Kerry Makes Cindy's Hall of Fame

[sandnsea]

From meetwithcindy.org

http://meetwiththemothers.org/userdata_display.php?modin=50&uid=454

Sen. John Kerry

Meeting Status: Had Meeting
Answers to Cindy's Questions
1. What noble cause? “This is an artsy question that is hard to answer. However I can tell you that a war based on lies is not noble, but a war based on bringing freedom to people is noble.”
2. How many more lives? “If we can not achieve the goal of bring freedom, I do not want to see any more lives lost in this war.”
3. How many lives are you personally willing to risk? “I will say the same thing. If this war will not bring freedom to the Iraqi people I am not willing to personally risk any lives.”
4. What are you doing to bring our troops home? “I believe that we are in a critical two month stage right now. The Iraqi people are supposed to have an election in December.”

Other comments made to Cindy during the meeting:

-He told Cindy “What you are doing is saving lives.”
-“I can not tell you how much I hate what he (Bush) has done.”
-“Rumsfeld is a disgrace.”
-“There are countries that will not become involved with Bush.”
-“What we are doing now has hurt the strength of our military.”

[knowbody0]

1. how sweet the sound

Senator, thankyou

[noahmijo]

2. This is a great trend I see growing here

More Democratic leaders meeting with Cindy is what I would like to see more of.

EXIT STRATEGY that is what I also want hear more of. On top of that let's see one laid out a la Wes Clark.

TROOPS OUT NOW! TROOPS OUT NOW! that to me is a great fantasy but it isn't reality it will never happen without....AN EXIT STRATEGY.

Thank you Senator Kerry. I voted for you before and would proudly vote for you again should you become the nominee in 08.

[sandnsea]

3. HOW to get out

If we don't have a HOW, we'll never have a when.

[FreedomAngel82]

40. Yes

And I believe Kerry is truly doing this not for 2008 either. He knows all about illegal wars. Cindy should watch Greg Palast's investigation on the Iraqi elections and show it to Kerry. I think it would be smart for the democrats to make up a plan and have Clark go out and be the main spokesman for that since he is a four star general. Them too of course though. I'm glad to hear this from Kerry. I think a lot of minds have been made up lately and changed since 2004. This is very heartworming to know. And yes a huge thank you to all Cindy is doing!

[GOPAgainstGW]

4. Funny How Sheehan Said She Doesn't Support Kerry, on Hardball 9/26, WTF!

[ray of light]

7. not true.

[GOPAgainstGW]

11. Is Too, I watched her Say It. She Supports NO Key Democrats! - Her Words

[noahmijo]

16. Whether she said it or not I hope she did

I am all about holding any and all Democratic leader's feet to the fire...just do it without resorting to Republican talking points is all I ask.

[sandnsea]

24. GASP!!! She changed her freakin' mind OH MY GOD

I know you're just spitting nails because she had something good to say about a DLC traitor. :eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

39. in this case I believe it is more of a dislike for cindy

based on prior posts from the poster. I am sure he/she is just fine with the DLC..

[sniffa]

92. i think you're on to something

but i don't think it's necessariLy a DLCer.

:hi:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

114. something indeed.

but might as well be a DLCer, knowing their record. ;)

[FreedomAngel82]

42. DLC traitor? Huh?

Kerry? I don't believe he's apart of the DLC last time I looked. :shrug: He's a very liberal/progressive senator so why would he be apart of the DLC? Or are you talking about Hillary? :shrug: I'm confused.

[sandnsea]

77. Don't tell me

It's other people around here who call him that.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

113. her words indeed

yet completely removed from the context.

she said that she is a Democrat.

Matthews then stated that pretty much all democrats supported the war.

Cindy nodded yes and expressed disappointment.

It is a big leap from the above paraphrased exchange to say that she doesn't support democrats, dochathink? I believe that was your intent though.

[jayctravis]

121. Well...a lot of people here don't support "key democrats" either.

[johnaries]

206. No, she did not say that. I just watched the video. You might want to

watch it again.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9507405/

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Wasn't this before the meeting though?

[stepnw1f]

62. I Bet it Pains You Too (nt)

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Those Responses Are Bullshit. Wanna Know Why "Flip-Flopper" Stuck?

He'd support it if...

He'd oppose it if...

Make up your freaking mind Kerry!

Your nomination was one of the party's biggest mistakes in decades because of just this type of behavior.

What are you doing to bring our troops home?
“I believe that we are in a critical two month stage right now. The Iraqi people are supposed to have an election in December.”

I read that as, "I am doing nothing to bring the troops home. Ask me again in a couple of months and I may take a stand then."

Non answers any one?

Kerry has never taken a clear and decisive stand on anything as far as I have seen.

Please stop reading what you want to hear into his comments. He has said nothing of note here.

[ray of light]

8. not true

not even worth responding to the rest of your post.

[DistressedAmerican]

12. That Is Some Convincing Defense.

I guess if you had a point I'd respond but, since all you can say is "not true", I guess I have nothing to add to my original comments.

Talk about not worth responding to...

[GOPAgainstGW]

9. Nobody In DC Wants to Address Our Horrible Israel-ME Policies-eom

[sandnsea]

19. He has, it was boooorrriing

Remember?

[seabeyond]

32. this is what got me the most. how his speeches were boring

he would get into every subject, in depth and intellectually. reasonably. and they were boring. people didnt want to sit thru and listen to what this man had to lay out. they closed their ears cause it was boring, then immediately would say, no plan. he has no plan.

or,

he is a flip flopper. cause they didnt listen to all he said

or that he was full of nuance, cause he would go thru it all instead of a little soundbite for the stupid

[FreedomAngel82]

44. Yep

People claim Kerry didn't say this or didn't say that but how do you know if you turned away? :eyes:

[txindy]

94. They live in a black or white world. Any gray and they're comatose.

Then they b*tch and moan about "no plan" or "boring" or "flip flopping." All due to sheer laziness regarding their own listening/comprehending skills.

[seabeyond]

105. this is how i see it. personally i think it is kinda embarrassing

to say you cant understand what kerry is saying. he is so articulate and clear and intelligent, and oh,..... so soothing to my ears. bush uh's and duh's drive me batty

[radio4progressives]

124. Yes Kerry is (and was) Clear, Articulate, Intelligent - His "Plan" was

worthless - in a hundred different ways - but primarily it was all worthless because his message, his policy plans were completley divorced from the actual battles that were being waged in the campaign and on the American people - it was as if he didn't know who the enemy was or that one even existed, and that this truly was the fight for our country, our democracy, our constitution - and in the final analysis - following so many important opportunities- the moment arrived when he was no where to be found, he had retreated abandoned us all.

It is a matter of principle, integrity, committment, courage and conviction, in the face of overwhelming odds - do you believe there is no one with these qualities, do you believe that settling for anything less is will do, given all that we've been through - do you honestly think that everyone else should simply disregard Kerry's (non) actions on November 3rd and in the months following that fraudelent election and throw our support to a candidate (Kerry) who had eventually shown himself as unworthy of that support?

[seabeyond]

126. here we are working a year later. has election fraud been proven

a year to prove election fraud and yet still, nothing. cant prove it. what did you expect kerry to do. media was ready for them. they would have fried him. would have accomplished nothing. not a damn thing and he would not have been able to do what he has done in senate.

you tell me

what did you expect kerry to do nov 3rd. how would media of played it. how would his dems have supported him. what would it have produced.

i know there was election fraud. i saw right before the yellow room interview with bush and his family. told my friend when she came into room, they stole it.

i am pissed. i dont like it. i cannot see a single thing kerry could have done.

help me out

not like media ever supported kerry in any way, ever during that whole campaign. tell me something reasonable. what?

[jillan]

169. well said!

There was nothing Kerry could do, UNTIL fraud has been proven.

Look at Gore. He won the popular vote. He fought and fought and fought. And where did that get him? Nowhere! Not even in politics.

Kerry is a smart man. He understood what was at stake. He learned from 2000. And he knew he had a job to do - in the Senate. And he is doing an EXCELLENT job!

[Jim Sagle]

82. Israel RRRRAWWWKSSSS!!! You can stay GOP AFAIAC.

[LittleClarkie]

85. Gee, does it, um, rawk?

And I don't doubt that there are few who want to touch our fubar foreign policy. GOP against GW didn't say anything that probably isn't true.

[Jim Sagle]

86. It wasn't Truth, just his truth.

[LittleClarkie]

87. Indeed. But still, what was there than caused you to say "Israel RAWKS"!

and tell him to go back to the GOP when he would seem to be on our side and doesn't seem to have said anything that was hostile to our side?

[Jim Sagle]

89. He's not on my side.

[LittleClarkie]

90. Why not?

How do you know?

[Jim Sagle]

97. He just expressed an extreme dislike of Israel.

I have zero tolerance for that.

[seabeyond]

98. he isnt on your side cause he wants to fix health care for the

poor, middle class and small business owners. or because he wants to get the money back into schools, or because he wants to help the poor and middle class. he isnt on your side because he wants alternative fuel. not on your side cause health of earth is important to him.

he is on my side. i dont know what side you are on

[LittleClarkie]

99. He means GOPagainstGW

not Kerry.

Still trying to figure out why. He says that GOP said something against Israel. So far I only see something against our policy re: Israel/ME. And our policy generally does stink in that area.

[seabeyond]

104. oh, then i dont know shit and bow out of conversation, lol

thanks

[LittleClarkie]

10. Why the meme "flip flopper" stuck

because some on our side aren't too terribly bright either?

His answers are consistent with what he has said in the past, only he's moved a touch closer to "Winter Soldier" I reckon. He's sounds like he's almost given up hope for anything good or stable coming out of the war. Must have come from his last visit there during the Katrina hurricane.

www.kerryoniraqwar.com for all your Kerry on Iraq needs.

No wonder we lost the election, if folks on our side didn't understand their own candidate (assuming of course...)

[noahmijo]

13. yup and lazy too don't even bother actually doing a little research

they all still believe the IWR for example had only the words "Go to war because we love war"

[LittleClarkie]

17. Yep,seeing the world in black and white is hardly a way to go through life

From the left or the right.

I edited to add a bit more, btw.

[Arkana]

93. That's what I wish everyone would realize.

Kerry made a mistake--he believed Bush. He voted to give Turdboy the keys to the car. Turdboy crashed the car. Is it Kerry's fault that he trusted the office of the President?

