John Kerry has never met me.

[Senior citizen]

I just got an email from him saying that he "has never met an American who doesn't want to see America succeed in Iraq."

He says the chimp should tell us "how they are going to get our mission back on track."

Well, if we had a mission in Iraq, I might want us to succeed, but I don't know of any mission we have in Iraq. I know it isn't to catch Ben Ladin, since he isn't there. I know it isn't to prevent more terrorist acts like 9/11, since Iraq had no responsibility for 9/11.

Kerry goes on to mention what he thinks we can accomplish in Iraq.

"....a secure and stable Iraq..."

To the best of my knowledge, Iraq was under a dictator before we invaded, and we've used "security and stability" as an excuse to install or prop up and support dictators all over the world. Nothing is more secure and stable than a dictatorship, so if that's what we wanted, we should have left Iraq alone.

"...get electricity, water, and better roads..."

Before we invaded, Iraq had electricity, water, and better roads. Was our mission to destroy them so that we could then say that our mission was to restore them?

"...shoring up borders..."

Before we invaded, Iraq had incredibly secure borders and didn't have many Islamic extremists or terrorists. Was our mission to see that the borders would be unguarded so that terrorists could enter Iraq easily, so that we could then say that our mission was to secure the borders?

I'm sorry that John Kerry, who took so much money from me, has never met me. I'm an American. But I don't want us to succeed in Iraq because nobody has defined a "success" I could agree with.

It can't be to export democracy, since we don't have democracy here, and if the proof of democracy is free and fair elections, I doubt if someone who won't fight for them here, should be sending other people's kids to be fighting for them there.

It can't be to prevent civil war, as Iraq was not on the verge of civil war when we invaded, and if it is now, it is due to our invasion. Did we invade to stir up civil strife so that we could say that our mission is to prevent it?

I'm not sure that I ever want to meet John Kerry, but if I do the first thing I'll do is ask for my money back, and the second thing I'll do is ask him how he can ask somebody else to be the last American to die in Iraq.

[trotsky]

1. Great points.

Never thought of it like that. Makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Shrubs success, our demise. The plan was two fold Oil and control

Built by Halliburton,John Kerry doesn't know me, but he fought for me,Shrub isn't my president,he's Bandar's !!!

[LittleClarkie]

3. I don't need US to succeed in Iraq

I need Iraq to succeed. For the sake of the Iraqis themselves. Whatever that means and however we get there.

I don't want to be a Michael Savage, who is against the war but could give a flying shit about the Iraqis themselves. In his own bigoted selfish way, he is anti-war.

I was reading Kerry's op/ed yesterday. He said we are headed for a quagmire over there. He doesn't see it as one yet, just as a potential one if we don't do something. If he would have gotten into the White House, what he keeps talking about and what he had planned could could have worked. That's why I'm not sorry *I* gave him money. But he's not. And I don't think the baffoons in there now can do what needs to be done.

I'm not the one who needs to see Iraq succeed really, though. That would be the Iraqis themselves.

[Senior citizen]

7. I quoted directly from his letter.

Kerry did not say that he wanted Iraqis to succeed in Iraq, or that he'd never met an American (or an Iraqi) who didn't want Iraqis to succeed in Iraq.

He said he had never met an American who didn't want to see AMERICANS succeed in Iraq.

Isn't it a little late to be so concerned about the Iraqis? Why couldn't we have been concerned about their welfare BEFORE we killed about 100,000 of them? Did we kill them because we were concerned about their welfare? They weren't Communists so it couldn't have been a case of better dead than Red. They hadn't attacked us and didn't have the weapons to do so even if they'd wanted to, so if we cared so much about them, why did we kill them? Why are we continuing to kill them?

Please explain to me how we can be killing Iraqis "for the sake of the Iraqis themselves." Somehow, I don't think they would agree, and if you really cared about them, you'd take their wishes into account instead of just killing them and saying that it is for their own sake without explaining exactly how it benefits them to be dead.

[LittleClarkie]

9. I'm not Bush

I didn't kill anyone.

No, it's not too late to be concerned about the Iraqis.

Apparently Kerry sees us as part of the equation. Hence, our success would be the Iraqis success. Sadly, while his administration could have done that, I have little hope for Bush's clusterfuck of an administration.

[Senior citizen]

Kerry may see us as part of the equation.

That doesn't mean that Iraqis see us as part of the equation.

Are we supposed to be imagining grateful dead Iraqis?

[LittleClarkie]

24. Disturbing "rock band" images

Hmm. Hence the name, I suppose, and why that band was popular in Vietnam. But I digress.

What do the Iraqis see us as. We don't get enough unfiltered news to know. Do they miss Sadaam, if only because the trains ran on time then? Are they glad he's gone, and guardedly optimistic? Or has the time for that gone now?

[Senior citizen]

39. I'm sorry I don't have the source or the link,

but I heard that the newly elected Iraqi Congress has already made three formal requests for us to get out of Iraq.

Can someone verify this?

[Fridays Child]

4. That would make a great LTTE. Or maybe you should blog it.

You're right on point.

[left is right]

6. can you make your lame duck

a bit more lame? I didn't mean for that to sound so snarky. I just wanted to see the duck on crutches or with a cast around his leg. I want that duck to suffer

[Fridays Child]

124. I wasn't thinking "lame duck" when I put it in my sigline.

But now that you mention it....

[blm]

5. Kerry wants to get out of Iraq and has proposed a way to do it. You may

not like it, but, even Kucinich wouldn't say leave without attempting some stabilization effort that brings in other countries.

Nobody wants a continuation of Bush's way which ensures the US staying in Iraq for a generation while we co-opt their resources.

There is no other way on the table except Bush's way. I doubt you prefer that and think there is no sense in attacking Kerry for an honest attempt at Iraqi stabilization by bringing in other countries who have already offered to help.

I believe your sincerity, and can read it clearly in what you wrote, but, the reality is we either support honest efforts or Bush's way. It's called the bottom line.

And, considering you are a senior citizen, surely you know that Kerry's life record is one of opposing unnecessary war. His efforts have helped bring an end to three wars while also investigating and exposing more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

[LittleClarkie]

8. No, not even Kucinich. Nader, on the other hand

aka "Mr. Impractical"

I wonder if the original poster ever met Dean, or Clark or the rest of the candidates. To a man, they all proposed some way of stabilizing Iraq first. However, none of their plans called for Bush to be in there while we tried to stabilize Iraq.

Sadly, while I agree with Kerry, I have no faith whatsoever that the current administration is even capable of doing what needs to be done, let alone wanting to. That's the problem. Can they even be made to do it by pressure? Not the way Bush talks, though sometimes I think they take Kerry's advice then turn around and say "we're doing that already."

And badly, I might add.

[Amonester]

30. "capable of doing what needs to be done," or not wanting to.

The answer is (according to the PNAC...): not wanting to.

(Sorry.)

[Senior citizen]

10. Our invasion of Iraq was DESTABILIZING to Iraq.

Continuing our occupation of Iraq will only destabilize it further.

As for bringing other countries in, I was listening to Randi Rhodes this afternoon, reading the numbers of troops that other countries have withdrawn from Iraq. The rest of the world seems to believe that their presence in Iraq was destabilizing--how does Kerry propose to convince them that continuing or enlarging a destabilizing presence will be stabilizing?

As for Kerry's record, Michael Ruppert says that Kerry's investigation of Iran/Contra stopped before involving the highest level players.

If Kerry is opposed to unnecessary war, please tell me why he believes that Iraq is necessary. And if it isn't necessary, why doesn't he oppose it?

I know Kerry supposedly voted for the war because he thought Iraq had WMDs. Isn't it time somebody told him that they never did? It is one thing to support a war based on bad intelligence, but it is "bad intelligence" (stupidity) to continue to support that war once you know better.

[blm]

12. Kerry did not stop the investigation, he was taken off the committee

by other Dems at the request of Bush1, and that is in the congressional record as well as any book about IranContra. IranContra only happened because Kerry refused to let go of it for an entire year UNTIL he convinced other senators in the investigation.

