places where machines were breaking down. Voters could not get their vote for Kerry for president to register. Sounds like my boss. He can't ever get a computer to work correctly.

7. Numerous reports of "Presidential choice not selected." Ballot would not register "Kerry".

8. There were also reports of many Republican challengers at polling locations and no Democratic challengers. This Election Protection project lawyer had at least one voter who was told by a Republican challenger that she was not on the list at her polling place. When she called the Board of Elections office they told her that she was indeed a registered voter in the proper precinct. An Election Protection project person had to make calls to ensure that the voter could vote. How many other voters allowed themselves to be turned away by the GOP challengers.

9. Another GOP challenger asked a voter for a Green Card in order to get a provisional ballot. The voter called in to find out what a Green Card is. Of course, this was a trick. Voters must be citizens.

10. Machines at some polls had to be re-set after every voter. This took so long that people started to leave. This Election Protection project lawyer and her colleagues sent food out to the voters. They sent food out to voters at different precincts at least three times during the day to encourage them to stay in line.

11. Issue 1 "Defense of Marriage" was holding up line. Voters did not understand what the issue, Defense of Marriage, meant. (LOL, you gotta laugh at this one)

12. One Election Protection project lawyer bought 6 lamps and extension cords after numerous reports came in of a polling place that was so dark both inside and out that voters could not see to vote. It was gray and dark and raining for much of the day in northern Ohio. People were waiting in line for multiple hours in the rain.

13. Many people in one poor, black, polling location had their water turned off, if their bill was un-paid, coincidentally, on the morning of the election. The Water Department/utility told voters to stay home to wait until the matter was resolved, because the voters needed to let someone into their unit. The Zell Milleresque Democratic mayor of Youngstown endorsed George W. Bush. The Water Department/utility company did not come. This Election Protection project worker and colleagues went to the peoples' homes so some of the voters could vote.

14. Voters cars were being ticketed. Voters felt their cars were properly parked. This was reported in both Mahoning County and Trumbull County.

15. No provisional ballot was offered to a man who filled in/requested an absentee ballot, but did not receive the absentee ballot. When he arrived, he could not get a provisional ballot.

Note: Reports are now coming out that many people in Ohio who requested absentee ballots did not receive them. Some of these voters who did not receive their absentee ballot were given a provisional ballot when they went to the polling place, others were not, still others had to have Election Protection project people fight to get them their provisional ballots. How many walked away disenfranchised?

edited:typo

[blm]

89. Why would Kerry talk against election fraud to "not appear to wimp out"

as you claim? He never wimped out on anything his entire adult life, and all of a sudden he "wimped out" because it fits your storyline that you and a pack of others who understand nothing about having EVIDENCE IN YOUR HAND TO CONTINUE IN COURT.

[Pepper32]

97. You can try to insult me and hundreds of other Duers all you want

...but the facts still remain that Kerry couldn't wait to concede, he didn't even try to fight!! So yeah, he wimped out, as I stated before that's my opinion. It's YOUR problem if you don't like it.

[blm]

99. And you know this because WHY? JK had the exact same election team that

Gore had and if they had some form of evidence that could continue the fight LEGALLY they would have presented it. The same people who told Gore to file a case told Kerry there was no case to continue legally at that point.

You can PRETEND there was evidence that day and that Edwards would have used it, but that's not going to make it true.

And you CLAIM Kerry couldn't wait to wimp out even though this is the same man who never wimped out on anything his entire life. Shouldn't opinion be BASED on SOME FACT?

I am not insulting DUers, but am pointing out that there is NO FACTS to back up the insults YOU hurl. If a DUer attacks and then cannot point to a fact that backs up that attack, then that IS their problem and I will point to it.

[Pepper32]

104. My opinion is just that ...MY OPIINION (I'm entitled to it)

Like I said before, it's YOUR problem if you don't like it.

I don't want anyone to take my word for it only, I prefer if they do their own research and read the Demopedia links I provided in my previous post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2408609&mesg_id=2409056

This way they can come to their own conclusion. Is that what your afraid of? The truth and people that think for themselves.

Also, here is the link to the group that I and fellow Duer's (Andy, Arnheim etc) started to fight for open and transparent elections.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VOTE_Group/links

[blm]

106. The point is that YOUR OPINION is not based in the facts at the time

and are actually spin - you cannot claim that Gore or Edwards would have fought even if they had no legal evidence to continue. They ALL would have had the exact same team of election lawyers that all Dems tapped.

You also claim Kerry is only involving himself in election fraud now because he wimped out before - except the FACTS of his record provide an enormous amount of evidence that there isn't a lawmaker alive today who fought more corruption than John Kerry - the person you claim only cares about election fraud for an "image" in your storyline.

[Pepper32]

109. Gore did fight, that's a fact!

Edwards I feel wanted to fight based on his concession speech.

Please do review both of their concession speeches to hopefully understand why I have the impression John Edwards wanted to continue fighting, of course he didn't come straight out and say that (why would he when his running mate conceded without a fight) However, a lot of what he said implied he wanted to keep fighting.
Transcript: Edwards Concession Speech
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22589-2004Nov3.html
John Kerry's Speech at Faneuil Hall
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_1103.html

My opinions are based on the facts as I know and experienced them, nothing more or less. Others will have to do their own research and draw their own conclusion. I suggest they click the links I provided to Demopedia regarding the 2004 election fraud, it's all there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2408609&mesg_id=2409056


I know many DUers that feel as I do but do keep projecting, as you're the only one that spinning out of control because you can't handle the truth.

