Where is Kerry in all this DSM history making news?

[azndndude]

[Mass]

1. Senators are globally absent.

[leftofthedial]

2. croquet

on the south lawn

and then juleps on the veranda

[Cocoa]

3. Skull and Bones put the kibosh on it

:tinfoilhat:

[Warren Stupidity]

4. didn't he make a great speach about DSM on the senate floor?

he didn't? :wtf:

I know, he's waiting for the right time to spring his clever trap. What was it that ghandi said? Something like "I have to go now, the people are way ahead of me and I am their leader". At least he had a sense of humility and humor.

[tuvor]

6. He didn't promise senate floor speech but

he DID promise to "raise the issue" a couple of weeks ago.

I'm not sure there'd be much point in doing that now.

Over promise, under deliver. Not surprised.

[Mass]

16. And apparently did so

According to rawstory and the Washington Post.

[garybeck]

44. no he didn't

he wimped out and Kennedy did it instead.

[Mass]

50. well according to raw story and Washington Post, he did

Kennedy sent a letter to his supporters (who probably had already sign Conyers petition anyway)? - He certainly did not speak to the media anymore than Kerry or Boxer or anyone else in the Senate.

[Kansas Wyatt]

5. Windsurfing?

[Maven]

7. Somewhere in the South

swearing never to support gay marriage.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Firenze777]

9. hiding behind the children

I know he's trying to work on children's health and welfare issues, but no real change will come until we discredit Republicans and break free of their stranglehold on funding control....which all goes to the military complex and defense contractor buddies. The point is Kerry isn't part of the solution- for whatever reason, he's AWOL on issues that matter. DSM and voting reform will happen without Kerry. I'm through thinking he has any interest in disturbing the status quo.

[Mass]

10. Who in the Senate is not AWOL on this issue???

And he is working on the working reforms with Boxer and Lautenberg.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[cthrumatrix]

12. it's sad "American's are dying" for what? --- he has a chance to change

that...he should get involved ASAP

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. Right. Whatever you say.

[Southsideirish]

13. He HAS a plan, dammit, he's just going over (and over) it!!

Give him some time - like a year or two. Hopefully, then it will have blown over.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. Some of you folks have forgotten...or were to young to understand....

...Kerry's role in the Iran-Contra Scandal. He took the point during those investigations, and I suspect that he will play a prominent role in the coming DSM investigation.

Additionally, it's VERY clear that some of you people don't understand the fine art of getting all of your ducks lined up before making a political move of the enormity that is just now being initiated by Conyers.

Based on Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Clinton witch-hunt, this is not going to be a short process, and yes, it make take years to complete.

[Mass]

14. Nice productive thread

Do you really care about this issue?

I kind of doubt it, but if you do, call Leahy (as Conyers counterpart in the Senate) and ask him to hold the same hearings.

[garybeck]

26. what? Leahy can't hold a candle to Conyers.

I'm from Vermont. I don't know where you got the impression leahy is the "counterpart" to Conyers. He's part of the problem, not the solution.

[Mass]

34. Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee

Which is the reason why Conyers can hold this hearings with some legitimacy.

For the rest, you know him better than I if you are from Vermont.

[garybeck]

45. here's a photo of Leahy speaking in front of my Bus!

I'd say he's like most democrats - better than republicans but no guts.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. Waiting for the Senate's turn to turn up the heat on DSM....

Surely you don't think that the hearing yesterday by members of the House was done without coordination with their counterparts in the Senate?

Why have you joined all of the recent attacks on Kerry? Could it be none of you have a clue what's going on behind closed doors in regards to the DSM?

[Mass]

18. Nope, more that they dont care about DSM

Kerrybashing is their goal in life.

[dogday]

17. Don't forget Florida 2000 when not one Single Senator would

sign for the Florida Voters. They can all either get on the program or get off at the next election....

[blm]

19. WHY DON'T ANY OF YOU CHECK THE AFTERDOWNINGSTREET SITE OR RAWSTORY?

Kerry's been circulating a letter in the Senate as a companion to Conyers' congressional letter and urging other senators to join him and sign on to a Senate letter of inquiry to Bush. It was laso reported in the Washington Post three days ago.

If any ONE of you were serious about the DSM issue you would have taken the few minutes to stay on top of the current news and you would KNOW ABOUT THE LETTER OF INQUIRY.