Kerry accepted being taken off ONLY if they would allow him to go after suspicious banking fraud he saw in IranContra. That led to the BCCI investigation which Kerry pursued for 5 years and did so up against more opposition of the entire powerstructure in DC than any other investigation ever had to face.

[Free2BMe]

28. Iraq was/is an "unnecessary war"....It is a Quagmire.

[eridani]

11. The most important thing about Kerry, IMO--

---is that he has explicitly disavowed the goal of permanent bases there.

[Senior citizen]

15. Great!

I'm not quite clear on the concept of how we run a permanent war without permanent bases, but I'm sure you'll explain it to me.

In the past 2,000 years, Iraqis have never tolerated invaders, and they never will. The longer we stay, the longer they'll fight.

I don't know of any reason for us to have invaded Iraq.

I don't know of any reason for us to be there now.

Therefore, I don't know of any reason we shouldn't withdraw immediately. Far from civil war, Iraqis will be so happy celebrating the withdrawal of the invader/occupier, that they'll probably forget all about their religious and political differences for a while. Iraqis and Americans could stop killing and dying. The only one I know who would be hurt is Halliburton, who would lose all those juicy no-bid contracts. And since they were giving our troops rotten food, while using the food that was meant for the troops for catering private parties for their own managers, while overcharging us, I'm not going to cry for a war profiteer.

[LittleClarkie]

40. What the fuck are you talking about?!

You sound as if you're mixing up what Bush wants and what Kerry is suggesting. They. are. two. different. things.

Kerry disavows permanent bases, saying that to even come close to being successful in Iraq, we'd have to demonstrate we don't intend to set up camp. Of course Kerry knows about the 14 bases. Toward the end of the campaign he talked about there being unending war under Bush. He's talking about what we'd have to do to get out of Iraq with any semblance of order. Does he think Bush will do it. Probably not. But he's telling them what they HAVE to do anyway. Maybe somebody will see the comparison between the two, realize what a clusterfuck Iraq is, and we'll gain one more person on our side.

[tavalon]

126. I'm completely with you

I liken it to expecting a rapist to stick around and help the rape victim get over the rape. It's graphic and visceral, but tough, we are well past time for protecting sensibilities when discussing this illegal and immoral war.

There will be a horrible civil war there if we leave tomorrow. There will be a horrible civil war there if we leave in 12 years. We set the die, and we can't fix it. Maybe the UN can, I don't know, but I do know that we can't fix it.

I got that letter too and was trying to figure out why it hit me wrong. You explained it well.

[Senior citizen]

154. Thank you, tavalon. Excellent analogy. n/t

[ginnyinWI]

13. "you break it, you own it."

Bush broke it, big-time.

All Kerry is trying to do is propose a plan to stabilize Iraq enough so that they can take over and we can leave. Bush says the same, but his ideas are so lame that we'll be there forever. Kerry's ideas would get us out sooner because they're realistic, and if he had become president I think things would be on track for success by now.

So what's wrong with proposing good ideas for fixing Bushco's mistakes? You are arguing the idea that we shouldn't have gone in as we did. Well nobody is disputing that! It was a horrible mistake to do what Bush and Co. did. And Kerry agrees that it was. He's said it over and over. And over.

[LittleClarkie]

14. I wonder sometimes if the idea is as much

to provide a contrast for people so they can see sanity vs insanity. Even if we can't get Bush to do the right thing in Iraq, the average Joe, upon hearing what we should be doing, and seeing what we ARE doing, might put two and two together for once and come up with the right answer. I have more faith that THAT will happen than that Bush will suddenly get his head out his butt.

[ginnyinWI]

18. acting as a Shadow President, you mean. :-) n/t

[LittleClarkie]

21. Yeah. Or looking at it from the "Highlights" perspective

He is Gallant, and Bush is Doofus.

[Senior citizen]

19. Well, if I break something in a store, I not only pay for it,

but I believe that I'm supposed to leave the store before I break anything else.

This, "you break it, you own it," is a little misleading. I break your arm, I own it? I smash your windshield, I own it? Or do I just have to pay for the damage I did, pay any fines and serve any sentence imposed for my crime, stay the hell away from you and your car in the future, and you continue to own both?

[AmBlue]

42. This is more like breaking half the stuff

in every single store in the mall closest to you, pissing off nearly every person working in the mall so badly that they all want to come to your home with pitchforks and shotguns and burn your whole freaking neighborhood down. (and p.s. I wouldn't blame them if they did at this point!)

I love your post. You make some very good points. I positively hate it that we're in Iraq, and I too think that our presence there is causing more problems than solving them. My question is what the hell do we do now with half (or more) of the Middle Eastern world that want ultimately to see us dead?? How do we fix this?? What can we possibly do to atone for all the damage we've done? How can we undo the hostilities that this unbelievably stupid "adventure" has provoked?

[tavalon]

128. We spend the next generation and the generation after that

spending the kind of money we've already spent on this mess to feed and clothe every single poor person, especially Muslims because we have now officially done some big crap to them. Eventually, the children of the children of the children just won't understand why America was so hated way back when. In the meantime, their parents and granparents will have planned and probably carried out some heinous terrorist acts even on American soil. Each time that happens we must remove that person or persons but we must be careful to continue to foster good will over those generations so that eventually, many years hence, a person like Bin Laden will make no sense.

Thing is, there is no easy fix. But no one wants to look at the big picture.

[Senior citizen]

155. Precisely. I love your post too. n/t

[ginnyinWI]

78. no, not at all

That slogan is simply a shortcut for saying this: If you break something, or hurt someone, or offend someone, or damage property, or whatever, you have a responsibility to try to fix it or compensate the owner or person offended. Right? America broke Iraq's stability when we invaded. We need to get them stable again before we just leave.

You don't just run somebody over in your car and then leave them lying in the middle of the road.

[MoonRiver]

16. Great post! You call bullshit.

I don't believe anyone can run on the Dem ticket in '08 who didn't oppose this war, or has renounced his/her initial support of it. There's been too much needless death and squandered national resources.

[Senior citizen]

41. Thank you. And I apologize to you and all the others

who happen to agree with me. I've been too busy trying to respond to those who differ, to properly express my gratitude to those who agree.

I stuck my neck out and I appreciate the support.

[MoonRiver]

46. 100% understand. Been at the center of flames on this subject myself.

Thanks for presenting what infuriates many of us so well. But remember to keep the retardant handy!
:D

[UTUSN]

17. FDR, ERR, HST, JFK, LBJ, JEC Never Met Me NEITHER,

and the problem IS?????????

[LittleClarkie]

22. I shook his hand though

Does that count?

[Senior citizen]

32. The problem is:

John Kerry ascertained my U.S. citizenship for the purpose of accepting my donations to his campaign, so I'll be damned if I'm going to let him question my citizenship now.

I'm an American. Fact is, I'm not any prouder of being an American than I am of any other accident of birth. I plead guilty to taking some pride in things I've done, but not in things I just am. But that's what I happen to be, and I do not want to see Americans succeed in Iraq. I don't think we should have gone there in the first place, I don't think we should be there now, and I don't think we should remain there.

Did any of those Presidents ever question your citizenship because you didn't agree with them?

Maybe BFEE doesn't think so, and maybe Kerry doesn't think so, but since I was lucky enough to be born an American, I still consider voicing my opinion to be one of my inalienable rights. It might not involve life or liberty, but it definitely comes under the "pursuit of happiness" clause. And I don't think that makes me any less of an American. In fact here in California our State Constitution says that we not only have the right to pursue happiness, we have the right to attain it. At the moment my personal happiness would involve bringing our troops home now from an unjust war, based on lies, with no end in sight.

[LittleClarkie]

35. He didn't question your citizenship

What an odd way to interpret that statement.

He hasn't met an American who doesn't want success in Iraq. So he hasn't met you. I don't think he's claiming to have met every freaking person in the freaking country.