[blm]

128. Gore had the math with him and his Dem team of lawyers were

with him to fight. The exact same team of election lawyers told Kerry he had no legal evidence or grounds to continue a fight.

Edwards did NOT have any evidence, either.

A whistleblower would have had to come forward at that time. None did. It has taken over a year for whistleblowers from any of the machine companies to come forward - and even those whistleblowers will not be talking about the past election, only the certain lknowledge that the company KNOWS the machines are vulnerable to corruption.

We have only a handful of lawmakers in this country who have publically made any mention of the machines and other election fraud as an issue - why you think it's important to knock down one of them is just bizarre.

[karynnj]

92. I've seen all this

Kerry has spoken about many of these things - many of which fall into having used means that are not illegal to cheat. There is nothing in either Ohio law or national law that says that machines have to be egually distributed. It is absolutely unfair, but it is unfortunately, not illegal .

Did you watch Kerry's and Boxer's speeches given on the extention of the voting rights act? They clearly know the system is broken and Kerry's comments are likely the most detailed and strongest of anything in the Congressional record on this. He has also spoken of this at rallies, speeches and interviews starting in January, 2005.

I read his and Edwards speeches and the differences seem more to reflect their different personalities. Also, Kerry as the Presidential candidate had a responsibility to try to reach out to heal the country. (In fact, his other comment that he would continue to fight for what he believed in is very unusual in a concession speech.) The fact is that Kerry has spoken out about the election problems often and Edwards hasn't.

In fact, I wish Al Gore would have stayed around in 2001 and headed the effort to correct the problems that occurred in 2000. HAVA simply made them worse. It is amazing to me that the DNC did nothing to secure the election process, yet Kerry, the Presidental candidate who very likely did motivate enough voters to try to vote for him, is the one blamed for work not done by the DLC in the years leading up to the election. He is also blamed because the media opted to give credibility to proven liars without covering his response.

If Thomas (the Congressional Record) has the Kerry and Boxer statements up, I'll post them. They clearly want to use what happened (or may have happened) in 2004 to clean up the process.

[karynnj]

93. Kerry's statement on July 20, 2006 from the Congressional Record

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.

It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the

GPO's PDFgraduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.
Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.

This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights.

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home.

The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.

By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act , we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights, this is personal.

For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.

We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.

We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.

There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.

And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.

A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act . Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here

GPO's PDFwants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.
This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots.

There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.

We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.

We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote. How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?

How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.

We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.

It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

[karynnj]

94. Boxer's July 20, 2006 statement from the Congressional Record

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Kerry leaves the floor, I want to thank him. The issues he raised absolutely have to be a part of this debate. I will address them after he leaves. The reason I stood up and objected to the Ohio count is because I knew firsthand from the people of Ohio who came and talked with me through STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES that they were waiting in lines for 6, 7 hours. That is not the right to vote. I think Senator Kerry's remarks and the remarks of the Senator from Oregon are very important.

So let a message go out from this Senate floor today that we are not stopping our efforts to make sure people can vote with the very important passage of this very important legislation. I am very pleased to follow him in this debate.

I rise to cast my vote in support of a very historic bill named after three amazing women whom I truly admire--Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King. These three legendary women were part of the heart and soul of the civil rights movement in this country, and those women helped move the conscience of this Nation in the 1960s and, frankly, inspired me to serve in public service.

In 1950, I was a little girl and I was in Florida with my mother. I went on a bus. It was a crowded time of day. A woman came on the bus. Her hands were filled with packages. To me she looked really old. I guess she was my age. I jumped up because I was taught to do that. I jumped up and I said: Please, please, take my seat. My mother kind of pulled at my sleeve, and the woman put her head down and she walked to the back of the bus.

I was perplexed by this. I said to my mother: Why was she rude to me? Why didn't she say thank you and take the seat?

My mother explained to me the laws in those days that sent African Americans to the back of the bus. I at 10 years old was astounded, shocked, angry. My mother said to me: Why don't we just stand up. And that is what we did. We walked to the back, and we stood.

That was an America that is no more, but that is an America we cannot forget. That was an overt law to hurt people, to make America ``we and them.'' That is why the law we are passing today is so important--because it says that we all recognize that even though that America is no more, we have more work to do.

And then came the sixties. Of course, we know it was Rosa Parks who changed the world with that one act of defiance of hers, where she just went on that bus and she wasn't going to the back.

When I met her, when President Clinton invited her to the White House and I went there, I stood in awe because it said to me how one person can make a difference in this, the greatest nation in the world. We get so frustrated sometimes; we feel we can't make a difference. Here is one woman saying, No, I won't do that; that's wrong; I'm one of God's children. And that act of defiance changed our country. I am so happy this bill is named after her and Fannie Lou Hamer who helped organize Freedom Summer in 1965 which helped lead to passage of this landmark bill we will vote on today. She had a very simple phrase that she used: ``Nobody's free until everybody's free.'' ``Nobody's free until everybody's free.'' That reminds us of the work that we certainly have to do today.

So Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, who worked with her great husband during the civil rights movement in the sixties and carried on his work after his horrific assassination, working for justice, worked for equality not only in this country but around the world.