NOTE: This is not in support of Turdboy.

[DistressedAmerican]

18. It Stuck Because It Was Seen As True By The Majority Of Americans.

I do not just blindly support someone because they have Dem after their name. I look for substance and a track record. His is full of these non-answers followed by non-action.

[sandnsea]

Some blindly bash

anyone because they have Dem after their name. Different sides of the same coin.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Yeah, Right! That's What I Do. Jesus! Get A Grip.

I specifically addressed the non-comittal nature of his opposition(?) to the war. That is not blindly bashing dems. That is addressing the specific actions of one individual.

Sorry you hate to see your guy called on his bullshit. But, there is nothing there of note. Just more "I kind of support it. I'll get back to you." that we have seen from day one.

Wanna tell me exactly what you find so hopeful about these non-answers? Some actual refutation of what I have said may be a good place to start...

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

29. Your friend is missing you

[GreenArrow]

30. you can lead a donkey to water

but you can't make 'em drink.

"Bash" is one of the most overused words on here. Your criticism was fair.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Then why are you using the vernacular of the right

where do you think that came from. It wasn't us.

And you may not be blindly following, but you're trying to shove gray things into black and white boxes.

[whometense]

21. I agree with you.

I hear "Winter Soldier" in his comments as well. We're going to get an earful, I think, in the next speech, on Iraq.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. Only thing is

we didn't lose the election. Just wanted to point that out.

[seabeyond]

50. agreed n/t

[LittleClarkie]

51. That's why I always add

"assuming of course..."

[sandnsea]

15. It's what Cindy said, not me

Sorry if the mothers who met with him could understand him and you can't understand anything but jumping up and down and "out now", "out now". She understands he is constantly pushing to get the processes completed so the troops can come home, he always has. Just like Arianna who chose to ignore his plan to draw up a timeline strategy because he dared use the word "success". God forbid we bring our troops home AND have a successful independent country in Iraq.

[DistressedAmerican]

22. Well, Keep Stroking Your Guy. I'll Be Elsewhere...

[sandnsea]

26. Let me guess

You'll be with this guy?

[DistressedAmerican]

28. Keep Blindly Stroking...

Bye.

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Then I guess you're stating that about Cindy too

:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

91. Kinda similar to the apologist/sychophant/Kerrybot thing.

Someone pointed out to me once that when the conversation has reached that point, the one you're conversing with has likely run out of things to say.

[LittleClarkie]

65. When you hear someone say the word "Kerry"

Do you get a "bitter beer" look on your face?

Could that perhaps color your perception? If we substituted someone elses name in there, would it help?

[Mass]

25. May be because she saw he understood what she was talking about.

[ginnyinWI]

38. oh come on, that's not fair

This Iraq problem is not simple and will not have a simple black-or- white, sound-bite type of an answer.

Kerry's usual approach to talking about a problem is to speak as accurately as he can about it, and trust his listeners to understand him. He'd rather sound nuanced than be mis-understood.

[seabeyond]

43. then again there are many of those that purposely chose to

misunderstand what kerry is saying

i remember, kerry would say, i voted iwr, and i expected bush to follow it. bush didnt.

or voted 87b for iraq $ and voted 87 against iraq $

one was when u.s. would be accountable for money and not have tax cut, one was keeping tax cut and increase deficit. people acted like they didnt get this. was too beyond them

[GreenArrow]

55. nuance lends itself to mis-apprehension

.

[mtnsnake]

52. "Kerry has never taken a clear and decisive stand on anything"

I couldn't agree more, and I also couldn't agree more that his nomination was a huge mistake. Worst run campaign I've ever seen and we're all paying the price.

You'd have to be a magician or a mind reader to know where he stands on anything. I'm not sure that HE even knows where he stands. He's the king of doubletalk.

[seabeyond]

54. i dont get this. i really do not get this.

i understood the man. was clear to me. i dont get people saying they get confused listening to kerry.

what ,..... you need the slow talking, loud speaking three word sentences to be able to understand someone. bush is your dude. he will even say yeehaw for you

[GreenArrow]

57. I understood him too

He was talking bullshit.

[seabeyond]

63. he has done more than any other senator these last 8 months,

keep ignoring it to justify your battle against kerry. so very productive for all of us

[mtnsnake]

64. Now THAT is funny!

and true.

:evilgrin:

[seabeyond]

67. how would you know it is true, you didnt understand him

way beyond your ability. you said

[bread_and_roses]

111. Yes, it is perfectly clear. It's called "hedging your bets."

It is perfectly clear to anyone who reads the news that this illegal war was sold to the US citizenry on a pack of lies, and that the only "freedom" we are bringing to any Iraqis is the fine and private freedom of the grave. That Kerry hasn't the moral fibre to say so, even now, is shameful.

One can only surmise that he thinks that there is some political hay to be made from avoiding being branded "anti-Iraq war."

[SlavesandBulldozers]

116. yes. it's projection.

there's almost an implication that * has a clear and decisive mission and a great way of communicating it.

It's surreal how they cast Kerry in the light of being difficult to understand, or being a flip-flopper. Of using his military career as a whipping post. I will never forget that. One thing that Rove showed a year ago was that he attacks his opponent where * is most vulnerable. He pre-empts the incoming accusations with identical accusations. That's classic Rove.

[seabeyond]

117. you are so right and we knew it. would see it over and over

the flip flop thing, bush was floppin and a flippin all over the place and the really stupid, i mean knock me on my ass real stupid. the dems on this board would start spouting roves talking points about kerry. they bought into roves lies and plays. what sense does that make

yes yes

[bobbieinok]

132. ??? as if M$M EVER reported what K said; EVER ran a speech completely

while giving all W's speeches

as if pundits EVER discussed K fairly

[emulatorloo]

136. Television media cherry-picked best Bush quotes, worst Kerry quotes

Or showed a Bush soundbite, then showed footage of Kerry and poorly summarized what Kerry said.

[seabeyond]

153. people bitch that kerry is chosey over words. it wasnt even bad

kerry quotes. he would be tarred and feather over made up stories of what he said. it was awesome in the absurdity. and it is even more awesome, looking at kerry's campaign and how damn good kerryco were. they were bombarded with lies, and falsehoods all over the place. time after time after time, they had to stop to address the many absurdities put out. ALWAYS doing research on the shit spewing out of bush and cheneys mouths to find the lie. and then try as they might to get press to mention it.

and people critize kerry. not a perfect campaign, but damn..... at a point i was feeling pretty sorry for kerry and edwards, the massive hours and time they were out there. i was worried about health.

a person gives you devotion. a person puts the effort out. a person even puts the words out that clearly express what he sees for this country. none of it was good enough, in retrospect. it was at the time. we appreciated it at the time.

kerry has had such a crash course in reality and experience with bushco, the likes we have NEVER seen before, that has served him well in the senate today. we are seeing he has learned and grown and getting it more and more. that is awesome. a flexible person, that sees constant change, and is able to redirect. something we lack in repug

kerry and gore and edwards, and now dean and a few others, are gaining awesome experience and as long as we support this, they will grow stronger and stronger.

that is what i would like to see is a strong democrat, with all the corruption in the republican party. i am seeing bush time, and repug time in power effect my childrens life. has become personal to the extent of seeing what repugs have created in five years, how it is hurting children now, my children. not in the future. but now

this isnt something i am playing with in a willy nilly fashion. there is fuckin work to do.

[emulatorloo]

188. I feel just the way you do. . .thanks so much for putting it into words.

EOM

[ultraist]

66. I agree, He said NOTHING about where he really stands

It was a bunch of ambiguous, non committal anwers. What BS.

[WildEyedLiberal]

118. "I cannot tell you how much I hate what Bush has done."

God, but how does he really feel? He's so ambiguous and noncommittal! :sarcasm: :eyes:

[ultraist]

138. "IF we cannot achieve the goal of bring freedom"

"...a war based on bringing freedom to people is noble."

Oh, ya, he makes it crystal clear where he stands on this. It IS a noble cause IF we achieve the goal, it isn't a noble cause, if we don't achieve bringing freedom. :eyes:

Nice way to sit on the fence.

[seabeyond]

the simplicity of it

when is it not a noble cause. if we cannot bring freedom it is not a noble cause and you bring home the troops

if we could sit and work this out, bring that freedom then it is worth it. it is noble

he is seeing, we are losing all oportunity to bring freedom

ergo the conclusion, (cindy you are saving lives with your demonstration) it may well be the time to start pulling out. lets look at dec election

it isnt hard ultr, only if you chose to make it hard

[eggman67]

196. Let me get this straight

if we cannot bring freedom it is not a noble cause and you bring home the troops

if we could sit and work this out, bring that freedom then it is worth it. it is noble

So, only achievable goals can be noble?

[seabeyond]

155. dupe

[ultraist]

142. I agree DA. Prepositioning everything on IF is non committal n/t

"IF we achieve the goal of bringing freedom to people," then it IS a noble cause. That is what Kerry said.

In other words, I'll sit on the fence until the war is over and then decide if it was a noble cause or not, depending on which way the political wind is blowing at the time.

[imperialismispasse]

154. I have to say in this case I agree with you

I do like Kerry and I supported him in the election but these responses are very vague and not hard-hitting at all. I think Dr Dean would have made much more pointed clear statements, for example. Or several other dem leaders I could think of. But these statements are pretty soft.

[2Design]

162. yes - I read it same - I voted for the kerry that opposed the vietnam

war - who fought for good then - that person seems to be gone - I liked the younger kerry better for our agenda - he is a good grandfatherly type person now -

[Seabiscuit]

208. Bingo. I could add more, but you've said enough.

[seabeyond]

6. i like kerry n/t

[whometense]

14. I love it.

“I can not tell you how much I hate what he (Bush) has done.”

Thanks!!

[noahmijo]

20. yea especially since bush betrayed kerry's trust when he completely

violated the IWR.

[praisethelowered]

34. It sounds like carefully chosen weasel words to me.

"I cannot tell you. . ."

Why? just fucking tell us !


"but a war based on bringing freedom to people is noble.”

Is this war noble? Was it ever anyone's goal to bring freedom? How does shock and awe bring freedom? How many other unprovoked unilateral wars to "bring freedom" would you vote for . . . and then vote against.

I forgot about Kerry the day he conceded the election. . . WHILE I was still driving back to my state because I went 500 miles to get people to vote for him. . . the fucker gave up before I even finished!