[kerrygoddess]

120. Really? Did he say that in his email to you?

He didn't say that in the email I got. But then, of couse I've met John Kerry many times.

[bleever]

20. Rec'd. You make some serious points here,

senior citizen, and it did make me pause and think.

One of my favorite parts:

"It can't be to export democracy, since we don't have democracy here, and if the proof of democracy is free and fair elections, I doubt if someone who won't fight for them here, should be sending other people's kids to be fighting for them there."


:thumbsup:

[Senior citizen]

158. In restrospect I can see why that is taken as a jab at Kerry. n/t

[zulchzulu]

23. It's easy to hide your head in the sand and think it will all go away

Kerry was never for the War Bush decided to do months before he decided to lie about going to war.

We can't hit the Rewind button now...this is reality. We can't just hit the "Eject" button and think that Iraq is now "not on the tube".

We can't just allow an American government to destroy a country's infrastructure (this goes back to Bush 1 and Clinton) and then up and leave them to starve, headless and surrounded by old enemies waiting to strike.

We, as Americans, like it or not, are responsible for offering a solution to help bring Iraq back on its feet. We need a Marshall Plan that revitalizes Iraq...and it doesn't include Halliburton by default. It would include the UN and all the nations that want to participate...and then let Iraq go back to be its own country.

You can diss Kerry for saying that we can't just up and leave the country in ruins...that's your call.

But you can't possibly think that it's just going to go away like a telephone bill that falls behind a sofa that you forget about.

Yhe bill will still be pending. And so is ours with Iraq.

The difference is (if you're following along) that what Bush has done is the wrong direction. What Kerry has been saying since 2002 is that we need to go in a completely different direction, preferably with international support and help from the UN.

I do understand your anger, but you have to recognize that this war is not going to just "poooof" go away.

I was wholeheartedly against this war from the beginning and am brokenhearted to see what the war has become, but we have to do what's correct. Of course, it will not happen with this present cabal in power...we will need to disconnect them, dismantle them and start anew.

[Free2BMe]

25. Great Post..I'm a senior, got same e-mail and had similar thoughts

concerning the "succeeding in Iraq" statement.

[LittleClarkie]

37. What does being a Senior have to do with this exactly

except that it's something you share with the OP?

[Raksha]

118. One thing about being a senior...

...is that you heard the argument "We can't just pull out" 35 years ago. But in the end, after a period of so-called "Vietnamization" we did just that. We just pulled out! Last night, listening to Bush's speech, I got the distinct feeling he was talking about "Iraqization" as a face-saving gesture. Or at least I hoped he was.

[sendero]

26. I agree with you...

... but it isn't just Kerry. Damn near everyone is singing the same tune.

Personally, I don't think there is any way that the US can have success in Iraq. If we could bring in more Europeans and other coalition members, maybe there would be a chance, but it would be a small chance.

Everyone say's that we can't just cut and run, but so far the plans they put out there don't seem very plausible or very feasible.

My point of view is that obviously we should have never went in, and now we should get out as soon as possible. We are not fixing anything, we are just wasting lives and wasting dollars. And the civil war we've unleashed on Iraq is going to happen whether we are there or not.

[Senior citizen]

159. Yes. Forget exit strategy. Just plain exit will do fine. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

27. I guess success is peace, prosperity, and a democratic government

Sure I'd love for all of that to happen, but I think that we are paying too high of a price for it. Not to mention the fact that Bush is fucking things up as much as physically possible.

[Free2BMe]

29. WE don't even have peace, prosperity and a democratic gov't.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Compared to Iraq we do

Although if Republicans maintain control of the government, I'm not sure how long that will last.

[Free2BMe]

38. 225 + years of "democracy" ?? should make us ashamed.

My idea of peace certainly isn't manifested by what I read in the papers..prosperity has enough food and health care for all..jobs also and democracy isn't some political word that exhibits such pompous attitudes as is shown by bush, chaney and rumsfeld..They are imperialists and the results of their arrogance has put us in a much more targeted path of terrorists...

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Didn't say it was going great, said we are doing well compared to Iraq

[Mass]

We?

And the Iraqis people. What price do you think they are paying because of Bush's faulty policy. (Oh, I forgot - they are only arabs).

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Err I mean them too, I'm a little tired

They have had about 100,000 casualties, we've had about 1,700.

[SnoopDog]

33. I must admit, this is a right on post.

It has always been in mind too - how can we 'win' this Iraq invasion or have a 'success strategy' or an 'exit strategy' when there was no real cause to invade Iraq?

But we all know the real reason.

It was to loot our treasury and literally put the money into their pockets. It was also, obviously, to control their oil and the oil supply.

So when puppet chimp says were are there until the mission is accomplished - it is when either 1) all our tax dollars are gone and no other nation honors our dollar or 2) when complete control of the oil supply is in their hands.

Plus, they obviously get off on death and torture.

And we allow this to continue?

[Senior citizen]

160. You put it much better than I do. Thanks. n/t

[wisteria]

34. Oh brother! What a bunch of bunk!

Why can't you at least try to understand the ramifications of a total pull out now. Perhaps you do, but you really don't give a damn about the soldiers who have fought and died and the others who have come back home missing limbs and arms who believed they were fighting to make a better world and a free Iraq for its people. Perhaps, you don't care about the Iraq men who have stood in lines to become soldiers for their country, I mean the ones who are bombed and maimed and killed. What of the Iraq people who have endured many months of little food, water, electricity and proper medical care and have lived in fear every day? Can you tell me what will happen to them if we just pack up and go tomorrow?
I hate Bush for getting us into this mess. I will never believe this war was necessary. It has cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. I realize Bush has changed his perspective on the war as it suits his purposes. I want out too. I just can not rationalize a reasonably scenario where we leave and things return to normal for us or the Iraq's. We have money and blood invested now and we owe it to our dead soldiers and those with life altering injuries and we owe it to the good Iraq people to at least stay long enough to restore some order and train them so that they can protect themselves.
Do you think John Kerry actually likes this war? If you do, I can honestly tell you I doubt that very, very much. His only opinions about this war have been directed to wards our soldiers and the Iraq people. I think it is obvious, he wants out too, he just wants to do it so that we Americans and our country, still are viewed with respect and described as dignified and having courage and conviction. Yeah, this war was illegal, although proof of this muddled. Declaring that really doesn't change what is going on over there in Iraq. It may cause damage to Bush, but I doubt it. Face it, we have a mess on our hands and we have no other choice but to clean it up. How long will it take? That depends on how well we plan and implement the recommendations of that Plan. I think the list of initiatives laid out by John Kerry, will actually bring an end to this war in a reasonable amount of time and we would be leaving Iraq with what it needs to continue fighting and building their own democracy.How long will it take? How can we really know the answer to this question? I can tell you, with the proper planning and help, it won't take no ten to twelve years.My opinion, leans to an eight of that time, but I am not an expert on matters of war.
I have never meet John Kerry personally either, but I have read about him and gave him my time and money,in the hope he would succeed. Success is measured in many different ways and John Kerry is IMO more successful than George Bush will ever be. He has presented us with his ideas for our benefit and the Iraq's. His ideas just may offer us a measure of success in Iraq and allow us to leave there soon with a win for America, not a black eye.

[Senior citizen]

114. I do care about our dead and wounded troops. Very much.

That's why I don't want to see any more of them. This reminds me of gang wars where the killing continues because each gang is going to avenge their dead. Until somebody manages to come in and convince them that killing each other isn't constructive.

I also care about the Iraqis. They will never accept an American "win." That's why there will never be an American win. If we had 2 of our military people there for every Iraqi, and each one was outfitted with the best weapons and protective gear that money could buy, the relatives of those we've killed and those we've tortured in Abu Ghraib would keep fighting even if the only weapons they had were rocks and their fists and attacking us was certain suicide. And they'd consider it an honor to be able to do suicide attacks in defense of their country, and to avenge their families and friends. I like to think that we'd do the same if a foreign power invaded and occupied our country. Even if they did it to overthrow BFEE, I wouldn't tolerate them being here the following day.