In the late eighties, she worked tirelessly to help bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. I often quote Martin Luther King, almost in every speech I give, because he is one of my heroes. One of the lines he said, which isn't really one that gets quoted all the time, is that ``Our lives begin to end when we stop talking about things that matter.'' ``Our lives begin to end when we stop talking about things that matter.'' That touched me and reached me.

I think his words, of course, reached every American, regardless of political party. Don't stop talking about things that matter, even though it might be easier to do so, even though it might be easier when you are at a friend's house and somebody says something that is bigoted toward somebody else. It is sometimes easier for us to make believe we didn't hear it. No, that matters, you matter, your view matters, your values matter. Speak up.

That is what we are doing, and I am proud to be in the Senate today because we are doing something good today. It is a privilege and an honor to vote for this reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act .

I had a number of people visit me from my State yesterday--old and young, children, grandmothers, great grandmothers, granddads, lawyers, workers, doctors.

They just jammed into my conference room and they said: Senator Boxer, we know you are with us. We know you have been on this bill. We know where you are. We have listened to you all these years. We wanted to come here and say thank you.

I said: You don't need to thank me. What you need to do is join with me so that after this vote, we truly get equal voting rights in this country.

That was touched on by Senator Kerry, and it was touched on by Senator Wyden. The right to vote--without it we are nothing. Without it, we are not standing up for the principles upon which this Nation was founded: a government of, by, and for the people.

How do you have a government of, by, and for the people, if the people turn away from the voting booth? I hear every excuse in the world: Oh, you are all the same. What is the difference. I can't make a difference. It is just false. It is just an excuse.

Show me two candidates running against each other at a local level, at a State level, at a Federal level, and I will show you the differences. If you pay attention, you will find out the differences, and you will cast your vote for the candidate that most represents you. You are not going to agree with them 100 percent of the time. That is another issue: Oh, I used to agree with him, but he did three things, and I don't agree with him anymore. Look at the totality. Look at the totality of the voting record. Look at the totality of the opposition and make a decision. Don't just walk away. Don't pull the covers over your head with excuses: They are all alike. I can't make a difference. What is one vote?

We all know the election of John Kennedy was decided by a couple of votes per precinct. It could have been one vote per precinct. That is how close that election was.

In the voting booth, we are all equal. In the voting booth, we are all equal. Your vote and my vote, whether you are 18 years old or you are my age and a Senator, we are all equal in the voting booth. We have one vote. We should cherish it. The CEO of a giant company who earns multimillions of dollars a year is equal to a minimum wage worker. And if that minimum wage worker thinks it is time he got a raise or she got a raise after almost 10 years of not getting a raise, he or she ought to vote, and vote for the candidate who supports your right to join the middle class.

Every citizen of this country who is eligible to vote should be guaranteed that their vote is counted and that their vote matters. That is why it is so important that we maintain the protections of this historic Voting Rights Act , such as requiring certain localities with a history of discrimination to get approval from the Federal Government before they make changes to voting procedures. Why is this important? It is important because it is a check and balance on an area that has in the past not shown--not shown--the willingness to fight for every voter. And, requiring certain jurisdictions to provide language assistance to voters with limited English proficiency, and authorizing the Federal Government to send election monitors to jurisdictions where there is a history of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls, we just want to make sure these elections are fair, wherever they are held.

The Federal Government must work hard to guarantee that the inequities we have seen in the past never resurface again. And won't that be the day, when we have a system that we believe we can be proud of again.

I am proud to stand here today with an opportunity to cast a vote to reauthorize provisions of the Voting Rights Act . But today didn't come without struggle. Why did my people have to come all the way from California, spend their hard-earned dollars to get on a plane? I will tell you why: Because this was a hard bill to get before this body. People objected. People complained. It was a hard bill to get before the House. But many people worked hard, and House Members listened to the people, and Senators listened to the people.

I want to thank my friends at the NAACP who were finally able to convince enough that, yes, this was something we had to do. We have to be honest. There were attempts to weaken this bill, but we succeeded in not allowing that to happen.

In my closing moments, I want to say that our work does not stop today, as Senator Kerry said and as Senator Wyden said. For example, several of us have introduced the Count Every Vote Act , a comprehensive voting reform bill that will ensure that every American indeed can vote, and every vote is counted.

Congresswoman STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, who lived through a harrowing experience during the last election, with her constituents being given the runaround and standing in line for 6 and 7 hours. Is that the right to vote, standing in line for 6 and 7 hours, people who have to work, people who had health problems, people who couldn't stand up, people whose legs were weakening beneath them? Is that the right to vote? I say it is not the right to vote. I say it is harassment.

Senators CLINTON, KERRY, LAUTENBERG, MIKULSKI, and I have introduced the Count Every Vote Act , and I want to highlight the two key provisions that are in this bill. The first is the bill would require electronic voting machines provide a paper record which will allow voters to verify their votes, and it will serve as a record if a manual recount is needed. We go to a restaurant, we get a receipt. We go to the store, we get a receipt. We save it in case there is a problem. When we vote, we should get a receipt. We should look at it, we should check it, just as we add up the bill from the restaurant. We should give it back and then it is stored. In case there is a problem, we have a paper trail.

The second provision: We say election day should be a Federal holiday. We all give speeches. We stand up and we stand behind the red, white, and blue. What a great, free country this is, and indeed it is. Why shouldn't we make election day a holiday so that we can celebrate on every election day our freedoms, our history, our rights, our protections as citizens to choose our own leaders?