[sandnsea]

35. I can't tell you

how fucking funny I think this guy is..

[seabeyond]

36. you like that little dude dont you

funny you

[sandnsea]

37. I live in a retirement town

I guess he reminds me of alot of the old geezers around these parts.

[katinmn]

53. ouch!

I was hurting, near puking and crying, but I had a bed and all you had was the side of the road.:(

I love Kerry for many of his positions but it comes with guilt because of his fence-sitting on the war.

Come on, baby, just say it!

The war was based on lies. We shouldn't be there. Move 'em on out!

[seabeyond]

56. The war was based on lies. We shouldn't be there

he says the first two. hasnt gotten to the third. though he hints that if the adminstration continues to fuck up, could be there

[ultraist]

69. No,he doesn't say the war was based on lies and we shouldn't be there

He says: "However I can tell you that a war based on lies is not noble, but a war based on bringing freedom to people is noble.”
2. How many more lives? “If we can not achieve the goal of bring freedom, I do not want to see any more lives lost in this war.”

He says, in his typical round about fashion, that the war MAY be based on a noble cause (bringing freedom): "IF we cannot achieve the goal of bringing freedom"

[katinmn]

73. That certainly makes things chrystal clear!

:think:

[seabeyond]

74. did you listen to him during the dsm senate chat

he is already challenging this is a war based on lies. he is saying, a war based on lies is not noble.

[sandnsea]

81. God writes straight on crooked lines

Making something good come out of something horrific. It's his nature. He even hoped something good would come out of Vietnam...

"And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning."

And sadly, no, America did not turn.

[Mass]

84. He has been saying that so often that people should know by now.

[mtnsnake]

101. Good catch!

Same old Kerry beating around the bush (no pun intended) without making a dent. He's just as evasive now as he was during his pathetic campaign.

Hey, John, when you come right out and say to us crystal clear, "George Bush is a liar", maybe people will stop and listen. Until then, enough with the political double-talk!!

[seabeyond]

106. did you listen to him or read his words during dms. bad catch

missed the ball all together.

i didnt say he said it in this post, i said, he has said it.

[TayTay]

108. WEll, he did say that he wouldn't have taken the nation

to war if he had the intel the President had.

It's on video, about 3/5th of the way through this.

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/kerryletterman.html

[G_j]

31. I was curious, here are the rest listed

http://meetwiththemothers.org/hall.php

HALL OF FAME

Rep. Lois Capps
The “noble cause” that the President has used to defend this war has changed in definition again and again

Rep. Charles Rangel
"there is no "noble cause" for which Americans are fighting and dying...The President has no plan to end the war;"

Rep. Maxine Waters


Rep. Henry Waxman
"The terrible truth is that not only did the President mislead our nation into war, but he sent our troops into battle without the protective equipment they needed. In every respect, the President’s Iraq policy has failed-it has failed our troops, the American people, the Iraqi people, and the international community. There is nothing noble in that failure."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman
"I did not vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq...I continue to be concerned about the Administration’s refusal to acknowledge that the justifications presented to the American public regarding the war were tenuous at best."

Sen. Barbara Boxer


Sen. Edward Kennedy
"This (Iraq)is a disaster of extrordinary proportions." "Cindy, we must continue to move, and mobilize the people"

Sen. John Kerry
He told Cindy: “What you are doing is saving lives.” “I can not tell you how much I hate what he (Bush) has done.”





SHAME



Rep. Thomas DeLay
REFUSED TO MEET!!!

Rep. J. Dennis Hastert
REFUSED TO MEET!!!

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave
Rep. Musgrave repeated 5 times in response to various questions the following mantra: " I Support The President" How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice in Iraq?: "Nothing comes cheap.I don't get to make that decision(?)I am not a military expert. I do not get involved in the decisions...I support the President."

Rep. C. Michael Thompson
REFUSED TO MEET!

Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Cindy Reports: "I met with an aide of Dianne Feinstein in San Francisco. The Senator will also go on our Hall of Shame..." Read Cindy's full report on the meeting...

Sen. John McCain
What is the noble cause? “Freedom for the people of Iraq.” How many more lives are you prepared to sacrifice in Iraq?: “It is very difficult for me to know that.” “I can not give a specific number.” “I can tell you that I have met with many solders at Walter Reed and they have told me that the sacrifice was worth it.”

[FreedomAngel82]

48. Senators like McCain need to realize

that these are not just numbers. THEY ARE PEOPLE! Someone's mother, father, brother, sister, child! How many more children are you willing to sacrafice?

[GreenArrow]

61. "the sacrifice was worth it"

That's what the soldiers told McCain. What was the sacrifice for, the noble cause for which they gave themselves? Oh yes, freedom for Iraq. Which just happens to be what John Kerry said. Niether one gets a break. The war is wrong, no matter how they stoop to justify it.

[txindy]

33. Recommended. Off you go to the Greatest page!

For Senator Kerry. For Cindy Sheehan. :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Pastiche423]

46. What a crock!

The "If I knew then what I know now, I would have still voted the same way" nuanced DLCer, Kerry on the same page as Cindy?

[FreedomAngel82]

49. Uh Kerry isn't a DLCer

Please get that straight.

[Pastiche423]

68. Uh, yes he is

http://www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

[mzmolly]

72. So was Dean

and you supported him.

[Pastiche423]

88. Dean WAS

and quit long before I began to support him.

Kerry IS.

[mzmolly]

96. Dean was a member until the head of the DLC blasted him.

He didn't leave for ideological reasons.

[Pastiche423]

103. lol

Link, please.

[mzmolly]

230. Dean has been open about his former membership.

As a supporter you should be aware of that. I have no link as retro-active the names of "members" are not provided.

Here is a quote from a Dean/Pitt interview:

DEAN: - I know a lot of DLC members, and I don't think their executive director is representing the opinion of the DLC. To be honest with you, every time they attack us, we raise a lot of money on the internet. They're welcome to attack all they want. We're going to need everybody to beat George Bush, and I think sooner or later the DLC is going to have to figure out how to get on board this campaign.

Additionally 1-5th of the CBC are members of the DLC.

I also don't see why it's pertinent to worry about who is/was on the official DLC directory? Especially considering the fact that the DLC places people on their list without their permission:

3/15 Last year, Barack Obama asked the DLC to remove him from their list. He's still on it. *as of 3/15/2005.*

Obama's presence is another bit of proof that the DLC tries to take credit for any Democrat elected for office.

Anyone else who seems out of place on the list? Anyone else we can peel off this list? Martin O'Malley? Maria Cantwell? Jennifer Granholm?

We need to stop fearing the DLC boogieman, they've been forever marginalized.

[LittleClarkie]

210. And Kerry joined, I'm told, just before the campaign

presumably to use them during the campaign. However, he's too liberal for them, near as I can tell.

[Pastiche423]

216. You were told wrongly

I've been following the DLC for over five years. His name has been in their directory at least that long.

[LittleClarkie]

217. And so you did or did not see Dean's name there

If you don't mind me asking.

[Pastiche423]

220. Five years ago

Dean was not a member of the DLC. Therefore, I did not see his name in the DLC directory.

[ima_sinnic]

58. yeah, why did he say that, anyway? so to him it apparently DOESN'T

matter that the war was started on a pack of lies (as had become obvious by the time he said that), he would still vote for it. In other words, he supports this war no matter what.

and why does he say "bringing people freedom is a noble cause" (might be paraphrasing, I can't see the original quote) in this particular context? what does it have to do with the war on the people of Iraq? does he think that war is "bringing freedom," or doesn't he?

and what exactly does he mean by "freedom," anyway? that to me is total Bushspeak. You don't "bring people freedom" at the barrel of a gun and while blowing up their homes and destroying their lives, then replacing an already progressive constitution with an ass-backward "religious" piece of toilet paper.

Vietnam was supposed to be "bringing people freedom"--does he say things like that about that war? I am not a Kerry "fan," he is too middle of the road while at the same time not even making a good connection with middle-of-the-roaders. He seems afraid to stick his neck out, to take a solid stand or say anything "too controversial."

[sandnsea]

79. Well, he didn't say it, but when did facts matter around here n/t

[Mass]

83. Actually he did not say that,.

Unfortunately, some cant even be bothered with the truth.

[mzmolly]

59. Cindy considers him "hall of fame" material,

Share your concerns with her. Kerry urged "war as a LAST resort" always, you know that.

[Pastiche423]

70. You can eat the bullshit

But I won't.

[mzmolly]

71. Well I'm in good shit eatin' company with Ms. Sheehan.

Cheers.

[sandnsea]

78. Hi Pastiche!!

See you're still at it...

Here's a friend for you too

[mzmolly]

60. Good news.

:hi:

[Faygo Kid]

75. If only he had not said he would have voted for the war even if. . .

He took the air out of the energy behind him by saying he would have voted for the war even if he knew then what he knew now. If only. Even Diebold in Ohio and Florida may not have been enough.

[Just Me]

76. I never doubted that Kerry is an intelligent, compassionate man,...

,...who has ALWAYS sincerely cared about the best interests of his country and the American people. He should be our President. We would be on the path to healing. :-(

[pox americana]

80. My thoughts too.

Thanks for saying it so well.

[LittleClarkie]

107. If I think about that too much, I tend to cry

I'm finding the feeling annoying now, as I can't have what I want... well, at least not for a couple o' years anyway, when I get to try again.

But fantasizing ain't helping, and breaks my heart. I can't help it though when I look at him sometimes, or when I look at the Chimperor sometimes.

[leftchick]

95. YAWN

I am not reading anything definitive here. Hey John! Shit or get off the fucking pot! Do you want the troops home or not???

Remember the "last one to die for a lie" line? That Was YOURS John!

:grr:

[mtnsnake]

102. He wants them home, but then again he doesnt, & he's not sure yet if

he wants to risk any more lives. If it brings freedom, though, to Iraq, it's worth it he says. I guess he'll let us know in a few years if it was worth it, but right now he's just not....well, he's just not quite sure!

[TayTay]

109. Geez, that Cindy! She scolds Hillary and cozies up to John

What a tease! It's almost like she has an agenda or something. She must be a closet Kerrycrat who rigged the whole Crawford thing just to lull you into a false sense of neutrality, only to betray you with an 'atta boy' for Kerry just now.

Wow, what a kidder, that Cindy.