As for our monetary investment, that's called war profiteering. To stay would just throw good money after bad.

Due to our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, we are no longer seen as dignified or deserving of respect. And the longer we stay, the less respect we'll have.

[politicasista]

36. You have a right to your opinion

This illegal, sham of a war is all Kerry's fault. Not any other Democrat. His vote for the war and plan is a joke. He should just come out and say that Bush is a lying war criminal and bring the troops home now. Other Dems have better plans. :sarcasm:

sarcasm.

[LittleClarkie]

43. self edit

not cool and besides the point

[Senior citizen]

50. I have a better plan.

Here it is:

We withdraw our troops from Iraq immediately.

We use the money we're spending on the war to pay reparations to those we've tortured and to the families of those we've killed.

We apologize to the world for our inability to hold free and fair elections with the result that a dictator took over our country and led us into an unjust war.

We institute free and fair elections. This means publicly funded elections, so that elections cannot be bought. It means instant runoff voting so that non-machine (meaning without the backing of corporations and a major party) candidates can be elected. It means voter verifiable ballots that can be used in a recount. It means that votes cannot be counted by software or in secret, but must be counted openly under public observation. It means that the electoral college must be abolished so that whoever we elect actually takes office.

We sign on to the Convention against Torture, accept the Geneva Convention definitions of torture, acknowledge the World Court, and become responsible world citizens. That includes Kyoto.

We deliver our war criminals to the World Court to be brought to justice and we stop harboring terrorists (Luis Posada Carilles, et al). We release all nonviolent criminals from our gulag, so that we can afford humane conditions for those remaining, and so that we'll no longer have more prisoners than any other country in the world.

We impeach for "bad behavior" anyone in public office who colluded with war criminals, and all judges who have made unConstitutional rulings based on their personal politics or beliefs.

We restore environmental protections and stop trying to dismantle social programs. Heck, without the war we can probably even use some money to enlarge social problems to help those who are suffering from job outsourcing. We stop corporate welfare and make corporations pay their fair share of taxes. And we finance the start-up of every sustainable industry we can find.

Okay, I'm sure I missed a lot of stuff, but basically, there's my plan.

[Blue_Roses]

108. well, in a perfect world

this would be awesome advice, but it's obviously short of an "extreme home makeover"...dream on. My parents wished they wouldn't have had to go through WWII also, but they did.

[Mass]

51. Actually this war is not even Bush's fault

We know it. It is all Kerry's fault. He is the one who sent the troops to Iraq without letting the inspectors finish their mission.

Well, you may have ignored it, but Kerry was CIC in 2003. :sarcasm:

[kerrygoddess]

45. So you think...

That after Bush has torn down this country we are supposed to cut and run and leave them in devastation?

WTF?

Success is cleaning up Iraq, as John Kerry suggested. Have you no compassion for those who have suffered at the hands of Bush, or are you like Bush only thinking about WHAT YOU WANT?

Quite a few Dems including Kerry have outlined how to get out of Iraq, perhaps if some Dems who like to support the Rovian talking points by complaining about Kerry and others would SHUT THE F UP, we might get somewhere.

BUT NO! You'd rather piss and moan and complain, because nothing they say is GOOD ENOUGH. What you are doing is supporting Bush when you piss and moan. Wake up and smell the rot in the streets of Iraq.

How would you feel if someone did this to your country and then refused to fix it?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[kerrygoddess]

49. MyPetRock,

I find it incredibly offensive that when we need unity most, all some people can do is piss and moan and slander our elected Democrats who ARE working to make a difference.

The fact is when Democrats attack Democrats in this manner they are helping the right-wing not the left-wing.

The fact is that the poster who I replied to miscontrued Kerry's words and that happens all too often around here.

We're in a sorry, sorry state if all we can do is complain rather than support. If you want to win you have to be a team player. The republicans know that. Why don't democrats get it?

[MoonRiver]

52. That's an incredibly lame excuse and you know it.

There is NO Democrat on this board who should be compared to *.

[kerrygoddess]

55. Give it a rest...

If you act like them, if you use their tp's then sorry, the shoe fits.

No Democrat on this board should be acting like them. Your feigned offense is offensive.

Want I should go start a flame post about another Dem? What do you think? You don't ever see me starting posts to attack ANY elceted Democrat. It's not helpful, it's harmful and if you can't see that, I'm sorry.

[MoonRiver]

58. Unbelievable! So disagreeing with your guru is now considered * like!

Whatever will you do when the REAL primaries start in 2007? Newsflash kg, there's going to be lots of folks, supporting other candidates, who won't be saying terrific things about Kerry. Are you going to label them all as the same as *?

[kerrygoddess]

82. Kerry is not a candidate for anything right now!

Newsflash to you PetRock, I don't give a Rat's Ass who runs for President at this point.

I do care about this country and the fucking mess we are in.

As long as you and other's shoot your mouths off trashing Dems in office YOU ARE HURTING THE PARTY! AND I MEAN ALL DEMS IN OFFICE! I MEAN THE CHAIR OF DNC, TOO!


You NEVER see me posting KERRY 08 here and if I do it will be when and if he formally announces he will run and not a frigging moment sooner.

Oh and FYI, my guru is a 90 year old student of J Krishnamurti.

[LittleClarkie]

86. Do tell

Buddist?

[kerrygoddess]

89. Vedanta actually...

and A Course in Miracles. He was the first teacher of ACIM. Yep, that's the only guru I've ever studied with. I'm not much of a sheeple though, more a shepherd than a sheeple.

[politicasista]

48. Another day, another flamebait post

It is really fun when Dems eat their own. :sarcasm: :boring:

[kerrygoddess]

53. I hear it's less filling... N/T

[Senior citizen]

59. Even notice that pukes don't differ in their opinions?

That they all get their talking points from the same sources and they all say same the same things over and over?

THAT'S boring.

A genuine discussion that allows differing views is fascinating. It doesn't have to dissolve into flames, particularly here on DU where there are rules against personal attacks.

People who never question authority and always buy the party line, aren't open to dissent anyway. They've been innoculated against it--they call it conspiracy theory, or hating America, or being a traitor, or not supporting our troops, and they don't want to hear it.

A dictatorship tells people how they must think. A democracy teaches them to think and then lets them do it.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[MoonRiver]

133. One thing we have to always be careful about,

is not to become exactly like those we loath, in the process of defeating them. This happens all the time, and totally defeats the purpose of an opposition movement. I certainly hope never to be bullied into going along with the loudest and most aggressive Democrats in the room, just because they have the biggest stick.

[zulchzulu]

56. Amen sister!

I can't imagine leaving Iraq behind after the horrible things we have done as a country under the hand of the Chimp.

As I mentioned in a previous post, we need to devise a new Marshall Plan where many countries help rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure and then let Iraq be...of course, Iraqis could participate...but one of the first things that would happen would be to set international precidence that war profiteering (like KBR/Halliburton...) is to be met with the harshest punishment.

I equate it to if I had a brother or son who defaced a playground and caused great damage, it eould be my responsibility to clean up the mess. The brother or son would face justice for that crime too. I wouldn't just up and leave town and not do what's right.

As you know, Kerry has been saying this since 2002.

[welshTerrier2]

105. Rovian talking point: "cut and run and leave them in devastation" ...

progressive talking points: we should leave Iraq because we are doing nothing but CREATING MORE DEVASTATION while US corporations reap the benefits ... we should NOT ignore our obligation to help Iraq rebuild its infrastructure ... occupation is occupation ... the whole world's watching and they don't like what they see ... continued US occupation of Iraq is making the US much less safe; it's weakening US credibility everywhere and it's spawning more terrorism and a widening conflict throughout the Middle East ...

those who think we should allow bush to remain as an occupier in Iraq are the ones using the Rovian talking points ...