Let me say, we cannot even get to page 1 in terms of moving this bill forward. There is resistance to this bill. There are those in this body who don't want a paper trail. They don't want to make it easier to vote, and let's call it what it is. That resistance exists, and that is wrong. So I call on the leadership of this body: Let's do something more for people. Let's not have another situation where a Senator has to go over and protest a vote count because people said they had to stand in line for hours.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. BOXER. Then we have the people of Washington, DC. They are not represented with a vote. That is wrong. Over 500,000 people live in this great city, the heart and soul of our democracy. Eighty percent are voting age. They can't cast their ballots in national elections for congressional representatives. They don't have Senators or Representatives here. That is why I have joined Senator JOE LIEBERMAN on his bill that calls for full voting rights for DC residents.

So, again, I say what a privilege and honor it is for me to be here, to stand here, thinking back to my days as a child when African Americans had to go to the back of the bus in some parts of the South, feeling the pain of that myself for those who had to live in that way. So this bill is a fitting tribute to Rosa Parks and Fannie Lou Hamer and Coretta Scott King.

I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence. This is a starting place for a lot of us, and we are going to make sure that, in fact, the right to vote is a reality for every single one of our citizens.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[Pepper32]

98. It's a little to late don't you think?

He promised he would fight and he didn't, bottom line. He's only doing this to score political points for the 08 election because he knows that a lot of people that supported him last time will not this time because he conceded without a fight. You can have a selective memory about all of the events that took place shortly after the election results all you want but my memory is just fine. I will never forget! Why should I? So I can be duped into trusting Kerry again? No thanks! I'm going with Edwards or Gore (who I know will fight) this time around.

[blm]

100. Gore and Edwards had different election fraud teams? They had the SAME

TEAM OF LAWYERS.

The exact same team who told Gore he had legal grounds to continue, told Kerry and Edwards there were no legal grounds at that point to continue.

The problem I have with your storyline is that there are no facts involved.

[Pepper32]

111. ...

Hmm... because you say it's not a fact then it must not be a fact? OKAY... gotcha! :)

Yeah, it's not a fact that I FEEL Kerry didn't fight when he promised he would and can't be trusted. You know this because you are me and know my opinions and thoughts,lol


Again, maybe having the same team as Gore wasn't such a good idea because they may have wrongly advised him based on their horrible experience in 2000. Just a thought, after all they are just human like the rest of us and we do make mistakes.

[MH1]

103. Too late for WHAT? You don't care about the right to vote in general?

As for Gore - please tell me how you know that Gore wouldn't have conceded when the difference was 120,000 votes instead of less than 1000 AND when key advisors to Gore on his response in 2000, ALSO advised Kerry to concede in 2004?

[Pepper32]

108. It's too late for Kerry to try to make what he did WRONG.... right!

Don't try to twist this, it won't work. Of course, I care about the right to vote. Even Randy Rhodes said she believed Kerry conceded to save his political life. He wimped out because he didn't want to be seen as a sore loser like the GOP tried to make Gore appear. Maybe having the same team as Gore wasn't such a good idea because they may have wrongly advised him based on their horrible experience in 2000. Just a thought, after all they are just human like the rest of us and we do make mistakes. :shrug:

FYI, here is the link to the group that I and fellow Duer's (Andy, Arnheim etc) started to fight for open and transparent elctions.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VOTE_Group/links

[blm]

118. It's the DNC's team of lawyers who work for ALL Dems. That's why the blame

is actually misdirected. Kerry should have been able to depend on his Dem party infrastructure to fight fraud at every level the way Bush depended on his to commit the fraud at every level.

[karynnj]

122. Randi Rhodes is a talk show host

This in no ways makes her an expert! There still is not information that would show that more legally cast votes in Ohio were cast for Kerry. What reasons would he give for not conceding? Kerry is a good lawyer, this was winnable.

[karynnj]

121. Who were you for in 2004 in the primaries?

Kerry has spoken about voter suppression since Jan 2005. You still haven't produced ONE SINGLE Edwards quote on election problems since Nov 3, 2004. I really don't think he has said anything. Kerry has worked on this and has pushed people to work on it at a local level. The states have the constitution mandated right to run elections. Most of what has to be done has to happen at teh state level.

Kerry fought the election very hard. The numbers in Ohio were such that they couldn't do it. The Party would not have backed a challange. You can believe it is proven now - but even the RFKjr article if you study it does NOT show (even 1 1/2 years later) that Kerry had a legal case. You need to take out all the estimates for votes not cast (because of registration problems, long lines etc) because these can't be claimed. So, the sad result is Bush likely won the votes cast, but Kerry would have run in a fair race.

After the pain of being cheated out of the Presidency, Gore left and did not do what Kerry is doing, speaking out about the election problems. (He did fight longer but he had to find 537 votes, Kerry was short about 120,000.) So, support Edwards or Gore, because you like them better, agree more with their positions - but don't say that Edwards fought more than Kerry, he didn't.

[Mass]

25. Actually, if Edwards did not want to stop fighting when his wife had

breast cancer and there was so few evidences, it would be another reason for me not to support him.

Or rather, if I had been his wife, a good reason to divorce. However, truth is that I never read anything convincing that showed that Edwards wanted to fight that more than a couple minutes (and the same reports came for Kerry). So all if fine.

[Pepper32]

50. So, if Edwards became Vice President should he have stepped down

...after learning about his wife illness? I'm just trying to understand your logic here.