Screw these threads that only seek to dump on Kerry using INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND SNIDE IGNORANCE.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. Well said. Thanks.

[MelissaB]

22. and I've posted links to those several times.

[helderheid]

27. THANKS

I appreciate you posting that! Kerry's on it - he's just moving at his pace. Remember, he helped out the Iran Contra scandal.

[johnaries]

28. THANK YOU!!!! Kerry HAS been active,if any of the rest of you would

actually PAY ATTENTION!

Just because he doesn't say or do exactly what you want him to doesn't mean he's not doing anything.

Kerry has been VERY active since 2004, if you've paid any attention. Have you ever considered that maybe he's smarter than you and knows what he's doing?

Thank you, blm for paying attention instead of blaming Kerry for everything, just because B* stole 2004 and Kerry couldn't prove it.

[wtmusic]

29. You miss the point blm

Kerry promised to "bring the issue up" on the Senate floor nearly two weeks ago.

It's not just Kerry. Boxer, Feingold, Byrd--where are they? It seems like now is the time to jump on this, and we know what happens to "letters of inquiry".

It's possible he is gauging sentiment and support before he sticks his neck out, which could be a wise thing to do.

I think you're too quick to assume that people are just using this as an excuse to dump on him.

[blm]

35. Anyone TRULY interested in DSM as an issue would check DSM activist sites

and they would KNOW the facts instead of posting threads with THEIR version of what's happening that happen to be 100% WRONG.


REPOSTING THIS HERE:

Kerry has been circulating this letter all week in the Senate, but the media doesn't seem anxious to further the story.

Call or email ALL Senators, D or R, and tell them you want the Senate to investigate DSM along with the House.

At the Downing Street Memo site there is an action alert to help Sen. Kerry gather as many signatures as possible.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. BUT WHERE IS HE????

YOu didn't answer the question :evilgrin:

[LSK]

33. thank you n/t

[Tinoire]

38. Bizarre

I go to Conyers homepage and there it is in big bright red right proudly, prominently displayed smack at the top of the page:

Conyers] "Downing Street Memo" Letter to President Bush
List of Co-signers
May 5, 2005

Conyers]The secret Downing Street memo
Sunday Times (UK)
May 01, 2005

http://www.house.gov/conyers/

Kerry's home page? Well at the bottom of the campaign site, after his "I LOVE ME" blurb, I was able to find links to his latest initiatives:

KIDS FIRST

STOP BOLTON

PRINCIPLE

http://www.johnkerry.com/
So I thought I'd check his Senate page... http://kerry.senate.gov/

Nothing. Zilch. Nada. I even searched the site for any mention of "Downing". Again, nothing, zilch, nada.

Is he doing it all in invisible ink? Or is this another example of people projecting onto Kerry?

[blm]

39. Kerry's letter of inquiry is for other Senators to sign.

We are being urged by downingstreetmemo.com to ask our Senators to sign it.

A letter of inquiry circulating among the senators themselves FIRST before being given to Bush is not for public signing.

Conyers letter was.

Why would you find that bizarre? Senators release their letters publically WHEN they send it on to the White House.

Thanks for personalizing this yet again. I have no clue why, though, and cannot understand why you would..

[Tinoire]

41. Oh yeah. Kerry's just a little ball of activity on this one

Any quotes? Any action on his homepage? Any entreaties on his homepage asking people to help him in this effort? Any letters signed by John Kerry being circulated on the internet asking people to contact their Senators to help his mighty effort? Nope. Nothing- zilch, nada.

I'm shivering with... anticipation at what Kerry will do next.

[blm]

43. His is a Senate letter of inquiry for Senators to sign. The ONLY senator

prompting any action, so far.

Sorry the press isn't covering it in a way that satisfies you, but, you still needn't have been personal against Kerry supporters and accusing us of "projecting" when DSM activist sites have the info about Kerry's work there.

I am perplexed by the tone. When did I, and others who believe in Kerry's work, become the enemy?

[Tinoire]

47. The persecution complex is getting old.

Please move on to better things such as producing a single blurb from one of his websites, a single speech, a single letter signed by Kerry. Please. Anything.