[LittleClarkie]

106. Rush-ian talking points

When Kerry said in 1997 and 1998 that we should hold Saddam accountable he was really saying go and do exactly what Bush is doing now. Aha, ya see! Kerry's a flip flopper.

Blah.

[welshTerrier2]

112. clarity please ...

first, what does your post mean ???

second, sarcasm or otherwise, why did you say "Kerry's a flip flopper." ... my post didn't mention Kerry nor frankly was it intended to have anything to do with Kerry ...

[LittleClarkie]

I was going to show an example

in this thread of the Rush-ian talking point I saw, but it's been deleted by the moderator. Kind of tells you something I suppose. But right here in this thread, someone pointed out where Kerry signed a letter that was also signed by other Senators saying that he was concerned that Saddam needed to be held accountable for the agreement that ended the first Iraq War. He also gave a floor speech in 1997 where he made that point as well.

In context, all of this was after his investigations, after he'd written his book on international crime, after the Okahoma City Bombing and the first Twin Tower attack. He said that we must hold Saddam accountable.

The poster who's post was deleted was holding that up as proof positive that Kerry wasn't fooled in the slightest re: the current war.

Rush Limbaugh held that up as proof positive that once upon a time Kerry agreed with Bush, and that his then-current "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" was a flip flop.

The poster in this thread came close to Rush-like logic, too close for me. So when you brought up first RW talking points and progressive talking points, since it was fresh in my mind, I brought up Rush style talking points as exhibited by the poster in this thread who's post I can't show you, since it's deleted.

Hold someone accountable does NOT mean you're hot for war. It can mean simply, as Kerry has said over and over, that he wanted the inspectors back in Iraq.

That someone here was agreeing, whether they knew it or not, with Rush Limbaugh re: Kerry and his past history with Saddam sorta sent me over the edge.

I didn't mean to imply there was something in YOUR post that was Rush-like. Just adding to the set of talking points. Some Rove, some progressive, some, God help us, Rush.

[Senior citizen]

161. Brilliant. Rove's met his match in you, Terrier. Thank you. n/t

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[kerrygoddess]

57. And you point is?

What the fuck? It seems like there is a lot of KOOLAID drinking going on here.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

60. There's a 1997 Senate floor speech as well

Not to mention the first debate. Did they need to hold Saddam accountable? Kerry said yes. But that there was a right way, and a wrong way, and that Bush picked the wrong way. Did they think there was eminent danger in 1997 or 1998. I doubt it. But that's what Bush was selling. Eminent danger. That's where the duped comes in.

Good fucking God man/woman. I heard Rush make the same exact leap of fucking logic. And before you say it, NO I'm not calling you a winger. But damn, surely you're thought processes aren't as fucked up as Rush's.

Were they worried about Saddam. Indeed, they were. Does that mean Kerry approves of this cluster fuck or isn't pissed that he was lied to. He says "Goddamn right I'm angry!"

So there you have it.

[LittleClarkie]

68. Actually, I have it copied onto my site

Here ya go, the 1997 speech that made Rush say "See! He used to want what Bush wanted."

Let's see if your reading comprehension is better than Rush's. Granted, that's setting the bar pretty low, but hey...

http://kerrycrat.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Research&action=display&thread=1104649998

[Senior citizen]

70. DSM.

That letter follows the DSM plan a bit too closely for comfort.

How dupable am I supposed to believe these Congresscritters are?

[LittleClarkie]

73. !@#$%^&*

:freak: :wtf: :argh: :grr: :nuke: :banghead:

Oh yeah, that's why he's one of the few, the proud, the ones who've questioned the DSM out loud. Sure, baby.

Because he really, secretly agrees with it. Riiiiiight.

Excuse me. I have to go and get my "plotz" graphic now. I'll be right back. One more inanity like that, and I'll need it.

61. I agree, the behavior of the Democratic leadership has been...

disgusting at best. These people are opportunistically manipulating the war that they helped start, and they flat out say they won't walk away from. The simple fact is the only exit strategy is to simply leave defeated. The cost of "victory" in terms of how many hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed is simply too high. What is happening in Iraq is a genocide far larger and more horrible than the one in the Sudan which Democrats and Republicans regularly cry crocodile tears over.

Increasingly I don't see the difference between people like Kerry and any other Republican senator.

[zulchzulu]

64. "Increasingly I don't see the difference between people like Kerry and..."

If you don't do your homework, you get an F.

If you don't really follow Kerry's record (whether it's laziness, cluelessness or not being capable intellectually), then of course, you'll think whatever you talk yourself into.

[Tinoire]

66. Disgusting is so... mild/ They make me all retch

Bastards "opportunistically manipulating the war that they helped start".


Tonight, I just want to lay me head in my arms and weep.



Fuck Kerry. Fuck all the COMPLICIT opportunists. And most of all, fuck all the loom spinners.

Fuck War. Fuck the Vichy collaborators.

Mild laugh... Sorry for being so pissed. You know, I hope, that I am not pissed at you. You're one of the few clear thinkers here. It's the complicit loom spinners I HATE and loathe.

Stay the Course....

Not enough troops... Not enough troops in Iraq...

Iraq... 9-11... Iraq... 9-11... Iraq... 9-11... Iraq... 9-11...

I am so stupid, I was fooled but never mind my wind-surfing and support me anyway...

Iraq... WMD... Iraq...WMD...

Let me know if I missed anything :shrug:

[Senior citizen]

163. There's a difference, but not much distinction, repeater. Thanks. n/t

[zulchzulu]

62. So I guess you'd say "Fuck Dennis Kucinich" too

Kucinich voted for the Joe Lieberman's HR 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which called for the U.S. to militarily remove Saddam Hussein from power.

He also thought the 1991 Gulf War was justified because at that time the U.S. was part of an international coalition defending Kuwait and disarming Iraq.

Wait...Kerry was AGAINST the first Gulf War....hmmmm.....

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

[LittleClarkie]

67. We'll need to fuck Dean as well

while he didn't vote for the IWR (how could he, he wasn't in the Senate) he's not preaching "out now" either.

Quite the orgy we have planned. Woo hoo! :evilgrin:

[wisteria]

65. Actually, you are the one spinning this!

This letter is no more than a strong recommendation to the President to do more to force Saddam to comply with orders to disband and destroy all MD and to allow inspections. Showing a little military mite, if necessary, in order to gain compliance is not an issue to declare war on Iraq. Saddam has been at various times seen as a threat to our security. That is why he was under UN watch to begin with.
What are your views about showing military superiority and wars in general. I get the impression you must be a no war at no time no how person.

[Tinoire]

71. Close. Damn close

I am a
NO WAR FOR SUPERIOR ANGLO BLOOD type of person.

Ubermensch and your/our security as we rape the rest of the world? I'm fucking against it.

Saddaam has never been a threat to our security. The only threat Saddaam constituted is that he was perched atop of a bunch of oil our military needs to act as the next coercive step after our economic (read neoliberal) methods fail.

White Americans? ... Are no more worthy of freedom, apple pie or blah, blah woof woof <insert latest talking point here> than ANYONE else on this planet.

I hate bullies, in a personal and in a Machiavelli sense. We're nothing more than pathetic bullies imo. I'm extremely ashamed for us.

Kerry was one of the neo-liberals pushing Clinton to escalate this war (imo this has been one long war since 1991). Clinton REFUSED because as slick as he was, he knew he couln't sell it. Now we have Kerry pretending to "have been fooled"? The intellectual insult is what I can not stand.

Thank you- truly thank you, for your clear, civil post.

[wisteria]

103. Oil!

I to believe our involvement in Iraq has something to do with the oil,I don't believe that is the only reason though. As far as John Kerry's motives, I don't think they have anything what so ever to do with the oil that could be available to us from Iraq. I say this because Kerry has pushed energy alternatives for a long time now, to help make us energy independent and ease our need for foreign oil. He proposed funding research projects to find alternatives.
I cannot know for sure what concerns or facts John Kerry may be aware of regarding Saddam that have lead him to believe that Saddam is a threat. I can only offer an opinion, and that is, John Kerry feels a strong obligation to defend and protect our country and he viewed Saddam as a serious concern back in 1998 and he remained concern in 2002. i think you are mistaken if you think Kerry is a war monger.