[blm]

86. Edwards didn't have the legal evidence to continue any more than Kerry did

Why people cling to an anecdote and claim that Edwards would have fought even without the legal evidence to do so is a mystery.

In fact - no one would have continued without the legal evidence, and especially with a DNC that would not back you up in a court battle unless that evidence was in hand.

[karynnj]

19. My head is just fine, thank you

and I would support him in an instant if he announced he was running.

Now, YOU should get your head checked as it clearly has a problem absorbing facts - there is a research thread that is quite long detailing all he did to defend a military record THAT IN ANY FAIR TIME would have stood on its own. The Navy gave Kerry his medals, Warner (who was the VN era Secretary of the Navy said in 2004 (and recently in the Senate) that he personally when back through Kerry's record to check the silver star (in the 70s) and it was properly awarded.

The media opted to ignore:
-Kerry
-the official Navy records
-the then Secretary of the Navy (who is a Republican)
-the Nixon tapes that contain conversation that mentions that Kerry was sqeaky clean and a war hero and an order to DESTROY Kerry because they were afraid of him.
-All but 1 of the men that served under him are extremely positive about his leadership. (One in fact called Kerry's Senate office some 30+ years after they served together - he was extremely depressed, had a reoccurance of PTSD, had burned his bridges with all his friends and family, was living on the street and was suicidal. Kerry spent most of a day on the phone, got him admitted to a VA rehab program. Because he had no one else, Kerry provided emotional support when he was on this program and stayed in touch with him. Kerry as young man must have impressed him enough that he thought that he would help him years later when their lives were as different as could be.)
-the marine, a retired Policeman who was a life long Republican, whose life Kerry saved.

This is more proof than I have on anything in my life and I suspect the same is true for you.

Think about it, if you were told by your boss that he suspected you lied about your college grades because someone who claimed they went to school with you said they were lower than you said they were and he choose to believe this guy of uncertain credibility over your valid transcript, what would you say? Do you realize that friends of Kerry now have an organization designed to track the money funding these smears on others? Do you know they can prove that Hoffman was paid $100,000 and John O'Neill got $50,000?

Consider the media dropped the story on Bush's TANG problems after documents on one part of the story couldn't be authenticated. Kerry's team PROVED that at least dozens of claims were false (not just unauthenticated.) If you can't see that much of the cable TV and the radio was in Bush's pocket there's nothing I can say to make you believe it.

Also, this will happen to any Democrat that runs. Kerry is actually unusually clean of scandals.

[MODemocrat]

52. There were huge throngs at Kerry's political rallies

Obviously, he was doing plenty of things right. He is so intelligent, and so much more suited for the job than the hand job we now have. Sure, I wish he hadn't conceded so quickly, but I don't dislike him for it. He's a patriot and a very good Senator. I believe my opinion is worth something. Thank you John Kerry for your service to our country.
:thumbsup: :patriot:

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

54. Thanks for the GOP half truths....

... the work done by his lawyers and other activists(statitians, etc) is now being used as the basis for filing lawsuits. Kerry now has a team dedicated to help others that are being Swift Boat Nutted and it seems to be working (Check out George Felix Allen, Jr vs Webb in Virginia) and as I recall, campaign moneys left over after the election were put to good use in going where it was needed to help others. Don't diss a former US Attorney.

[Harper_is_Bush]

58. Was there a case against the fraud?

Oh please, wise one, explain it to us all! :sarcasm:

He did what he did in response to the swiftboating as a calculated response to try and not give them credibility. Maybe you should have been out front the swiftboatliars homes with a sign that said "STOP LYING". But no, I guess you weren't interested in saving your country.

Kerry fought hard, and anyone criticizing is suffering from a case of the whines.

[Pepper32]

65. See this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2408609&mesg_id=2409056

[Harper_is_Bush]

74. Was there a legal case for fraud I asked.

If not, Kerry would have looked stupid claiming it.

[Pepper32]

77. Yes!

Again, see the post I directed you too.

[Harper_is_Bush]

79. I looked at it. I don't see the legal case there. n/t

[Pepper32]

81. Well, you actually have to click the DU links and read the articles etc...

Doubt if you have or will do it because you need to be right. I understand.

[blm]

90. LEGAL EVIDENCE that was available to continue.

RFK is only able to go to court now because whistleblowers within the company have finally decided to come forward, and they won't be giving evidence that the election was rigged, but they will be saying the company is fully aware that its machines CAN BE tampered with.

Big difference.

[Harper_is_Bush]

129. Whatever.

If there was legal evidence that could have been taken to court Kerry would have done it.

Court is not the internet. If you think the information in those links constitutes legal evidence you've been forum surfing too long.

But you need to attack Kerry....I understand.

[blm]

66. The DNC assembled the lawyers for the election, it's a lie that he never

countered the swifts - you can see all the data yourself in the DU research, the millions of dollars that WERE left over COULDN'T have been spent, as they were pre-federal spending dollars that he was forbidden by law to spend after he accepted the nomination.

He didn't lose - the DNC's weak infrastructure in crucial states like Ohio made sure the GOPs efforts to commit election fraud would go uncountered.

Your talking points are pure spin with no basis in reality. They are fodder for the lazyminded who thrive on spin and ignore inconvenient facts.