You can only blame the media for so many of Kerry's shortfallings - after a while people start to question why someone like Conyers is plastered ALL over the alternative news and yet there's barely a peep about Kerry? Could it be because Kerry himself is barely making a peep?

Not a single speec, letter or even a single pathetic word on his own web-page. Bush must be shaking in his boots.

[blm]

49. Kerry's effort is not a public petition. It's a SENATE letter of inquiry.

It will be made public when ANY Senate letters to Bush are made public, when they are sent to Bush.

Why do you begrudge the way the Senate letters of inquiry are handled and WHy blame Kerry for spending the time quietly urging other senators to join him? It's not Kerry who is being reluctant and taking his time, it's those senators taking their time to decide to join him,

Sorry you missed some of the statements Kerry made, but, it wasn't until Kerry attacked the press on its silence that more finally started focusing on the DSM.
Here's what Kerry said at the time:


Kerry assails Bush on Iraq
Policies on Social Security, health care also draw fire
By STEVE URBON, Standard-Times senior correspondent

NEW BEDFORD -- Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday called on Americans to be more aware of the "bait and switch" Iraq war and the "hollowing out" of the Army in the pursuit of a mistaken policy.

In a swing through SouthCoast, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee attacked the priorities of the Republican Party and President Bush, elaborating on what they are sacrificing -- health care for children, infrastructure, Social Security -- in the pursuit of tax cuts.
"The Holy Grail of the Republican Party is a tax cut, whether or not we need it," he said in a meeting with The Standard-Times editorial board.

Sen. Kerry puzzled over the apparent lack of interest by Americans in the Iraq war and the near silence in the U.S. mass media about the so-called Downing Street Memo.

That leaked secret document, the minutes of a 2002 cabinet meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, says bluntly that Mr. Bush had decided to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "intelligence was being fixed around the policy."
It caused an uproar in Great Britain and badly hurt Mr. Blair in national elections but went almost unnoticed in the United States.

"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," he said of the memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the sense that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"

>>>>>>>

Terry M. Neal's Talking Points
Democrats Looking for a Road Map to Downing Street

By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 14, 2005; 10:26 AM


Democrats this week are escalating their efforts to highlight the so-called "Downing Street Memo."

>>>>>>
After struggling during his failed presidential bid last year to stake out a clear and compelling position on the nation's most pressing issue -- Iraq -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has come out swinging. A senior aide close to Kerry said this week that Kerry is circulating a letter about the memo among Democratic senators before sending it to Bush. The aide predicted that Kerry would make the letter public in the next few days.
>>>>>>

[Tinoire]

52. Let's see... nothing on Monday...

and now we're down to an unidentified aide 'predicting' on June 14 that Kerry would make the letter public in the next few days.

I'll give him an entire week but without holding my breath because I know how worn out the poor lamb is from that huge recount battle.

"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," and then promptly dropped the issue never to raise it in public again.

I can see Kerry now, on a speaking tour, confronted by angry Democrats who want to know what their reps plan to do about the DSM and he weasles out by saying that by God he's going to take care of this as soon as he gets back to Washington on Monday.

Somebody tell him it's now Friday.

I googled to quote to see what context Kerry said it in (because with Kerry you always need the full context to better appreciate the nuances) and what do I see at the FIRST example I found? A Publisher's note after the article because no one's buying it! ... Not even in Europe!

Publisher’s note: It is important to note that John Kerry has not mentioned the memo until now, over a month later, nor has he helped inform people via the internet. It appears that the momentum on this information is so overwhelming that John Kerry feels he will now be exposed as a do-nothing bush supporter/collaborator if he doesn’t say something. Also this shows that John Kerry knew damn well what was happening on the internet after the stolen election- he just decided not to say anything about the huge discrepency between exit polls and results and instead left the country during the election challenge)

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6283

This of course makes total sense and it's embarrassingly painful to be reminded by other internet activists of how involved Kerry was in PUSHING for this war. He wasn't surprised by the memo at all. This is all just theatrics to placate the angry populace because Kerry pushed for this war BEFORE Bush even came on the scene. To wit, his famous letter to Clinton signed by an entire cabal of neomerdes.

U.S. SENATE,

Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.

The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.


Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern over recent developments in Iraq.

Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations Secretary General.

Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activity.

As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit, mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.