[Senior citizen]

164. I'm with you, Tinoire.

wisteria's "little military mite" wouldn't have done this much damage.

[paulk]

69. generic flamebait

isn't it interesting how in the last few days, as Kerry has stepped to the front in opposition to Bush, there's been a concurrent rise in Kerry trashing threads here on DU.

Gosh, I wonder why?

[Senior citizen]

75. Maybe because we've seen

"Which way did they go? I'm their leader!" before.

[MoonRiver]

76. Exactly! Unlike *, I am usually fooled only once.

Kerry thinks he's going to conduct a 4 year presidential campaign for 2008, and nobody will notice he lost to the worst pResident in US history. Sorry, been there done that.

[paulk]

79. he is a US Senator

he was elected by the people of MA to do a job. He's doing it.

Why do you have such a problem with that? What's he supposed to do - shut up to please mypetrock? Who (apparently) doesn't want him to run for president?

[paulk]

77. why do you bash Kerry all the time?

it's all I ever see from you on this board.

what are your motives?

[LittleClarkie]

81. He just mentioned DSM and how much it was like

a letter from 1998 signed by Kerry.

What indeed, considering it is Kerry who has made something of an issue of DSM thus far.

And as I've said, I heard Rush make the same obtuse point just before the election. Good god, we're in trouble if we're starting to think in shades of black and white that severely. That's pathetic, that is.

[MoonRiver]

83. I post about a lot of things other than Kerry. But his followers

post pro-Kerry propaganda incessantly here. I am disgusted with the way Kerry conducted his presidential run, and I DO NOT want him getting the nomination again. I'm almost 100% sure he won't, but when people try to hype him I'll respond. Also, if MA likes him great. Let them keep him on as Senator.

Regarding this thread I totally agree with SC. That's why I'm posting and responding here.

[LittleClarkie]

85. The news is not propaganda

I'm sorry the mere mention of his name breaks you out in hives.

The thread about how Clark has to be our guy in 2008, now that's hype. The person posting it has a right, but it's not exactly tied to any Clark happenings at the moment.

I will continue to post Kerry news. Calling us apologists and what we post propaganda is a cheap and lazy way not to rebutt the facts that we bring to the table.

[MoonRiver]

88. What news? This thread was started in response to an e-mail from JK.

I am glad that Kerry did something regarding DSM, but that doesn't change the fact that he did nothing to stop *'s illegal and murderous war. He cannot live that down. Especially because he won't renounce his original support for giving * the power to invade Iraq.

[kerrygoddess]

92. CNN, Today Show, NY Times

He's been making the rounds... guess you missed it.

[MoonRiver]

94. I don't know what you're talking about.

I said I was GLAD he said something about DSM. Doesn't change his support for this war.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

93. That qualifies as news in my book

"There's a new email" threads are different from "Oh and by the way, in case you were wondering, I think we need Kerry in 2008" threads. Or Clark. Or Kucinich. Or Warner. Or whoever.

Dude's been busy the last couple days. Clark got slammed when he got busy a couple of weeks ago. A pattern at DU, it seems.

[kerrygoddess]

96. Have you seen this news?

Successful speech yesterday Kerry made wasn't it. Got some good news coverage!

[LittleClarkie]

99. The op/ed was quoted as well.

Good day all around answering the chimp.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

91. To be fair

when they are being slandered, I'm there for them as well.

We all have a right to post Dean news, and Clark news, and Kerry news. And that's not necessarily propaganda. The puff pieces come closer, but hey, they gots the right as well. I'm just not as into that as I am posting Kerry news.

It's when we're trying to get something done that this primary war era crapola really gets in the way. "I'm not signing that petition! It's from Kerry! Ewww! I don't want him in 2008!"

Who the flying fuck cares what anyone wants in 2008. This is now. And we're not going to get anywhere NOW slamming folks because we don't want them in 2008. Can we get through 2006 first!? Probably not, because we'll be at each others throats over 2008. Yea unity. Blah.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[politicasista]

84. Maybe he/she scared of Kerry

:rofl:

[kerrygoddess]

90. Yeah... check this out!

He looks a little pissed don't you think?

[LittleClarkie]

98. I like this one

And this one because I was there.



And of course this is a good one.



And then there's the wallpaper I made.



Kerry krishna...Kerry krishna... krishna krishna... Kerry Kerry....

[kerrygoddess]

110. Om Kerry Krishna... Om Kerry Krishna...

A few of my favorites...

[Senior citizen]

97. You see only what you want to see, I guess.

I just did a quick search. I’ve bashed Musharraf, CAFTA, BFEE, the AMA, the cops, SCOTUS, der Gropenator, Diebold, and rapists. I’ve also devoted some bandwidth to praising John Conyers, Maxine Waters, and the Congressional Black Caucus.

You've got a star and could have done a search before questioning my motives. So what was your motive?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

104. Gee, ya think?

It started with an email from a man he is pissed at, from a list he could easily unsubscribe from if he really wanted to.

Hrm.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

102. Good God, lad, that's a really GOOD POINT!

Why the sam hill be on a mailing list of someone you detest? Why indeed. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[kerrygoddess]

111. Really! I agree!

[Clarkie1]

107. What an easy cop-out for you. n/t

[Blue_Roses]

109. this thread is joke

a fucking joke:eyes:

[Clarkie1]

113. Actually, it's like a really, really BAD joke.

I mean, couldn't the poster have just said, "I don't care what happens in Iraq, I just want us to leave" (and I'm going to use my opinion to call Kerry's integrity into question) without being so verbose and melodramatic about it?

This thread contributes nothing useful to the discussion of Democratic Party policy towards Iraq, but of course that was not the purpose of the post, was it?

[kerrygoddess]

115. Well said. N/T

[Senior citizen]

116. But I did explain that I care about what happens in Iraq.

If Democratic Party policy towards Iraq isn't going to take into account anything I said in my OP, there's nothing I can do about it. Clarkie1, I don't interpret your sig as meaning that if I disagree with the Democratic Party, or a Democratic Congresscritter, I should just block their email and not respond to anything they say.

Quite a few posts in this thread disagreed with current Democratic Party policy and with Kerry's letter, as I do, and some expressed themselves better than I can. Please reread your sig. BFEE does not allow discussion or permit dissent. They demand unity, meaning that everyone is supposed to agree with whatever they say or be barred from the "discussion." Anyone who challenges them is impugning their integrity. In fact I seem to remember Condosleeza making exactly that response to a challenge. I hope we never sink that low.

[kerrygoddess]

119. Interesting... your sig line

Reading list... Winona Duke "We Are All Related".

"Mitakuye Oyasin - We Are All Related" - Lakota

Personally I would think that to live by that phrase, we must as a country help to repair the damage we have done in Iraq. I do believe that is what Senator Kerry is advocating as are many other Democratic leaders.

Furthermore, as "we are all related" we should learn to speak with one voice instead of many forked tongues, so that our message is heard loud and clear, instead of stiffled by the din of disagreements.

We have the opportunity to show our strenght here and be truly all related as Democrats. Yet, some would prefer to stand outside of the unity and break the bonds of our relations. Thank about it?

Mitakuye Oyasin

[Clarkie1]

125. Where did you explain that you care about what happens now in Iraq?

I reread your OP and don't see it.

I think it's a fair inference from your OP that what happens to Iraq now and in the future is not as important to you as withdrawing completely and immediately. If I'm mistaken, please elaborate.

[LittleClarkie]

129. But your focus was not on Iraq, it was on

beating your chest about how you'd given money, how Kerry was calling questioning your citizenship, how he must have known and been a party to what Bush was doing.

If your concern was for the Iraqis, it's been obscured by your, not just disagreement, but downright bitterness re: Kerry.