[karynnj]

10. The man worked continuously for nearly 2 years

In 2004, his wife, 2 daughters, and 2 stepsons did as well. He was subjected to the worst smears - even in the mainstream media - of any candidate in my life, attacking his character, career, service, wife and their marriage, and daughters. Through all of this he fought very very hard.

[Eikon]

14. Re

Yea, I witnessed the smears and attacks, but I must have completely missed the part where he fought back against them. Letting your military record get dragged through the mud without a response is something I cannot forgive him for, but I'm sure the millions of dollars he has allows him to sleep easier at night.

[karynnj]

26. Read this thread - from DU's own research forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

That is a link to a research thread that is quite long detailing all he did to defend a military record THAT IN ANY FAIR TIME would have stood on its own. The Navy gave Kerry his medals, Warner (who was the VN era Secretary of the Navy said in 2004 (and recently in the Senate) that he personally when back through Kerry's record to check the silver star (in the 70s) and it was properly awarded.

The media opted to ignore:
-Kerry
-the official Navy records
-the then Secretary of the Navy (who is a Republican)
-the Nixon tapes that contain conversation that mentions that Kerry was sqeaky clean and a war hero and an order to DESTROY Kerry because they were afraid of him.
-All but 1 of the men that served under him are extremely positive about his leadership. (One in fact called Kerry's Senate office some 30+ years after they served together - he was extremely depressed, had a reoccurance of PTSD, had burned his bridges with all his friends and family, was living on the street and was suicidal. Kerry spent most of a day on the phone, got him admitted to a VA rehab program. Because he had no one else, Kerry provided emotional support when he was on this program and stayed in touch with him. Kerry as young man must have impressed him enough that he thought that he would help him years later when their lives were as different as could be.)
-the marine, a retired Policeman who was a life long Republican, whose life Kerry saved.

This is more proof than I have on anything in my life and I suspect the same is true for you.

Think about it, if you were told by your boss that he suspected you lied about your college grades because someone who claimed they went to school with you said they were lower than you said they were and he choose to believe this guy of uncertain credibility over your valid transcript, what would you say? Do you realize that friends of Kerry now have an organization designed to track the money funding these smears on others? Do you know they can prove that Hoffman was paid $100,000 and John O'Neill got $50,000?

Consider the media dropped the story on Bush's TANG problems after documents on one part of the story couldn't be authenticated. Kerry's team PROVED that at least dozens of claims were false (not just unauthenticated.) If you can't see that much of the cable TV and the radio was in Bush's pocket there's nothing I can say to make you believe it.

[MH1]

41. Umm...dude...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/

Please scroll down to the section, "Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert".

(or just go to your local bookstore, take a copy of Lapdogs off the shelf, and read the entire chapter on what REALLY happened with the Swift Lies.)

This excerpt just gives a couple examples. In the book, Boehlert gives counts of the times the charges were mentioned or the ads shown, vs. the times the responses by Kerry were mentioned. I couldn't find it online, but Boehlert's count was along the lines of 300 to 12.

As Alterman's piece ends with: "If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?" So, you know, keep blaming Kerry...and watch the next candidate go down the same way. I think Kerry did DAMNED good with what he was up against.

Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert

Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

(snip)

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

(snip - MUCH more at the link, and even more in the book.)

[stepnw1f]

45. Whatever... Who Controls the Media

"let"?

[blm]

69. Try the DU research forum - you sound like you only watch corporate media.

.

[fedupinBushcountry]

29. Move on

Walk a day in his shoes and then come back and throw your cheap shots.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Monkeyman]

4. Go get him John

[Little Star]

12. Call for a ceasefire there John!!!!!! Put your money where

your mouth is!

[Mass]

13. Too bad that no democrats except a handful is calling for that, I agree.\n

[ckramer]

18. John, tell them stop selling aviation fuel to Israel

The fuel, no war.

[livvy]

22. I just got back from a rally where I sat 3 ft. away from where he was...

standing while talking to the group. We are talking eye contact during the time he spoke. He is an excellent speaker, full of passion, obviously informed, highly intelligent, and compassionate. I would vote for him again in a hot second. This is a man who truly cares about this country, and some may not like the campaign he ran, or the fact that he didn't fight harder after the election "to count every vote", but this man is Presidential and deserves more respect then some seem willing to give.

[ProSense]

27. That's awesome! Thanks for the insight! n/t

[karynnj]

28. Lucky person!

Thanks for the comments. :)

[MH1]

38. Wow, that's great - 3 feet!

Yep, I've had a similar experience and will second everything you said in your post. Thanks for reporting - people need to hear the reality from someone who was there, and maybe some of them will start to question the spin.

[YvonneCa]

42. Livvy...

...That's the experience I had when Kerry was in Los Angeles for Antonio Villaragoso. It was a smaller crowd and afterward he walked around talking to people. I shook his hand and was able to tell him thank you for the fight he is continuing. I cannot explain it, but I KNOW I shook the hand of a President.:patriot:

[livvy]

44. Exactly.

I can't really explain it either. He commands respect by his evident knowledge, intelligence, and passion for what he does, yet his demeanor suggests a warmth and compassion for the people of this country. (Not to mention he can actually put a sentence together that makes sense, gave no uninvited hugs, pats, or massages, and he stayed on message.)
Yup, he's the President. Now how do we get this pretzelnut squatter out of our White House so the real President can move in? :banghead:

[YvonneCa]

60. Loved this, Livvy...

>>>>>Not to mention he can actually put a sentence together that makes sense, gave no uninvited hugs, pats, or massages, and he stayed on message.<<<<<<<<


:7 :7 :7

Thanks for posting this. It's nice to communicate with someone who gets the feeling I've been living with since that rally in Los Angeles. As to your question :7 about how we get him in the White House, I've been working to educate my family and friends on issues and Kerry news by emailing them news items from sources they trust...since I think they cancelled out my vote in 2004. I'm trying to turn my 1 Kerry vote into 10, from family and friends. I hope other people are doing the same.:patriot:

[Monkeyman]

23. John is starting to sound and act like his old VVAW days

You should of saw him then.