We were gratified by the Security Council's action in unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998 and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous message to Saddam Hussein.

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin ((Oh I'll bet Galloway knew damn well who he was talking to!))
Joe Lieberman
Frank R. Lautenberg
Dick Lugar
Kit Bond
Jon Kyl
Chris Dodd
John McCain
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Alfonse D'Amato
Bob Kerrey
Pete V. Domenici
Dianne Feinstein
Barbara A. Mikulski
Thomas Daschle
John Breaux
Tim Johnson
Daniel K. Inouye
Arlen Specter
James Inhofe
Strom Thurmond
Mary L. Landrieu
Wendell Ford
John F. Kerry
Chuck Grassley
Jesse Helms
Rick Santorum

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Kerry isn't going to do diddly-squat with the DSM because he's been complicit in this war from the start. He might make a few noises and reluctantly groan a little as he throws cold water on the fire but it will all be squat because he was pushing for the neocons' war BEFORE Bush even stole the 2000 election.

[blm]

53. A snarky blog entry is not a fact. You also have 1998 all wrong.

That letter has to be taken in CONTEXT of the time and completely separate of Bush's actions which were motivated by oil and imperialism.

In 1998, Kerry had a hearing on Iraq where SCOTT RITTER testified that Saddam was still a threat and seeking nuclear weapons. SOTT RITTER wanted tougher measures from the US.

In 1998 the GOP was maneuvering to collapse the UN as irrelevant and they were using the complaint that the UN was not forcing Saddam to put the weapons inspectors back in as the reason.

Dems and moderate Repubs who wanted to preserve the UN held that a get tough act on Iraq by the UN would help quiet those seeking to get rid of it.

Clinton rattled the sabres but there was no interest from the allies and he only ended up maintaining basically the same level of threat as they had before 98.

Regime change as a position was held almost unanimously in Congress, even by Kucinich. You have to factor in their mistrust of Saddam and his sanity and the fact that they knew Bin Laden marked Hussein for overthrow and assassination for maintaining secularism and coming down hard on the Islamic fundamentalists who favored an Islamic state.

Those interested in the terror issue long before 9-11 knew what a disaster it would be if Bin Laden got hold of a country like Iraq that everyone at the time did think had much more weaponry. Even Scott Ritter.

So, to even equate the 1998 Iraq position with what Bush did really comes down to the exact same argument that the Bush apologists use and it is wrong.

How do I know what was going on in 1998 so well? Starting in 96 a group of us with the Feminist Majority Foundation were petitioning the White House to deal with the growing Taliban movement in Afghanistan and we stayed keyed in to the growing problems in that region. Some of us were familiar with the words Taliban, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, burka, etc....long before 9-11. In fact, a documentary on the horrid conditions for women under Taliban rule made its debut right before 9-11.

[Tinoire]

54. Kerry didn't push Clinton for the Iraq War, didn't vote for the Iraq War

and is a ball of fire on the Downing Street Memo. Is that it in a nutshell?

I hope you're not implying that the rest of us were sleeping before 9-11. I would be really disappointed if you were especially since there's an entire archive on who was interested in what and which posters were astute enough to track the complicity of the neoliberal Democrats in this administration's crimes, and warn about where we were headed.

This war against Iraq has been ONE long 14 year oil-lusting war waged by both Democrats and Republicans. To pretend otherwise is morally inconsistent. Some of us have been protesting this war ever since Poppy Bush launched it, while Clinton continued it, and when the idiot Dauphin launched his obscene phase. One long war. You can't separate it into bad war/good war/bad war anymore than you can spin the WMD pretext. The 1998 Iraq position is no different that what we have today and that's one important reason the Left turned so much against "what-Downing-Street-Memo" Clinton that Al Gore didn't have a chance in hell. And Kucinich, well you know how much we both admire him but he's no Saint. He had NO business supporting the Iraq Liberation Act but unlike others, he caught on quick about all the lies and refused to support them- going as far as to publish his famous article in "The Progressive" under Clinton.