You come close to suggesting he's no better than a Republican in your reference to the DSM, even though he's one of the few to even bring up that issue.

You of course have a right to your opinion. But if you say inflammatory things, you will get heated posts in return. Why act surprised. You got what you gave. If we think you have your facts wrong, you WILL be rebutted.

Saying that we're not allowing dissent by disagreeing and responding to you is over the top. It's not like we can reach through our monitors and snatch your keyboard away.

[Raksha]

117. Those were my sentiments exactly...

...when I read Senator Kerry's letter in my inbox earlier this evening.

What exactly constitutes "success" in Iraq?

What is "the mission" there? I have to know what the mission is before I can say whether or not I want it to succeed. So far, every rationale I've heard for our military presence in Iraq has been proven fraudulent. John Kerry only adds to the rhetorical miasma when he tries to skate around these questions.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Raksha]

123. Hey, I'm not a Kerry basher...

...I loved what he did yesterday on the Senate floor when he pre-empted Bush's speech. And I'm ALWAYS with him when he says we have no business sending American troops into battle with inadequate armor, or when he criticizes the cuts in veterans' benefits. Those things are simply a matter of common decency, and it's hard to imagine how anyone (except BushCo and their allies the Halliburton pirates) could possibly be against them.

But his letter still begs the question of what the hell are we doing in Iraq in the first place, and does he REALLY want to get out? I would like to think so, but I'm a long way from being convinced.

[kerrygoddess]

127. Hi Raksha

I was responding in general to thread, my response was not even linked to your comment.

I don't see his letter as begging anything quite frankly.

[karynnj]

130. There are at least two logical reasons for believing he wants to get out

For me the test of whether someone's goal is what they say it is, is whether the steps they propose logically lead to that goal. Kerry says he wants the soldiers back as soon as Iraq has some stability. Why do I believe him?
1) He unequivocally said (as did Kennedy) that we need to immediately disavow ANY long term presence. (This is the dividing line with the PNAC people and is where the Democrats should be)

2) His solution, which is similar to what he's been saying for about a year, is:
- to have countries (Jordan, Egypt, France and Germany volunteered) train soldiers outside Iraq to quickly get a large enough Iraqi forces so they can keep the peace.
- Use the tribal forces WITHIN their own areas to provide security to the rebuilding effort and for the people.
- Get the UN or neighboring countries to secure the borders (which is a safer job than peacekeeping in Iraq)

Logically, these steps do 2 things, each give some power or authority currently held by Americans to the Iraqis or to the International community and they decrease the US role in running Iraq. This is consistent with our troops withdrawing gradually as others move in.

[Senior citizen]

131. Basically, I agree with you, but I have a few quibbles...

1. You can't "keep the peace" unless you first HAVE a peace to keep. You can call a weapon a "peacekeeper" but it is still a weapon, and if peace can only be "kept" at gunpoint, war will continue because many will see those guns as foreign weapons pointed at them, whether they are held by us or by foreign-trained Iraqis.

2. Have you read anything about the Mukhtaran Mai case in Pakistan? Do you know what tribal forces are like? Are you sure we really should be backing them? (Hint: Tribal forces do not tend to be progressive or democratic.)

3. The U.N. is not an employee of ours. According to the DSM we USED the UN to justify our invasion, and I'd bet that they're still feeling used and abused. Even if we send them somebody less anti-UN than Bolton as an ambassador, I doubt if we can "get" them to just do anything we want by threatening to withhold money or other bullying.

Yes, if we try to withdraw our troops, the Iraqis are likely to view that as a win for them and to try to kill as many as possible. But they're trying to kill as many as possible now. I guarantee you that all the countries that have refused to put troops on the ground in Iraq, or have since withdrawn their troops, would be happy to send troops to help in a withdrawal, so long as they weren't required to stay there indefinitely. A withdrawal would require a strict timetable. Failure to plan for a withdrawal is likely to result in a "helicopters leaving the roof of the embassy in Viet Nam" scenario. It is more dignified to retreat in an orderly way than in a panic. My guess is that if we went to the Iraqi Congress and said that we were going to comply with their three (3) formal requests for us to withdraw, they would negotiate a ceasefire to help us get out.

Will the terrorists bring their terror here if we leave Iraq? Sure. They already brought it here. That's what 9/11 was. But the Iraqis didn't do it. Sadaam Hussein didn't do it. So invading Iraq and capturing Sadaam Hussein haven't made us any safer. Bringing our troops home might, as we'd stop turning peaceful citizens of foreign countries into sworn enemies by torturing and killing their friends and families for no reason at all. They weren't behind 9/11 and they've never met Dick Cheney, so they can't provide us with any information on if and how he issued a stand-down order to our air defenses on 9/11. But I don't think they want someone whose bank account is getting millions from Halliburton every year, to have their oil. THAT'S why BFEE is having them tortured.

I'll bet that if we withdrew the Bolton nomination and offered somebody as ambassador to the UN who has a proven record of recognizing and supporting the UN, and of using nonviolent conflict resolution to resolve differences, they'd be so grateful that they'd be happy to help us withdraw from Iraq. But the DSM shows that we callously used the UN in a scheme to justify an illegal war, and I don't think they're going to let us misuse them again.

[kerrygoddess]

132. In a nutshell

You obviously did not read or watch John Kerry's speech on Tuesday - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1174

Furthermore, you obviously have not paid attention to anything he has said about Iraq in the past few months. Kerry and other Dems have repeatedly called for setting up a plan for withdrawl and working to exit with the help of other countries and the UN.

European leaders have expressed their willingness to help. The UN has too. Kerry has met with these leaders. Bush brushes them off when he meets with them, yet they have all told Kerry they are willing to step up to the plate.

Without the DSM as evidence, everyone knows that the UN was used by the Bushies. Biden, Kerry and others on the Foreign Relations Committee have sought to block Bolton's nomination for many, many reasons, some perhaps more serious than the American public is aware of.

Again I reiterate that you have not been paying attention. Clearly you used John Kerry's email as a forum to attack John Kerry and twist the wording of his email to create a flame war here.

[blm]

134. And your reaction is to fight the one guy taking action against Bolton AND

pushing a DSM investigation through the senate?

Kerry met with world leaders in January on a two week tour to set up a better opposition to Bush. He knows what they will and won't do and how Bush has rejected their ideas on Iraq for the last two years.

When Kerry presented his plan he was doing so knowing full well what other countries are willing to offer so the US can even HAVE an exit strategy.

Your goal is to tear down the guy working towards the safest and most doable exit strategy for all concerned?

[Senior citizen]

135. Okay, I must have misread the letter.

If he said that he'd never met an American who didn't want an exit strategy from Iraq, I'd have agreed. I never have either.

The words I quoted were that he'd never met an American who doesn't want to see America succeed in Iraq. I'll repeat that in quotes again, "succeed in Iraq." He also mentioned "getting it right in Iraq" several times in the letter. Not getting out of Iraq, but succeeding *IN* Iraq. Not getting out of Iraq, but getting it right *IN* Iraq. Maybe he didn't mean it, but that's what the man said.

There is no safe exit strategy from Iraq. Sorry. You can't just go in, overthrow a regime, kill a lot of people, and then expect to leave quietly, calmly, safely, and in a dignified way. Particularly if you didn't happen to think to provide a getaway car before you did the crime. The only doable exit strategy from Iraq is to leave Iraq.

If I enter somebody's home uninvited and wreck it, I'm lucky if they don't shoot me. But if they ask me to leave, I don't expect them to be satisfied if I say that I'm working on finding a safe and dignified way to leave, and that I'm going to continue to wreck their home while I think about it.

[blm]

136. But it already happened. There is no choice but to do what CAN be done.

You also can't claim that because it SHOULDN'T have happened that fixing what did happen as best you can is wrong.

I didn't run over that guy with my car, but, you can be damn sure I'll stop and try to help him and get the license plate of the driver that hit him.

[Senior citizen]

138. Um, are you saying that we didn't invade Iraq?

That somebody else did, and we're just trying to help?