[johnfunk]

30. Kerry: 'If I was president, this (Mideast mess) wouldn't have happened!'

Kerry: 'If I was president, this wouldn't have happened!'
Mass. senator knocks Pres. Bush on handling of Mideast conflict
Valerie Olander / The Detroit News
Sunday, July 23, 2006
U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

[MH1]

31. Damn straight. nt

[fedupinBushcountry]

39. I second that. n/t

[Pierogi_Pincher]

82. I third that.

P_P

:dem:

[Bluzmann57]

32. We'll never know

Too bad for the world.

[politicasista]

40. Too bad we have that lying, criminal in the WH

When will it stop? :cry:

[zonkers]

53. Yawn. Who cares about criticism coming from the guy who obviously

has the most sour grapes? I love Kerry but he missed his moment and I have no time for nostalgia. ON EDIT. And no I am no secret troll.

[karynnj]

96. You miss the point - Kerry would have used diplomacy

in Iraq and in the middle east. He wouldn't have pushed (as Bush did) an election in Palestine that both Israel and Abbas wanted postponed. Kerry didn't support Bush's policy of "creative destableization."

[blue collar welder]

105. we must destroy Hezbola

is what he said today,whats he going to do monatone them to death?

[blm]

101. Criticism from the they guy who knows more about real global terrorism

than any lawmaker in office today.

That's not nostalgia, it's fact that exists in the congressional record.

[zonkers]

113. You're right, BLM. I am just pissed at JK. He's skull n bones --

How could he, of all people, have underestimated dirty boy Rove, the Bushistas and the swiftboaters. He chumped out. And hearing him nail his talking points now just depresses me.

[blm]

124. RNC spent 4yrs purging voter rolls, suppressing votes, and perfecting

machine fraud. The DNC did NOT spend their 4 yrs after 2000 doing anything to COUNTER Those GOP efforts. THAT is where the election was lost - the FOUR years BEFORE the election.

BTW - if you check out the Research Forum you'll see the actual data on the swifts and the counterattacks made. It will piss you off - but you'll see how COMPLICIT the media was in the entire scam.

[Demeter]

56. I'm Not Convinced

Considering how Kerry fucked up the campaign and aftermath, he'd have found some other well=meaning way to be hoodwinked by the "crazies", as Bush Sr. called them, into some foolishness of a similar sort. Kerry is maze blind.

[stepnw1f]

46. Say It Like It Is, John

Tell the righties what a loser their leader really is.

[onehandle]

48. "Sour-grapes, Kerry bashing comment"

or "I'm a paid GOP troll and am here to keep doubt up about Kerry."

I won't bother looking for them in this thread, but I'm sure they're here somewhere.

[emulatorloo]

62. lol n/t

:toast:

[Exiled in America]

123. So let me just check in with you and make sure I get this straight:

Either we must love John Kerry are we're a republican troll?

Is that right?

Wow, I'm so happy to see that thought-control and lockstep marching is as alive and well on the left as it is on the right... :(

[onehandle]

127. Option Three:

Making a "Sour-grapes, Kerry bashing comment" through an attack on those who note "Sour-grapes, Kerry bashing comments."

Thanks! I missed that one.

[Exiled in America]

131. Hey thanks for answering my question!

So I guess that's a yes, either we must all support john kerry or we're "with the terrorists."

I for one, deeply hope there is a different democratic nominee for president in 2008, so I guess you should go alert me now for being a disrupter for not marching in lockstep... :/

[rodeodance]

49. "The president has been so absent on diplomacy!! but when he does

do stuff, we all cringe!!!!!

[NVMojo]

55. Go, President Kerry! Don't stop, keep going! Slam the stinking fascist!

[lynne]

63. Sorry - I just don't buy it -

- the whole "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened" statement is a bit over the top for me. Unless he has a crystal ball he has no idea what would or would not have been. And it's not as though the conflicts in the ME began in the past two years - or two decades - or two centuries, for that matter.

I find the statement contradictory and confusing as it's not something I would expect a seasoned politician to say.

[blm]

71. I buy it - Kerry met with Assad in Jan05, along with other regional

leaders throughout the Mideast and Europe. He was welcomed by ALL of them.

He had planned a summit meeting of all the world's religious leaders as one of his first acts as president.

So, yeah - - - I believe none of this would have happened.

[livvy]

75. I agree. Kerry was welcomed by the leaders of other nations.

It makes a big difference when you are respected by the people you are trying to work with. A sincere interest to resolve problems makes a big difference also.
What leaders respect the pretzelnut? If they remotely respected him in the past, they've long since lost it. This misadministration has done nothing to resolve any of the problems between other nations. They don't have the interest, and it shows.

[RangerSmith]

84. I agree

something about it just isn't right and I hope it's the context.