This war was decades in the making. People who followed it and who followed the neoliberal/conservative plan for domination of the world's oil resources didn't suddenly wake up on 9-11 crying "why do they hate us". We tried to sound the alarm and we closely watched the DLC, the neocons, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers and the Illuminati. We watched them so closely that we knew what a charade this was and put them all on alert- including Kerry- that if they enabled Bush to instensify this despicable war, if they gave Bush any support in his lies, we would toss them like trash. We knew. Kerry pretended not to know because he's a DLC/PPI neoliberal and was on board with their gameplan. It was following the letter Kerry signed that Clinton sent Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and Cohen to OSU to garner support for intensifying the war. And Progressives were there, protesting them and their lies and we're not going to shut up now about the complicity just because it embarrasses certain Democrats: http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html


And you miss the main point about all the snarky comments being made all over. The point is that very few people are believing that Kerry, or any other politician who defied their constituency and voted for this war, ais going to do anything other than cover up. That goes for Feinstein, Lieberman, Daschle, McCain, well you have the list in the letter I posted. A letter which wasn't the only one he signed by the way.

It's been bad war/bad war/bad war from the very start- all three phases of it protested by the Left regardless of the bi-partisan pretexts used and the creative scenarios they were trying to frighten the world with. I live for the day we stop making excuses for them so we can replace the entire sorry lot and get this country on its post-empire feet.

[blm]

55. I said that some of us were paying attention, as opposed to most of the

country who only became familiar after 9-11. That some includes some of the more historically aware who post here at DU.


You also refuse to acknowledge that there was another aspect to that 98 Iraq Liberation Act, the fact that they were trying to preserve the UN as an international institution.

The only conclusion that you seem to accept is that in 1998 EVERYONE, including Kucinich, wanted to kill Iraqi people and steal their oil, and occupy their country for imperialistic goals no different than Bush's agenda in March 2003.

You really are using the same argument about 98 that the Bush apologists use.

Suit yourself. I have no interest in arguing 1998 with someone I admire for various other reasons.

[Tinoire]

57. And I have no desire to argue with you due to past history

and knowing who you are and what you believe. You are not my enemy; we just diverge drastically when it comes to Kerry. I don't like it all of this infighting either; let me just finish with saying that I was not happy to find myself so disappointed with Kerry- that was a real blow to me and after that hard blow, none of them hurt anymore. You know how much I admire Kucinich but he's still a politician. Dean is still a politician and I have problems with Dean's backroom dealings during the Primaries where he would, for example, say one thing about Jersualem to a room of Muslims while promising a group of Jews the next day that he would make sure Jerusalem went to Israel. They're politicians wheeling and dealing and I judge them very harshly for that. I feel sorry for Kerry because I think he just made too many deals along the way.

To be very frank with you, I've come to grips with the fact that the American Empire is dead- not that I liked the imperialism in the first place- but it's dead now. Controlling the world's oil resources is our last chance to TRY to remain an empire (or superpower as we now call it) and retain our "way of life". And both Republicans & Democratic voters are too scared shitless to change. Right here at DU people were loudly complaining when a few stores were going to try to charge customers for bags in order to encourage them to bring their own the same way you do in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Asia, anywhere in the world when you go grocery shopping. We want to remain an empire. And even besides wanting to please us, it would be reckless for any politician to not support the empire's last chance to survive. And that was oil. I'm no fool. I know why Clinton signed on, I know why Kerry signed on. I just can't agree because I don't think my comfort, my year-round supply of cheap bananas, my access to shiny baubbles on QVC is worth so much suffering in the rest of the world. Most Americans do agree, without even thinking about it, because the media has been very complicit in hiding how much that cheap sugar on the breakfast table costs us.

Before my father died 10 years ago, at the beginning of Clinton's second term, he warned me about where we were heading, warned me that the boys will be digging for oil everywhere and running over whomever they have to to do so- that the fight was now for oil to pump up a worthless dollar. It has nothing to do with Bush II or even Bush I It has to do with us. Bush II's only crime is that, unlike Clinton, he has no finesse about it and is overly lining the pockets of his buddies. Either way, with or without finesse, I can't support it because the empire is dead. Neither the PNAC nor the PPI can save it and BOTH of those organisms are doing their work on behalf of us and a way of life most people cling to.

So I am going to just hug you right here :hug: and agree with ending this conversation because you've been quite gracious despite the same tempestuous we share- the reason we first linked up years ago.