[WildEyedLiberal]

119. Didn't you post some huge pro-Hillary thread recently?

Let's see, you belittle John Kerry's statements about the war, yet you're pro-Hillary, who's always been far more hawkish re: Iraq than Kerry. :shrug:

How about you make up your mind?

[mtnsnake]

133. "How about you make up your mind?" Well, I have, detective

I made up my mind a long time ago that we're all suffering now because of a mistake-ridden campaign a year ago, one in which our candidate and his handlers ran the worst campaign imagineable, IMO. And to continue along those lines, Kerry is just as evasive sounding now as he was back then. He's 'something' on one hand and on the other hand he's 'not'. He's for 'this' but he isn't for it, 'IF'. In other words, he's always trying to cover his ass from ALL angles. Political double-talk. We didn't know EXACTLY what he stood for then and we STILL don't know now.

BTW, it's not that I'm so much pro-Hillary, it's just that I don't discount her as much as some people here do. I've always said that Clark or Dean are my favorites. What I've done with Hillary is try to give a little balance to some of the radical, and many times unfair, accusations thrown her way. Pretty much, I've talked about her in terms of being a good politician, an excellent communicator, a heck of a campaigner, a winner, and extremely intelligent. When I've talked about her, I haven't done it in a manner of disparaging another candidate.

Getting back to Kerry, I hope for everyone's sake he doesn't choose to run again unless he approaches the next campaign with a drastically different attitude, completely different types of campaign managers, and image-makers with some common sense.

[LittleClarkie]

100. Thanks for the link and stuff, sandnsea

btw, here's the link for the actual hall of fame:

http://meetwiththemothers.org/hall.php

[bread_and_roses]

110. What a feeble load of evasive, equivocating double-speak

I must still have a naive bone, because when I saw the headline I hoped for something better.

What noble cause? “This is an artsy question that is hard to answer. However I can tell you that a war based on lies is not noble, but a war based on bringing freedom to people is noble.”

Other posters here have pointed out the ludicrousness of using the phrase "bringing freedom to people" in relation to the Iraq War. That Kerry used the phrase in response to a question about the Iraq War should alert anyone that he is still seeking a way to avoid taking a stance against the continued Occupation and exploitation of Iraq and that he is willing to sacrifice Iraqi civilians as well as US lives to avoid being painted as anti-Iraq war.

How many more lives? “If we can not achieve the goal of bring freedom, I do not want to see any more lives lost in this war.”


Translation: as long as I can say "if" I can avoid a definate stance.

How many lives are you personally willing to risk? “I will say the same thing. If this war will not bring freedom to the Iraqi people I am not willing to personally risk any lives.”

See #2 and note the "if" again.

What are you doing to bring our troops home? “I believe that we are in a critical two month stage right now. The Iraqi people are supposed to have an election in December.”

What about this is any different than the murderous regime's continual "turning the corner" or whatever the catch phrase is? Havn't we heard similar "markers" over and over again from the WH?

And what's this "artsy" question? Can this be an accurate quote? I would have thought Kerry had a better command of the English language.

[fedupinBushcountry]

112. For Christ sakes

these are snippets from the meeting. I love the way how some crap all over this.

I'm glad Cindy got her meeting and came out of it SATISFIED, she listened and I am sure if she thought John Kerry was such a warmonger as some here think, he certainly wouldn't have made the fame list.

Kerry bashers GET OVER IT, quit spinning like Repugs.

[Laurab]

125. Thank YOU Fedup!

I'm sitting reading this shit, and just shaking my head. The anger and vitriol that spews out every time Kerry does or says ANYTHING is still amazing to me, even after all this time.

I understood his answers to Cindy just fine - it seems she did too. He IS careful with his words, but he's been a politician for a long time, and had many used against him. Anyone who thinks he's a fan of this war, or even on the fence, is not listening to him.

[politicasista]

115. Thanks for posting this

No complaining here just kicking for JK and Cindy. :kick: :kick:

[WildEyedLiberal]

120. The Kerry hating trolls are out in force tonight I see

Any positive news about him sends them out from under their rocks, determined to put a Rovian spin on it. Interesting phenomenon, that.

[Pastiche423]

122. There's nothing trollish

nor Rovian about stating the facts.

Kerry voted for the IWR and to this day, has not publically stated that he is against the Iraq invasion.

FACT! Kerry was and is PRO-IRAQ WAR.

[paulk]

123. Facts? You're not interested in facts...

your only interest is spewing as much Kerry hate as you possibly can.

For others who might actually be interested in "facts":

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

[confludemocrat]

212. Link is to moribund website proclaiming endlessly "He is Right!" WTF n/t

lat update september 2004

[paulk]

214. like I expect you to actually

give a fuck

I didn't post that for your benefit
I already know that your Kerry hatred makes you unreachable

[sandnsea]

127. Not against the invasion?????

Wha??? Fog rolling in early this year? He has said repeatedly that Bush should not have invaded, that he should have let the inspections continue and did more diplomatic work with the rest of the world. Get your news from wsws?

[Pastiche423]

129. Provide me w/one quote

where Kerry says he is against the Iraq invasion and would pull the troops out NOW.

Has he said this since he quit the campaign?

[sandnsea]

130. "has not publically stated that he is against the Iraq invasion"

That's what I responded to so don't go changing the debate and try to pretend you're being remotely honest about it.

He has said the same thing about Iraq so many times it makes one wonder whether brain wave studies need to be done to see why it is some people can't process the information.

Bush didn't let the inspectors finish their work, Kerry would have. Inspectors finish their work, no war. Doh.

"Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done." — John Kerry, address at New York University, September 20, 2004

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

He also said, "It is not a question of staying the course, but changing the course."

He has never supported an endless occupation with permanent bases all over Iraq and an expansion into Iran and Syria and who knows where else.

Still, despite the fact I never responded to anything about "out now", he did just say his goal is to bring the troops home. This position is no different than Woolsey's, Feingold's or anybody elses. Show me the legislation they introduced to pull out NOW.

``The only way we're going to be successful there – and ultimately, success is going to have to be somewhat redefined – is to create sufficient stability to get the troops home.''

"While acknowledging gains, Kerry called the war ``deeply troubled'' and said he is working on a timetable for a troop pullout."

HOW we get out is the question that has to be answered or the when will never happen.

[GreenArrow]

134. "there was a right way and a wrong way to do this and the president

chose the wrong way."

Note that Kerry (in paraphrase) does not criticize the war, only the way it is being prosecuted/managed. Sorry, there was NO RIGHT WAY under any of the constantly shifitng given justifications for the war. There was/is NO valid rationale for our being in Iraq. It was a power grab and war of conquest, plain and simple and every other attempt to rationalize it as something "noble" is pure horsehit.

[Mass]

140. "The wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time".

I assume this should be clear enough for who is ready to be honest.

Or "America should never go to war because it wants it, but because it needs it" added to statements as to Bush sent us in a war of selection, not a war of necessity.

I could go on and on and on. Unfortunately, I know this would be a loss of time with some people here.

Actually, Kerry stated that he was against the invasion the day Bush invaved.

[GreenArrow]

174. "a right way and a wrong way"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44506-2004Feb15?language=printer

From the Wisconsin Democratic Debate, in a response to whether or not he felt responsible for the war and its casualties:

KERRY: And I know what it's like when you lose the consent and the legitimacy of that war. And that is why I said specifically on the floor of the Senate that what I was voting for was the process the president promised.

There was a right way to do this and there was a wrong way to do it. And the president chose the wrong way because he turned his back on his own pledge to build a legitimate international coalition, to exhaust the remedies of the United Nations in the inspections and to go to war as a matter of last resort.

<snip>...And later, in the same torturuous exchange:

KERRY: He didn't do it. My regret is not the vote. It was appropriate to stand up to Saddam Hussein. There was a right way to do it, a wrong way to do it.

My regret is this president chose the wrong way, rushed to war, is now spending billions of American taxpayers' dollars that we didn't need to spend this way had he built a legitimate coalition, and has put our troops at greater risk.

<snip>

He used the right way and wrong way phrase, quite a bit during both the Democratic primaries, and the general election.

It's worth going back to the transcript and reading his entire, labored answer to the question. Compare Kerry's answer to Kucinich's comments on a similar question later in the debate:

BORGER: This is to Congressman Kucinich.

President Bush last week said that yes, he had expected to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that he was using the same intelligence that had been provided to President Clinton, also the same intelligence that had been used by the heads of other nations.

Do you believe that the president knowingly lied to the American people? And if so, why would he do that?

KUCINICH: I think that this administration knew full well that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, with Al Qaida's role in 9/11, with the anthrax attack on this country, that Iraq had neither the capability nor the intention of attacking the United States, that Iraq was not trying to get uranium from Niger and that, in fact, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

This is the singular issue upon which this election will turn. And I, as the only one up here who voted against the war and voted against the Patriot Act, as the ranking Democrat on a subcommittee that has jurisdiction over national security, an investigative subcommittee, I never saw any evidence that suggested that there was a reason for this country to go to war against Iraq.

It was wrong to go to in it's wrong to stay in it is time that we start talking about bringing our troops home, bringing those guardsmen, guardswomen, those reservists back home. Stop this war get out of Iraq.

BORGER: So I take it the answer is yes that the president knowingly lied to the American people?

KUCINICH: The president lied to the American people.

<snip>

"The President lied to the American People." Rather refreshing, isn't it? I guess as one of the "vanity" candidates, Kucinich can get away with saying that, but I'll take the truth over the vanity of personal ambition anyday.

It's ironic, in that if the war were going well, we wouldn't be having this debate, yet the justifications for it, and the war itself would remain just as wrong. When the Kerrys, Clintons, and McCains can start admitting that, then they may earn some respect, but I won't be holding my breath waiting.

[Mass]

185. Full quote

He is talking about building a coalition, finishing the inspections, and go to war only as a last resort. Of course, you can twist that as much as you want, but it is exactly what it means, that Bush did not do what he said he would do. If the inspections had continued, they would have shown to the world there was NO WMD.

Granted, Kerry voted for IWR, but that does not give him the position you want him to have and does certainly not put him in the same category as McCain and Hillary.

"And the president chose the wrong way because he turned his back on his own pledge to build a legitimate international coalition, to exhaust the remedies of the United Nations in the inspections and to go to war as a matter of last resort."