I admit I'm no Kerry fan, but still.... to proclaim you could have prevented something that nobody throughout recorded history has ever prevented... well, I think a serious real world reality check is in order.

Hell, if he really feels he's that good and this isn't about pandering, he should fly over there and put an end to it.

[blm]

85. Engaged leaders rarely make war - Kerry engaged Assad and every other

leader in the region - did Bush?

Kerry planned a summit of the all the world's religions and their leaders to discuss common goals to end violence attributed to religious faith as one of his first acts of office - did Bush?

I doubt you were even aware of those facts.

[RangerSmith]

88. Well, there ya go!

I'm sure all the 10,000 yr old religious issues would have ended right then and there and World Peace would have been achieved!

Hoozah!

:sarcasm:

[blm]

91. Not the point, is it? Greater understanding of shared goals by ENGAGED

leaders would do a helluva lot more to prevent what is happening today.

Sneer all you want - I'd say there are more people in this world who would have been pleased at Kerry's approach than there would be sitting back and sneering at it.

[Pepper32]

72. “Israel has every right to defend itself, its citizens and its soldiers"

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., also called for the United States to work for peace while making a strong statement in favor of Israel.

“Israel has every right to defend itself, its citizens and its soldiers against the outrageous acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas and Hezbollah,” he said. “They must immediately end their attacks on Israelis, release the Israeli soldiers they are holding and disarm their violent factions. Iran and Syria, as the prime sponsors of these terrorist organizations, must also be held to account for using violence against Israel to advance their objectives.” :crazy:

After reading that I have to wonder how would it have been different?

Edited: to add link
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060722/NEWS/607220335/1008/NEWS02

[Mass]

76. No other dem is going to say anything else.

I can see that the full MA delegation is in agreement on that.

At least, they are asking Bush to work for peace, which is more than many other dems.

The point is that Kerry (or Gore) would have done what Clinton did: push the party to negotiate. Bush did nothing except hoping it would explode.

(I wished they had called for a cease-fire, however).

[Pepper32]

78. Clinton would have called for cease fire, i'm not so sure...

...after reading that statement, that Kerry would. IMO

[blm]

102. Because you don't know Kerry's efforts in this regard and I doubt you even

knew he went to meet with Assad in Jan 2005.

[Pepper32]

110. Are you following me from post to post? geez...

Am I getting to you or something? Maybe we should end our discussions (in other threads) and agree to disagree. You have your opinions and I have mine. You can't change mine or anyone else's for that matter and I'm certainly NOT trying to change yours.


U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., also called for the United States to work for peace while making a strong statement in favor of Israel.

“Israel has every right to defend itself, its citizens and its soldiers against the outrageous acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas and Hezbollah,” he said. “They must immediately end their attacks on Israelis, release the Israeli soldiers they are holding and disarm their violent factions. Iran and Syria, as the prime sponsors of these terrorist organizations, must also be held to account for using violence against Israel to advance their objectives.”

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., also called for the United States to work for peace while making a strong statement in favor of Israel.

“Israel has every right to defend itself, its citizens and its soldiers against the outrageous acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas and Hezbollah,” he said. “They must immediately end their attacks on Israelis, release the Israeli soldiers they are holding and disarm their violent factions. Iran and Syria, as the prime sponsors of these terrorist organizations, must also be held to account for using violence against Israel to advance their objectives.”


Again, after reading that I have to wonder how would it have been different?

[blm]

117. I am not going to let a false charge go unanswered. The point is that if

you KNEW Kerry's record of efforts in this area, you would KNOW that he himself has always opted for diplomatice efforts and peacemaking SOLUTIONS. He didn't meet with Assad for a game of poker.

[karynnj]

126. Printing it twice for affect

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., also called for the United States to work for peace while making a strong statement in favor of Israel.


What is wrong with working for peace? When was the statement made. What do you object to?

Do you think Edwards has a different position?

[karynnj]

125. On what basis do you say the Clinton would call for a cease fire

He hasn't and he hasn't said anything on this. Hillary was more adament in backing the Israeli actions. Kerry's and Kennedy's comments here ask Bush to work for peace, the Clintons haven't said that.

If you read the article the OP linked to, what Kerry said was it wouldn't have happened if he were President. He also talked about the lack of diplomacy. So, no cease fire would be needed as there would be no war. Kerry, in an LA speech to a foreign policy think tank a few months ago, said that "war was a failure of diplomacy".

I assume you are simply looking at the Hezbollah comment - substitute Al Alqaeda and see what you think. He also would not unilaterally go after terrorists (as Israel did) but per 2004 comments it would seem he would work with Lebanon.

It is clear that you support Edwards, who in his time in the Senate, was more hawkish than Kerry. Has he called for a ceasefire? Why not ask of him what you demand of Kerry?

[confludemocrat]

115. so Kerry did no worse than the rest of the Mass delegation? Nice.

way to go big boy, real presidential material.

[samsingh]

80. knocks is not severe enough

[goforit]

107. More like a faux pat on the head.

[ckramer]

95. Kerry should be the next president!

If he runs again, I would vote for him, again!

[Biernuts]

112. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

133. What's your point? -nt

[confludemocrat]

116. Kerry: mutters under his breath in a bar but slips in mention of 2008

What a sorry dickwad, a tacit endorser or criminal actions, whose only defense his touts here in this thread can come up with is 1) no other democrat said anything either and 2) he did no worse than the rest of his delegation.

[twaddler01]

120. sad but true

"We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."