Would I prefer Kerry over Bush? You betcha because Kerry is a thinking man. A sober man who would at least keep the ship from srashing against the boulders. And I voted for him but Kerry is trying to save a dying empire whereas I just want that empire to die gracefully so we can smoothly transition to our next phase- the same one you voted for during the Primaries- a phase with something as 'ridiculous' as a Department of Peace funded by money currently going to a perpetual war machine.

:hug:

[garybeck]

46. the "circulating letter" is not confirmed

it's less confirmed than the supposed speech he was going to make last week, which never happened.

all the articles I've read about the circulating letter are indirect and do not cite the sources.

compare that to the supposed speech he was going to make, in which case he actually stated publicly he was going to do it, and didn't

he also said they were going to make sure every vote got counted and the absolutely did not do anything of the sort.

people have a right to question his words.

[blm]

51. The WashPost confirmed the RawStory report.

Democrats Looking for a Road Map to Downing Street

By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 14, 2005; 10:26 AM


Democrats this week are escalating their efforts to highlight the so-called "Downing Street Memo."

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has scheduled a public forum for Thursday on the subject. And 104 House Democrats have signed a letter written by Conyers to President Bush asking him for a detailed response to the memo.

>>>>>>>

After struggling during his failed presidential bid last year to stake out a clear and compelling position on the nation's most pressing issue -- Iraq -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has come out swinging. A senior aide close to Kerry said this week that Kerry is circulating a letter about the memo among Democratic senators before sending it to Bush. The aide predicted that Kerry would make the letter public in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>

[mtnsnake]

23. Kerry is busy asking me to send money for Kids First, when

he should be going after Bush like flies on shit for lying to the American people.

Kids are important, yeah we all know that, but Kerry's #1 priority at this time should be going after Bush over the DSM and for a slew of other impeachable reasons.

[Botany]

25. He is with his army of lawyers making sure every vote counts ....

..... and will be counted. Funny he had the documentation to prove that the swift boat shits were lying .... i.e. Letters of commendation from some of the very
people who were on ads and swift boat spots trashing him.

[Katidid]

30. Thanks all for your comments about Kerry .... I thought I was the only

one who is disappointed in Kerry .. I couldn't agree with you more ... in my opinion, he doesn't have the 'fire in his belly' for true leadership.

Where's Barbara Boxer? Now that is someone I can get behind and support.

[Mass]

37. So, where is she???

[LSK]

31. what is it that makes people Kerry or Dean bashers?

I thought our enemies were Frist, Delay, * and Sasserasshole???

[Amonester]

36. On edit: Help...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3882698

:hippie:

[Malva Zebrina]

40. It is nice that he is passing around a letter

anybody know what it says? Or how many have signed?

[LynneSin]

42. Kerry is so 2004

I have no desire to see him run for president again

[fla nocount]

48. Wet finger held into the wind.

Wondering which direction its coming from.

To hell with a wheel horse, where's Dean.

[DS1]

56. Obvious

He's letting everyone else fight until DSM either gains traction and becomes less potically risky at which point he'll come riding in on his pearl-encrusted white horse, or DSM dies and there's little personal damage done to his next run for Prez.

And if you can't see that, you're blind.

[Tinoire]

58. He's been in Washington too long

I agree with your sentiment but isn't it a little unfair to only beat up on Kerry?

Kerry's been in Washington too long where you learn to wheel and deal and cover your ass. But he's certainly not the only one.

The only reason I commented on him is because Kerry's diehard supporters are eager not to see him left out of such an important action and are spinning a little too hard imo but where are all the other Senators? It's unfair to only dump on Kerry. How many other Senators are there who aren't taking up this cause?

I revile Feinstein. And Boxer who has a C+ in my book isn't doing any better. I think we should all s-p-r-e-a-d t-h-e w-e-a-l-t-h and trash ALL of them for not making this a huge issue. They can circulate letters too. They can get on TV. They can march with Conyers... they just don't want to and we need to hold their feet to the fire- remind them of what we're paying them for.

[blm]

59. Bullshit. He's been working the other Senators to sign a letter of inquiry

that goes to Bush and he's using it against the Bolton nomination.

The WashPost confrimed the same story that was in RawStory about Kerry urging the other senators to JOIN HIM on DSM.


Why don't you act constructively and check with your senators to make sure they signed Kerry's letter?

If you can't see that acting constructively is important for all of us, you're blind.