[confludemocrat]

233. It's Scotty McClellan-level troubling how pro-Kerry supporters gloss this

stuff over or repeat talking points such as wrong war wrong time etc and accuse Kerry sceptics of Republican talking points or being trolls or freepers. They themselves sound like such people. The man is still for the war, having voted for it. It's illegal immoral, unconstitutional and a lie. He needs to come clean, and not amount of Karl Rove-type attacks on critics is going to free him of that.

[sandnsea]

173. The right way was INSPECTIONS

There most certainly WAS a right way to deal with Iraq.

Bush has one set of goals with Iraq, what's done is done. That doesn't mean that others can't try to take his disaster and make something decent out of it. It's the decent thing to do, it's the neighborly thing to do, it's almost geopolitcally required that we make something decent of Iraq if at all possible.

If your kid terrorized the neighborhood and caused two other kids to get into a fight, wouldn't you think it your obligation to fix the problem?

Some people don't walk away.

[GreenArrow]

178. they had inspections

Let's assume that Bush allowed inspections to continue, say another few months. And let's assume nothing was found. And let's further assume that Rummy, and Colon Polyp, and Cheney, and Condi, the whole blame gang, would be out in force crowing about how that proves Saddam was a very bad man, and thumbing his nose at the inspections, and how we know he has WMD, etcetera etcetera ad nauseum. Bush got up in front of the UN and lied. He got up in front of the American people and lied. Do you think he was going to stop lying? Ever?

Everyone in his administration has lied and decieved on this issue. Thier lies were transparent. Even if Bush and Co. had allowed inspections to continue, they still would have had their war. And all those who predicated their support for the war on continued inspections, or intransigence by Saddam would have gone along with it. "We gave him every chance," they'd say, sadly shaking their heads, "But Sadaam is still playing con games with the sanctions." Maybe a few more of our allies would have gotten on board then, maybe a few more checkbooks would have opened.

But the point is, not whether there was a "right way or wrong way," but that the whole stinking scheme to invade Iraq, kill and torture it people, despose its leader, steal and despoil its riches and culture, pollute its environment, direct its politics, was wrong in and of itself. There was no valid justification for it.

Let's look at another analogy. Let's say your kid and his friends break into the neighbors home, kill all the men and boys, rape the women, break everything that is not of value and steal everything that is, and set up house and refuse to leave.

[sandnsea]

183. Let's take your analogy

Do you just go get your kids and go home? Oops, sorry, bye now.

Or do you have an obligation to right the wrong?

Your first two paragraphs were the wrong way, Kerry has already said that. He's said we wouldn't be in Iraq if he had been President. But that doesn't mean that his criticism of Bush stops there. Bush did go into Iraq, we are there, it's a disaster. Is Kerry not supposed to comment on that because you can't separate the wrong of not letting inspections continue from the disaster happening on the ground in Iraq.

[GreenArrow]

184. righting the wrong

Of course there is an obligation to right the wrong. One of the questions at hand is exactly how that is to be done. I submit that us staying there to "fix" things is not a particularly useful way of doing it. We invaded that country without provocation. We have killed countless number of its people. We have polluted its environment for generations. We have stolen its treasues, and obliterated its culture, whenever possible.

There were two (or one, depending on how you look at it) valid reasons for going into Iraq:

1) Might makes right
2) We wanted their treasures and their strategic location.

Niether is noble. Our continued prescence there is not noble.

The first two paragraphs in my previous post were actually the "right way" to go in -- continued inspections, forging a true global alliance, a sharing of the bills -- instead of the heavy handed Bushian approach. The point was, that even if the "right way" had been taken, the reasons for undertaking the "mission" were dishonest, cold blooded and monstruous.

[sandnsea]

186. So the "how" is the question now

You and Kerry agree. How do we right the wrong is the question now. I would think honest people could respect either view, continuing to try to make the country stable, or pulling out to remove the agitation. They both have merit, although I think most people think the risk of a terrorist state is too great, to the entire world, at this point.

And once again, yes, Kerry criticized the way Bush went to war. But he also said if the inspections had continued, there would have been no need for war. Even Dennis Kucinich supported inspectors in Iraq, permanent to continue to monitor the country for WMD. Was he part of the plot to steal Iraq's treasures?

Bush did not have good intentions, that's for sure. But it doesn't follow that responsible Senators can just ignore all the problems around the world because we've got an idiot for a President.

[GreenArrow]

189. yep, it's the classic

between a rock and a hard place scenario. Stay in and let things go to hell, or pull out and let things go to hell. The genie is out of the bottle.

We don't really know what would have happened had the inspectors continued their searches. But prior to the war, they had found nothing, and that didn't dissuade Bush and Co. They would have still insisted that Saddam had WMD, whether he had them or not. They would have sold their abscence as evidence that Saddam was hiding them. Even if Bush had given the inspectors another three or six months, and nothing would have turned up, opponents would have relented because Bush could have sold the idea that he had gone the extra mile in allowing longer inspections, and that Saddam was simply gaming the UN, and thumbing his nose at the USA. I believe the war was a given.

No, Bush did not have good intentions, so it boggles my mind that someone as intelligent as Kerry would have voted for that blank check IWR bullshit. Kucinich was probably advocating as what he saw was the only politically rational approach he could take to forestall or prevent the war.

[sandnsea]

190. Kucinich honorable, Kerry not

What is it that makes you cling so desperately to Kerry hatred?

If Kucinich supported an inspections process to try to prevent a war, why would you think Kerry's support of a UN inspections process wasn't the exact same thing? It's what he said on the floor of the Senate at the time.

[GreenArrow]

195. It's not Kerry hatred per se

(though I have little respect for him) it's hatred and disgust of the war, which Kucinich spoke out against from the beginning, while Kerry was busy voting aye on IWR, and repeating the rubbish about Saddam kicking out the inspectors. Even now, he's using the administration talking point about the war being noble "if" it is to free people. There is nothing noble about the genesis or motivations of this war, which is largely a product of national, inter-party interests.

And while I largely agree with Kucinich on Iraq, I disagreed with him on Afghanistan. He has, however, been consistent on Iraq from the get go.

See post 174 for a comparison.

[sandnsea]

198. Dennis supported inspections

He supported the notion that Saddam was dangerous. How do you defend him making those statments when everybody else was supposed to reject everything Bush said as lies. How can you be so hypocritical?

Kerry said, "if" we manage to create a free country out of Iraq, then the soldiers will have died for a noble cause. That's his goal, trying to salvage something decent and, yes, noble, out of this Bush nightmare. That's what he would have had to do if he'd become President, so there's no reason for him to do anything different just because he's not. The only difference is, he doesn't get to make the decisions so that it definitely will happen and happen quickly. That's why he said Cindy was saving lives, she has galvanized the country around the goal of Iraq stabilization and troops home. I am sure Cindy would be the first to say that she would rather the troops leave Iraq a peaceful democracy than a chaotic terrorist state, everything else being equal. So if we can do that in a few months, then THE TROOPS will have done a noble thing. DESPITE, George Bush's goals 3 years ago.

[GreenArrow]

200. just about everyone suggested that Saddam

was dangerous. And he could have been, under the right circumstances (picture him in control of the US military, for example). But dangerous to whom? The Kurds? Maybe so, but we've never had any compunction about selling them out. Iran? It didn't bother us when we were playing both ends against the middle and selling WMD to both sides. The US? He never threatened us, unless, perhaps, it was by planning to sell his oil in euros. Militarily? The very idea is a joke. It was a joke in 1991, and frankly, Saddam was more justified in invading Kuwait then we were in invading Iraq. There was something about oil, wasn't there? As I said, I don't agree with Dennis on every issue. But he's not really the subject at hand here, which is Kerry's statements to Cindy Sheehan.

If we manage to create a "free" country out of Iraq... And this is our place, exactly how? A country with the highest population of prisoners in the industrialized world, a a country which has held two questionable presidential elections in a row, a country in which half the population doesn't even bother to vote, a country which cannot even offer the basics of affordable health care to a vast number of its citizens, a country in which the gap between rich and poor grows ever greater, a country which spends as much on its military as the next eight countries combined, a country whose programs of higher education are becoming increasingly unaffordable, a country where corporations control the media and the focus and flow of information, and I could go on.

We're supposed to teach them about freedom? Do they want it? Did they ask for it? Maybe they will enjoy their new freedom to practice Sharia law. Maybe women in Iraq will now relish the new found glory of wearing the veil, and celebrate the removal of the chains of higher education. Maybe average Iraqis will rejoice in their new freedom to enjoy American style health care, particularly in light of the environmental damage caused by our invasion and occupation of their country. No doubt, they will appreciate the new freedom to enjoy and ever greater variety of American corporate entertainment and snack food products. Those killed must surely revel in their newfound freedom in Paradise, and those who they left behind no doubt appreciate the freedom of their absence. Ah!

There is nothing noble about this war. The most noble thing that can come from it is a new American humility and the knowledge that we share this world with other people, whose concerns and values are as vaild as our own. How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a lie, indeed!

[sandnsea]

215. Well, Jane, it just goes to show

It's always something.

[GreenArrow]

218. how in the hell

am I supposed to argue with Roseanne Rosannadanna around?

:D

I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other to come around to his or her way of thinking. But 2005 is two months away from being 2006 and who knows what that will bring. Maybe time and circumstances will change both our minds.

Cheers!

[LittleClarkie]

201. What part of Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time

isn't getting through, I wonder.

[GreenArrow]

202. and he didn't stick with that why?

"But you voted for it Senator".

[LittleClarkie]

209. Here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_121003A.shtml

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

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

[GreenArrow]

219. thanks, but I've read it before

Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.

"Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew."

How the Hell does he think Bush got in there in the first place? He entered the job on the same page as those guys. Sorry, but Kerry is not that naive.

[karynnj]

161. He also said it in op-eds and other forumns

in the RUN UP to the war.(He was not alone at this point) He also was the only person to strongly argue against that Bush was wrong on Tora Bora - at the time it was happening.

[fedupinBushcountry]

128. FACT

you know nothing about John Kerry. Quit watching Fox news. :crazy:

[Pastiche423]

131. lol

I don't get Fox news - too poor to afford cable.

I listened to Kerry's October 10, 2002 IWR speech.

I know that he voted FOR the IWR.

I know that he has never said, Bring the troops home NOW.

I know that he quit the 2004 campaign less than 24 hours after the election and before all of the votes had been counted.

I know more about Kerry, but the above comments are enough for me to know I will never support him.

[ultraist]

139. Trolls? Those of us who see the ambiguity in Kerry's statements..

are trolls? Great defense, name calling.

FYI: I volunteered hundreds of hours and donated thousands of dollars to the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

IF, IF, IF, IF. :rofl:

[Mass]

141. Not troll - hidden agenda.

[Joe Chi Minh]

199. Verrry interrrresting...but... stoopid, no?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

135. Kerry's trying to hide the blood on his hands.

What a load of platitudinous crap.

[TayTay]

144. What blood on his hands!

He didn't start this war and has been highly critical of it. I haven't heard one word from you or any of the others here that has made me rethink this position.

I'm afraid I'm going to need more proof of this than just a screed with the word 'blood' in it. I would like to see some proof from you that Kerry fully supported the war and the way in which it was waged. If you supply that, then maybe I will consider your position. Until then, it just sounds like so much unsupported kant.

[Mass]

146. delete - dupe.

[Mass]

147. Amazing how these people disrespect Sheehan.

[ultraist]

149. I don't disrespect Cindy.

To see the ambuigity in Kerry's statements has nothing to do with how I feel about Cindy.

To say it does, is an illogical extrapolation.

[TayTay]

151. As is the inference that Kerry supports this war

based on what he didn't say.

Acording to Cindy, he said what she considered worthy of hearing and she found positives in his speech.

I would like to hear from you what you are basing your opinion on. Perhaps, if this is documented we won't have any more illogical extrapolations and misunderstandings based on things that weren't said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

175. You seem to have missed the fact that he voted for it.

And, that he still supports the occupation and has even called for more troops.

Oh, I know, he "believed" that Bush would use other means before sending all those troops lounging around in Kuwait into Iraq. Willful stupidity is hardly an excuse.

[Joe Chi Minh]

203. I love the deafening silence of the

one-issue (would be) John Kerry-bashers on his vision for a rebirth, indeed, improvement on the America known by the baby-boomers who grew up in the late forties and fifties, and looked back on with longing.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. If JK doesn't show all his cards at once on one issue or another, maybe he's expects a degree of trust in his judgment, as a sign of the only followers worth having. He's said and done enough in his life to more than warrant complete trust from all the American people, and if stumble-bums who think they know it all and would make better presidents than him can't have more trust in him.... tough. He didn't need your support in the last election - which he won by a massive landslide vote - and he sure isn't going to need you in the next one.

Note that I said "one-issue Kerry bashers". Valuable service is often performed by people concentrating their fire-power on a single issue - most of all, though, when they are perceptive enough not to take a person needing to take a view on the full range of national issues, as an enemy. Such a perceptive person was Cindy, of course.

[seabeyond]

156. again and always, convenient for bush to NOT be responsible

party for his poor decisions. big thumbs up. how is this working ofr us?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

176. How's voting for the IWR working for us?

Aiding and abetting the crime of Iraq, as Kerry and some of his colleageues did, is hardly helping us.

[second edition]

137. John Kerry shared his honest and heart felt opinions about the war

with Cindy and she could see that he was the real deal. I think this understanding of each other positions and the respect shown is outstanding. Good for John Kerry and good for Cindy.

[mtnsnake]

150. All these 'honest' opinions serve only to cover his ass from all angles

If the war is based on lies, then he isn't for it.

Great, John, well I guess you're not sure yet if the war is based on lies, eh, but you'll let us know sometime down the road, I suppose. Him and his "ifs" are pathetic.

If anyone can show me where Kerry says this war is based on 'lies' or whether it's based on 'freedom', please let me know ASAP! All he's implying with his political double-talk above is that he either doesn't know yet, or that he doesn't want to say for fear of political ramifications of doing so.

His answers were not answers, and the more I read his responses quoted in the OP, the more sick I feel.

[seabeyond]

157. he has stated it was based on lies, per dsm shit. have you

read his statements he has put out on this. are you purposely being obtuse. and misrepresentitive. and this is just reading hte first sentence of your post

[GreenArrow]

194. it's simple

"If" we lose, the war is based on lies, and therefore, not noble.
"If" we win, the war is based on bringing freedom to people, and therefore noble.

See, it's really a very artsy question.

But seriously, it's not really accurate to say the war "is based on lies." Lies were used to sell the war to the American People, (and to a lesser degree, the rest of the world) and one of those lies was that the war is/was being fought for "freedom."

[GayCanuck]

143. I felt bad

for you down there when Kerry got the nod over Dr. Dean. Kerry seemed to support the illegal war whole heartedly and I recall he was concerned about Saddam and WMD long before the chimp stole the 2000 election.

[Mass]

145. Yawn.

Amusing how talking points are repeated again and again each time somebody says something nice about Kerry.

Sorry, Sheehan seemed to have liked what she heard, and she is certainly aware that Kerry is not proposing to pullout NOW (she is far from being stupid).

For the rest, I will direct you at what the two men said at the time. And you can decide by yourself with your objectivity.

[Armstead]

148. No position is no position

That's the core problem with Kerry. He wants everything both ways. I respect his intelligence and 3D thinking, but sometimes ya gotta look at the bottom line and have a clear opinion, especially in politics.

It is not an "artsy" question to ask what is the "noble cause" for this war.

If Kerry believed it was a noble cause to liberate the Iraqi people for its own sake, then take a stand on that. But his response epitomized how we got into this mess. Too many people overlooked the core reason for it and the web of deceit that was woven around it.

Sure, even anti-war people believe it is a noble goal to liberate Iraq from Sadaam. However, that's not the issue, especially if they ultimately end up being delivered to equally repressive fundamantalist extremists or descend into full fledged chaos and civil war.

Kerry was absolutely correct when he said "wrong war." Too bad he couldn't have stuck with the position from the beginning.

[paulk]

171. you misunderstand what Kerry said

by "artsy" he means it's a good question - a question that traps Bush in his own lies...

Bush is the one who called it a "noble cause" - remember?

Kerry is pointing out that Sheehan's question shows Bush to be a liar.

[npincus]

152. more wishy-washy crap from Kerry

what the fuck is this "Freedom" we are seeking for Iraq and who are WE as occupiers to appoint ourselves "Freedom-Briongers"- that is SO WORNG. And we are killing them and ourselves. No WMDs, let's get the fuck out. We can help from the outside. We do not belong there anymore.

Wishy-washy Kerry. What else is new?

[DistressedAmerican]

158. Allow Me To Re-summarize These Pointless Comments...

"If the war is good, I am for it. If the war is bad, I'm against it. Please do not ask me if I think it is good or bad. I'll wait another couple of months to decide that or do anything to stop the killing."

What leadership! Not!

I am so sick of Dems that refuse to take a clear stand against this illegal and immoral morass!

[Mass]

159. Just a remainder - those are quotes Sheehan or somebody on her team noted

Not the full conversation.

That she was satisfied enough with these comments should be an indication either that she is a fool or that you are wrong.

Your choice.

[seabeyond]

160. then let the adults do it if you are so sick of those dems....

recalling you wanted to be confrontational and kick those texan asses missin with cindy, and a refusal to understand the repercussion of what we saw on cspan with answer, and wanting those damn spineless dems to demonstrate with you all against isreal. (that IS how the press would have presented it. an if we march then press will say) it seems to be a challenge to look beyond your own narrow perspective. as i say, i have kids, that are being effected by 5 years of bushco. i am looking to resolve. and there are just going to be a lot of if's, then's.......going on in this world for a while. it is vital in the society created. bush lacks the ability for a good ole if/then type thinking.

[DistressedAmerican]

164. Man What A Distortion!

Look, I have reproduced too. Good for us. We both have children that are effected by this regime.

I never wanted to kick anyone's ass in Texas. All I did for two weeks before going down was work to spread the message that we MUST be peaceful and calm in the face of freeper hostility.

My comments on the march were intended to make it clear that the event itself was not the problem. It was the media coverage of the event that distorted it for those watching. The hostility should be directed toward them not the event organizers.

I never demanded that anyone march over Israel. I did point out that the two issues DO have links that are legitimate.

More importantly this post could not have less to do with the message you were responding to.

Kerry's message was clearly not anti-war. It was wait and see. Please tell me what is so very hopeful in his message.

If you can, please do it without the personal attacks on me and the distortions of my positions.

[seabeyond]

165. there are posts and posts of what kerry said. and then there

are posts of kerry being accused of saying things he did not say.

ample information for you to actually know all kerry said. at this point of the thread if you still do not know what kerry actually said, you must purposely be avoiding it.

you had a thread, more than one thread going after the man with the shot gun. ironically you were chosen to spread the word to be nice if you are going down to crawford, right before your trip. yes i felt it was a bit ironic and funny that you were spreading the message of peace and love, a day or two after your oh so aggressive kick the guys ass threads..... when i spent so much time saying that isnt necessary, nor productive, nor good for cindy.

you have the ability. because i see you change your story to what was being suggest to you at the time, that you obtusively ignored, like what kerry has actually said about this war.

your thread on answer was to suggest all us didnt see what we did on tv, and that your experience was reality. that was your reality. those that watched on tv had a different reality. which is exactly what i expressed on your thread. yet you kept pretending not to understand so you could have your rant. i was not in battle, not to make your experience less at the march just an ability to see more than a limited amount. you refused. as you refused to look at the shotgun dude in crawford anyway but your limtied perspective. and you refuse to actually acknowledge the words kerry has used on this war for over two years now.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

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

[emulatorloo]

191. Kerry is calling for troop withdrawal timetable in upcoming Iraq speech

Prepping a speech on Iraq

<snip>

"There is some schedule showing what you (need) to do to get Iraqis standing up and defending themselves which is now suddenly beginning to happen, so there are some signs of progress," Kerry said during a 30-minute speech at the Park Plaza Hotel. "The only way we're going to be successful there – and ultimately, success is going to have to be somewhat redefined – is to create sufficient stability to get the troops home."

He later added while speaking to reporters: "The Iraqi forces are improving somewhat. Whether it's enough to hold the line is obviously a very serious question."

While acknowledging gains, Kerry called the war "deeply troubled" and said he is working on a timetable for a troop pullout.

<snip>

link is here, ignore the misleading bs bostonherald headline and spin

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=104361

[TayTay]

163. Hmmm, this is exactly what was said in WWII

"If the war is good, I am for it. If the war is bad, I'm against it. Please do not ask me if I think it is good or bad. I'll wait another couple of months to decide that or do anything to stop the killing."

There are always rational arguments to decide if a war is justified or not. Weighing the idea that if a concrete goal is being met or if it is not is the essence of deciding what constitutes and unjust war. World War II was a 'just war' for the US to enter because the cause of preventing homicidal regimes from exercising the power of life and death over billions of people was viewed as a sufficient reason for going to war.

This was an unjust war. The cause was weighed in the Senate debate (based on faulty intel and on intel that was not shared with the Senate, btw.) Many Senators weighted the idea, supported by the evidence at the time, that there was a possibility of Hussei having nukes and that this could cause needless death and suffering. That was the impetus for the vote. That, in and of itself, is a discussion worth having.

Many people consistently complain that the war as we view it now is as we have always viewed it. If that were the case, we would never have had a Congressional approval. The info and the times have changed. Why don't people ever acknowledge that?

[DistressedAmerican]

166. Do We REALLY NEED Two More Months To Decide This Issue?

This war has gone on far too long. Anyone that has not made up their mind by now, may never do so. I fail to see what additional evidence he is waiting for.

There was no WMD. That is the reason Kerry voted for the IWR (that and not to look weak when the nation was all up in arms). As soon as that was established and the DSM memos clearly indicated that the war war predicated on lies, the possibility that this is a just war went right out of the window.

If that is not enough for him, might I point out the ever growing violence over there. If we were having a positive effect, there would be diminishing violence.

As far as his questions about whether or not Iraqis will be free, it is quite clear that they will never be free as long as they have American troops there and a puppet government to "allow" them to stay.

The shift away from majority public support of the war to majority opposition should tell Kerry and another fence sitters that America has already had this debate and decided we should not be there.

In short, the debate on whether this was or was not a just war has already taken place. It is time to take a stand or to just allow people to keep dying while the fence splits your buttocks.

And BTW we were not saying the same thing about WWII. That is nonsense. That war was overwhelmingly supported by America. This one is not.

[TayTay]

168. I do not support your definition of 'fence-sitter'

I have heard Kerry call for Rumsfeld to resign back in 2003. I heard Kerry and others strongly object to every phase of this war and just about every push or endeavor that the Bush Admin has made in this war.

I hear Kerry say on the Letterman Show and reaffirm the next day that he would not have taken the country to war if he had been given the same intel the President of the United States had. (The Congress was both lied to and mis-informed.) I saw Kerry write and circulate the letter to other Senators asking that the DSM be investigated and that only 9 other Senators cared enough to sign it.

That is not fence-sitting, that is open opposition to both the Administration that waged the war, the faulty system that delivered information and intelligence to the Senate and outright condemnation of the people who planned, executed, financed and ran this war. Outright opposition.

What we are discussing is a timetable for getting our troops out. You want troops to come home in two months, which, logistically is never going to happen and you know it. It would take six months to get everyone out under optimal circumstances, which we will never have. The true debate is to establish, and argue again before the American people that this war is not winnable as the Bush Administration defined winning. It is possible that we might be able to get out soon and bring the troops home and that we have to try and do that without screwing that up too much and contributing to more needless death in Iraq for both our troops and civilians.

There is a world of difference in saying, "I support this war' and saying that you want to find a means of getting out and not increasing the death toll. A world of difference and you damage your cause when you refuse to acknowledge this and debate it honestly and on the merits.

And the American public supported WWII, but not unanimously. There was not popular support until after Pearl Harbor. The deaths in Europe of the innocent in the years before that didn't sway the American public to jump in and get involved. We got involved and stayed involved once we were attacked. And there is a world of genuine scholarship that analyzes American attitudes toward that war. You would be surprised to learn how many people both serving and at home had no idea what we were fighting for in that war. It is never easy, it is never black and white and the path to peace is never totally clear.

[DistressedAmerican]

170. I Do Not Support Your Definition of "Strongly Object ".

He says that he would not have gone to war. He called for Rummy to resign (over Abu Ghraib not the war itself). The one thing he has done recently that really impressed me was the DSM letter. I was very angry that only 5 or 6 dems signed it. My two reps did not.

To me a strong objection of the war is a direct call for an end to the war. Lots of us are calling for this NOW. Kerry not so much. He says it was a mistake and then debates whether we can meet fictitious goals set up by Bushco.

The war was based on WMD lies. Kerry's DSM letter made it clear that he believes it was based on lies. There was no WMD. We went there to disarm Saddam. They did not vote to liberate the Iraqi people (an unrealistic goal in my opinion). It was about WMD. If Kerry chooses to embrace Bush's latest rationale for the war (Iraqi Freedom) he is being openly dishonest. Unless that is he comes out and tells America that he did not vote based on WMD but, liberation instead.

In reality, this war was clearly about oil. Kerry knows it as does most of the country. Even most freeps understand that at this point. They do not object but, they know. For example, there was a thread yesterday about a freep bumper sticker someone had seen that said "Nuke Their Ass And Take Their Gas".

I agree that we can not snap our fingers and be out in a day. However long it will take, it must begin now. We have been there for years. In that time it has become clear that the justification for the war was false. I do not see that continuing to debate the goals of the war does anything but delay the pullout. Lives are being lost daily and more than two years later we are still going around and around on this?

I do not see that serves us or the people that are getting killed for this OIL WAR to keep going back and forth about the freedom of Iraq. That debate has played out over more than two years, 125,000 Iraqi deaths, and more than 1900 US deaths. How many more do you suggest we take while we have this false debate on Bush's excuse for stealing Iraqi oil?

There is no rational argument to be made for our continued occupation to steal oil under the false reasons of WMD or Iraqi liberation. Both excuses are just that, excuses for stealing the oil and making the oil barons even richer.

Let's please move to discussion of withdrawal and a timetable. Not more discussion of whether or not we can meet goals that were only posited to cover for the theft of resources. If we do not stand up and demand withdrawal, we just stay.

Now, if you can tell me that he has called for a withdrawal of US troops I'll shut up.

[karynnj]

172. He did strongly object to the war

and that DOES NOT EQUAL demanding we pull out now. They are 2 independent questions. Clearly we would be better off if there was no war, but Senator Kerry has no time machine to use to prevent that. The question now is what's the best thing to do given the current situation. As the post you responded to explained pulling out has to be done carefully to avoid making things worse.

The other obvious point is that even if Kerry spent the rest of the week speaking on the floor of the Senate and on every channel that would carry him demanding the soldiers withdraw immediately it won't happen. Presenting a logical exit plan may help, if Bush has reached the point where he feels the war is a negative.

[DistressedAmerican]

180. At Least You Are Talking About An Exit Plan. Kerry Isn't.

A demand for a time table, an exit strategy, etc. That is strong opposition.

When asked what he was doing to end the war, he simply said that this is a critical period with and election coming up. That is not asking for an exit strategy. That is allowing Bush to go unchallenged on this until after the iraqi election. I do not find your position and his to be the same.

If Kerry went on every TV channel and asked for a plan to get out and made it crystal clear that we need a plan to get out, that would significantly effect public opinion. Public opiniopn is what Politicians count on. So, yes it would do something signficant to end the war.

Once they loose support for the war, their continued support is a political liability. There are consequences for politicians that do not respect public opinion. He should be working to shape that opinion against support for the war and ask EXPLICITLY for an exit strategy. Not asking to wait and see for a couple more months.

[karynnj]

205. Kerry was not going to state a change in his position to Sheehan

He is going to give a speech where he will control the wording and will be able to spell things out as much as he chooses. I definitely don't expect him to say he's for immediate withdrawal -if he did he would be the only Senator with that position. To explain anything more complex, and trust that Sheehan will reflect what he said perfectly is naive. (I'm not knocking her intelligence - if he wants to state a new policy, I assume he wants it to be in his exact words.

As to your suggestion re TV
1) I don't think Kerry could get on every channel - look at how much time they covered his speeches when he was running for President
2) It sounds like almost 50% of the population is already against the war. I would assume well the vast majority of this group voted for Kerry. That leaves very few Kerry supportors to move over. He is eloquent and intelligent, and there is no one I would want more as President, but I doubt he could add even an additional 5% of the electorate
3) Bush is not poll based or logic based

[TayTay]

179. You ignore an awful lot of stuff that has happened since that vote

You ignore the variable shades of grey that inhabit all moral grounds. The original vote for the IWR was based on lies and falsehoods. Even the media know that now. But that is, largely, irrelevent to the fact that we are there now and that we have to figure out what to do going forward.

The sustainable arguments having to do with the length of the timetable are also moral arguments. They have to do with trying to kepp people from dying, if it is within our power to do so. Juan Cole has addressed this. His recent articles about withdrawal have also been fraught with concern about what happens to the people we left behind. I think the Iraqis also merit concern and that we cannot just leave them, while, at the same time, we have to acknowledge that our presence is a draw for insurgents. (That's why it's a quagmire. Not because it is an easy fix, but because it isn't and it is fraught with moral dilemmas on all sides.)

I also wish that all Dems would say, as Kerry did, that the US has no intentions of establishing permanent bases in Iraq. That would help. The idea of a timetable might help by convincing Iraqis that we have no permanent plans to stay. But, we also have to tell Iraq that we are not abandoning a people that we invaded and causes so much harm to. (Again, if it was easy, Bush would have done it already and declared victory and gone home, as his father did before him.)

What happens if Al Sistani is assasinated? Should the US maintain a base for air support for the Iraqis if it might hold off total civil war and allow the various factions breathing room. (The whole purpose of this would be to stop some needless death, that is a moral reason, btw.)

[DistressedAmerican]

181. There Is A Civil War Right Now. We Just Fight For The Shia.

Our being there is doing nothing to prevent a civil war. Our politicians refuse to call it one. But, the civil war is already in full effect. There will be more killing no matter what we do. That is not a valid excuse for continued occupation.

There is no evidence to support politicians and their claims that our presence does anything but increase the violence. We are a detriment to peace there, not a facilitator.

I am glad that Kerry has said that we do not want permanent bases. That is a good start (as was the DSM letter). However, that is not the same as demanding a timetable for withdrawal (note I do not say immediate precipitous withdrawal).

You want to dismiss how this war started. I cannot do that out of hand. If we were lied to and the stated reason for the war is bogus, we have absolutely no reason to remain. Saddam is disarmed and regime has been changed. Those were the stated goals. Mission accomplished.

In addition, there is no international law that allows us to unilaterally invade a sovereign country for the goal of changing their leadership (Iraqi liberation).

Our actions are ILLEGAL. We can not support continuing to violate international law. There should be no debate on how long we continue to act as international war criminals. We should stop ASAP and apologize to the international community while we are at it.

We remain for one reason only, oil. All other justifications for our continued presence are just pretext for taking the oil (illegally).

[TayTay]

182. I did not disregard the origins of the war

Indeed, in prior threads, I said the intel was both misleading, in that the Congress was given cherry-picked info, and that Congress was out-and-out lied to in order to secure a Resolution to go to war. (And that is the reason the DSM is so important. A real and responsible Congress would exercise it's oversight responsibilities and hold some damn hearings on that. But this Rethug Congress will not. Nothing but an electoral change in membership will convince Congress otherwise.)

What I did say was that we are in Iraq, no matter how we got there. Saying that it is illegal doesn't mean that the Bushies are going to -pack up and go home. (Niceties like 'illegal war,' 'war crimes,' and 'sovereign nation' mean nothing to them at all.)

What I am saying is that it is also moral and right to consider our actions and how they affect the Iraqi people. It is moral and right to demand that any withdrawal of our troops proceed at a pace that doesn't endanger them or the Iraqi people. (We have 138,000 troops there. It will take months to draw them down. There is real danger in withdrawing the wrong way and that danger is to our people and to the Iraqi officials we are supposed to be protecting until they get their government stable.) Randi Rhodes has spoken about this on her radio show, if we withdraw in the wrong way, it could increase death among our troops. (No one wants that.)

And, if Kerry, and others, don't want bases, don't want a permanent presence in Iraq and want to wean the US from a dependance on foreign oil (and fossil fuels in general,) then how can you call these Dems (cuz they are more than just Kerry, as you know) supporters in a war for oil.

Is it not possible that we are arguing differing ways of doing the same thing, with a concern for international law, morality and deep concern for both the suffering of our own people in uniform and the suffering of the Iraqi people?

[Joe Chi Minh]

204. Don't confuse these people even more with facts, TayTay.

They seem to have that unnervng capacity, we have become so familiar with lately, of seeing facts as fiction or irrelevancies and fictions as facts.

Citing chapter and verse of Kerry's record only makes them more and more confused, and invites more and more confused protestations and diatribes from them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

177. I'd call that an accurate summary. Evasion, rationalizations, platitudes.

The same way he handled his campaign. Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe both.

[second edition]

187. There is more than one correct way to view this war -

and more than one opinion and solution on what needs to be done and accomplished. Your way is very narrow and unyielding. Repubs think like this, in the black and white with no gray areas. What do you offer to back up your opinion? John Kerry has been in Iraq several times and has spoken with the soldiers and the generals currently deployed there, he even has his own war experience to fall back on. Again, what do you offer to back up your opinions?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

193. Two eyes and a brain.

And, a firm belief that invading a sovereign country and killing it's people is immoral.

Kerry spoke to the generals and troops? How noble of him. And, what do you think the brass told him? That they were bungling the whole sorry mess? Or, do you think they might have told him how swell things were going before leading him to the troops?

What in the hell does his "war experience" have to do with it? So, he volunteered (and, I emphasize, volunteered) to go to SE Asia and kill people. What does that qualify him for?

So, what does he have to back up his "opinions" that led him to vote for another illegal slaughter of civilians? And, what makes him think that sending even more troops to kill more people is a workable "solution"?

He's an ambitious politician who thinks that the American people are stupid enough to vote for him because he can kill a goose and salute.

[second edition]

197. I'm sure he supports your opinion that the invasion was wrong,

the issue no longer just pertains to that action. We are in the mist of a mess and how do we get out of it with the most positive outcome? Not to benefit Bush, but because we now have a moral obligation to the Iraq people. IMO, we owe the Iraq people a chance at freedom and self rule. We owe them a chance to try and defend themselves. We owe them because we have (Bush) ruined their country. They aren't ready to take this all one by themselves yet. There is hope that they will be soon.
I am sorry that you are unable to get past your angry and at least listen to other points of view on this issue. I am also sorry that your opinion of Kerry is so one dimensional and dismissive based on one issue only.

[Joe Chi Minh]

207. And John Kerry hasn't made trips there

to parly with national leaders because they don't respect him, but, on the contrary, because he could see such talks as likely to be very productive and useful. He's very far-sighted in his thinking. He's not a short-termist. If he were, he'd be a big-time crook in industry/commerce, and only play the politician as a sideline. Now what kind of people could they be!

[Kolesar]

192. More of the hum that only matters to Democratic political junkies

...of whom, I am one.

[confludemocrat]

211. In Cindy's "hall of fame"? In your dreams, pal. Lame answers from lame pol

Rah rah rah, yeah sure.

[LittleClarkie]

221. What ARE you talking about dear.

There is a Hall of Fame.

http://meetwiththemothers.org/hall.php

And Kerry's name is in it.

Apparently Cindy didn't think his answers were lame.

[confludemocrat]

232. OK Thanks, I saw the entry, She is more open-hearted than I am about JFK

And this episode says more about her than him. I find his answers much less satisfactory than the others cited, lame as I said. He voted for the war (seen by "no" voters as a blank check), and has continued to support it. That is wrong. Given the kind of spin you Kerry fans put on this should have manifested itself in Kerry showing up in DC and standing with her. No excuses.

[emulatorloo]

225. for confusedemocrat -- the link to meetwithmothers.org here:

http://meetwiththemothers.org/hall.php

Follow the link, read the list.

if you can't click on the link, well here's a snip:

<snip>

Rep. Lois Capps
The “noble cause” that the President has used to defend this war has changed in definition again and again

Rep. Charles Rangel
"there is no "noble cause" for which Americans are fighting and dying...The President has no plan to end the war;"

Rep. Maxine Waters

Rep. Henry Waxman
"The terrible truth is that not only did the President mislead our nation into war, but he sent our troops into battle without the protective equipment they needed. In every respect, the President’s Iraq policy has failed-it has failed our troops, the American people, the Iraqi people, and the international community. There is nothing noble in that failure."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman
"I did not vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq...I continue to be concerned about the Administration’s refusal to acknowledge that the justifications presented to the American public regarding the war were tenuous at best."

Sen. Barbara Boxer

Sen. Edward Kennedy
"This (Iraq)is a disaster of extrordinary proportions." "Cindy, we must continue to move, and mobilize the people"

Sen. John Kerry
He told Cindy: “What you are doing is saving lives.” “I can not tell you how much I hate what he (Bush) has done.”

<snip>

[confludemocrat]

234. cute play on my name sorta like another kerryite to me: "he'll kick your

preferred candidates ass". All that shows is how charitable and hopeful she is vis a vis Kerry.

[emulatorloo]

235. my mistake on the name - at any rate, it is Sheehan/Meet with Mother's

"hall of fame" list - they put it together. . .not the OP.

[confludemocrat]

236. I think news item (NY Daily News) refers to your man in a big way:

"For one, the Democrats - lacking a single strong leader or any effective message beyond criticism - have been ineffective in capitalizing on GOP woes. For another, the 2006 midterm elections are still a year away."

The leadership vacuum is on the Iraq war-problem #1, and Kerry-type Democrats who are enablers of Bush exemplify this vacuum.

[emulatorloo]

238. I don't have a man - and I'll counter your NYDaily news w a Nation snip

"effective message beyond criticism" is a GOP talking point pure and simple.

As to "Kerry-type Democrats who are enables of Bush," don't be ridiculous.

<snip>

Ultimately, however, most of the Democratic votes in opposition to confirmation came from the chamber's more reliably progressive members, including: Hawaii's Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, California's Barbara Boxer, New Jersey's John Corzine, Minnesota's Mark Dayton, Illinois's Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, Iowa's Tom Harkin, Massachusetts's Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, Maryland's Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes, Rhode Island's Jack Reed, Nevada's Harry Reid, New York's Charles Schumer and Michigan's Debbie Stabenow.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050929/cm_thenation/125350

[paineinthearse]

213. Woo hoo!

What's big the deal? I met and chatted with Cindy in Cambridge 2 weeks ago.

[LittleClarkie]

222. And yet you didn't make the hall of fame. Whatsamatta with you?!

Eh, don't feel bad. It must be a Congressional thingie.

[paineinthearse]

223. I got something much better....

got a :hug:

[mvd]

224. He's one of the better Democrats on the war right now

And I think Cindy realizes that. Kerry has made a couple mistakes out of political pressure, like the "would have gone to war anyway" statement, and some of his statements haven't been clear enough for the general public, though I can usually understand him. Even I would like “if we can not achieve the goal of bring freedom, I do not want to see any more lives lost in this war” to be explained more. Is he saying that we can illegally invade any country to free them from a dictator who's no threat to us? I think the statements in "other comments" show that he is not quite endorsing that, but who knows?

Anyway, I've liked most of what Kerry has done since the election. It's almost like he wasn't allowed to be Kerry during the campaign, just like Gore wasn't allowed to be Gore.

[welshTerrier2]

226. "IF we can not achieve the goal of bring freedom"

please let me know when Kerry releases his formal statement on Iraq ...

let's hope by then he states that "Because we can not achieve the goal of bringing freedom ..." instead of "if" ...

his comments regarding Sheehan were fine but the ultimate issue is whether he will call for continued occupation or not ...

[lynne]

227. After reading this thread, it seems to me that -

- we might need to have a workshop to reinforce the concept of togetherness and to discourage eating our own.

[welshTerrier2]

229. perhaps our own wouldn't "be eatin" if they

"be representin" ... the majority of Americans have called for immediate withdrawal and i'm sure the number is higher among Democrats ...

[politicasista]

228. Another positive Kerry thread becoming a flamewar

Go figure. :-(

[CrazyForKucinich]

231. Sounds like Kerry has no respect for UN Law:

Noble wars are those that bring people freedom he said.

No. Noble wars are ones the world asks us to fight.

I hate John Kerry's foreign policy.

[second edition]

237. Oh, come on now, Kerry has said over and over again that we

should not have undertaken this war without the help of a majority of our allies. We needed more of a global coalition for this undertaking. Don't you remember how they criticized him and tried to claim he said we needed global permission before proceeding with any war.

[GreenArrow]

239. this war was wrong

with or without the help of our allies.