We are the ones who invaded Iraq, and it differs quite a bit from hitting somebody with your car. If you accidentally hit someone with your car, you should definitely stay and try to help. But the invasion of Iraq was not an accident. It was planned for, and the plans went into effect, including bombing Iraq to soften it up, long before the administration admitted any desire to invade Iraq.

In this case, they've already got our license plate. They know who we are. And we've already been there for a long, long time trying to "help." All we are doing is making the situation worse. It is as if someone who deliberately hit someone with their car, got back in their car and ran over a lot of innocent bystanders to try to make the situation better. Or possibly to eliminate witnesses.

By the way, there are about 140 posts in this thread. I posted about 18 times. At least 15 people agreed with me--some of them posted more than once, but I only counted them once. Three of the people who disagree with me have been responsible for at least 57 posts to this thread. Make of that what you will.

[blm]

140. BUSH DID IT. You want to harass the only Dems willing to help FIX IT

as best they can with the other countries who have already been consulted.

It's sheer fantasy to pretend that is wrong to try to fix something that ALREADY HAPPENED. It's not going to go away because it SHOULDN'T have happened.

I don't give a hoot how many fell for your convoluted spin....you know exactly what you're saying and your venom is targeted for the one person working with other countries to figure out best way to END this mess from Bush.

Is it just coincidence that your venom against Kerry gets ramped up exactly at the same time that his DSM letter of inquiry is sitting with the senate Intel Committee? And that he offers a REAL solution to the Iraq mess Bush made? And when he's fighting Bolton?

[LittleClarkie]

143. Are you being purposely obtuse?

Of course, that's not what he's saying. What's with the sarcasm overdrive?

And why the Sam Hill are you on John Kerry's email list if you don't particularly favor the guy?

Your bitterness is obscuring your concern for the war. Sarcasm isn't going to get them home any sooner.

[karynnj]

139. They might want you to repair the house though

but even then thay will not like you. Kerry is not talking about "continuing to wreck the house", but rather to put the door back on and fix the plumbing that Bush broke and then leave. It would of course have been easier if he won, both because he could articulate the change better.

Calls for an immediate unilateral pullout will go nowhere. If the majority of people really want use to stabalize Iraq and leave, Kerry's plan may be excepted by some of the moderates or even old style conservatives. One of the main things I see Kerry doing here is clearly pointing out that BUSH IS NOT TRYING TO GET OUT because nothing he's doing leads to us getting out. If he can push Bush to expedite getting out, even if he gets no credit, I think he will have done some good.

[LittleClarkie]

144. Yep

"Sorry about the mess. See ya" (zip!)

[kerrygoddess]

122. "...get electricity, water, and better roads..."

Unfortunately this falls under the Pottery Barn Rule:

"...get electricity, water, and better roads..."

Before we invaded, Iraq had electricity, water, and better roads. Was our mission to destroy them so that we could then say that our mission was to restore them?

You know, you break it, you own it. We broke it, now we need to fix it.

What about the children there? perhaps they should continue to suffer thanks to Bush and we should leave them all in the dark with no water.

That's compassionate.

[Q]

145. Wow...that's exactly what Powell said...

...talk about using the other side's talking points.

We should PAY FOR IT...but someone else needs to fix it. Hey...how about the Iraqi people?

Compassionate is getting our troops out of Iraq. They are NOT trained for peacekeeping or rebuilding. They are trained to kill. The children are dying because Bush's military is dropping bombs on their homes. They're dying because war profiteering is taking the money that is supposed to be going to THEM.

And it's clear that Halliburton and the rest of the contractors that are supposed to be rebuilding Iraq are simply stuffing the taxpayer bucks in their Cayman Island accounts.

Kerry is playing Bush's game using his rules. That's a sad thing to acknowledge.

[LittleClarkie]

147. Somehow, the way the Bush admin treats him

and the way he's working against Bolton behind the scenes, I don't entirely think of Powell as the other side, and of what he says as their talking points. He ain't perfect but he's a damn sight better than the rest of the Bush crew. I just wish he wasn't such a damn loyalist.

[kerrygoddess]

168. So uninformed and fast to make judgements

Kerry has never played by their rules and that's why they hate him.

[Q]

137. Excellent read...thanks for posting it...

Kerry...like so many of his fans...can't admit that he is as much of a BShitter as Bush when it comes to accepting responsibility for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers that DIDN'T HAVE TO DIE FOR A LIE.

I'm so sick and tired of seeing Democrats HELP Bush fight his ugly, insane war...all the while refusing to accept the reality that we have NO RIGHT TO BE IN IRAQ.

If Kerry's rhetoric was based in reality...he would call for UN PeaceKeepers to replace American troops and set up a reparations program and put Iraqis to work rebuilding THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

Kerry is simply giving us the DLC two-step in the hopes that he won't have to actually do something about Bush's treason against our country.

On edit: What is it with the Kerry supporters? This thread is well-thought out and written. It's really too bad that you can't tolerate another point of view about Kerry. Instead of whining and trying to make this thread into flamebait and have it closed down...why not simply give your point of view and be done with it?

The thread author has every right to post his opinions of Kerry as long as he stays within the rules. He has just as much right to post as the Kerry fans that start dozens of threads every day attempting to promote him.

[Senior citizen]

141. Thanks, Q! Now that's a plan I can support.

"Call for UN PeaceKeepers to replace American troops and set up a reparations program and put Iraqis to work rebuilding their own country."

You are definitely a member of the reality-based community.

Now that we have a plan, can we vote on it? :evilgrin:

[Q]

142. No reality-based plans allowed...

...we must fall in line, march in lockstep and vote the party line.

What we're seeing is a replay of the Vietnam era. We couldn't 'cut and run' in that 'police action' either...and it cost the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. What did we 'win' in Vietnam? The same thing we're going to win in Iraq.

[Senior citizen]

146. Well, now we can vote on it. I just posted your strategy as a poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1898489&mesg_id=1898489

But I'm sure I'll get flamed because I asked that people who vote against it explain the reasons for their vote.

[MoonRiver]

148. OMG! You're a heretic for asking people to think beyond the spin!

Great poll btw. :thumbsup:

[Q]

149. I agree with you when you say...

...that's there's nothing to 'win' in Iraq. I'm saddened that ANY Democratic leader would say that we need to press on with a lost cause.

What does this say about how much they value the lives of innocent Iraqis or American soldiers ordered to fight in Iraq for a lie?

Kerry and other leaders MUST KNOW that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is not only illegal...but immoral because it's based on deception? Perhaps he and the other promoters of this insane war believe that we're stupid and can't comprehend what's really going on?

Kerry should be calling for Bush's impeachment...not more of the same in Iraq.

[Senior citizen]

150. I think Kerry is calling for futher investigation of the DSM.

That would be a good step towards impeachment.

And I admit that he has done and is doing a lot of good things. I'd even support his nomination as UN ambassador, Secretary of Defense, or head of any intelligence agency.

In fact the only things I disagree with are his lack of concern about election fraud, and his insistance that we can't leave Iraq.

That may enrage people who think he is perfect, but I used to have a guru myself. My guru once told me that nobody on this earth is perfect, and if they were, they would disappear in a flash of lightning. So that's what I believe, and Kerry's still here.

In the case of this particular letter, chances are that he didn't write it himself, but I suspect that he had to approve it. And when lives are at stake, I think the words that might condemn or save those lives should be very carefully considered. I wasn't able to find anything in his letter that would save American or Iraqi lives, so it disturbed me. In fact, I interpreted it as meaning that a lot more American and Iraqi lives would be lost if he was in charge, and that's not what I want, so I responded as best I could.

[Q]

152. Hmmm. Wasn't Kerry going to do something about election fraud?

Something? Anything?

This isn't an isolated incident. We've been waiting FOUR YEARS for the Democratic leadership to fight the Bush junta and do more than pass around petitions and write letters to those involved in the coverup.

The Democratic leadership hasn't really done much to oppose or make accountable the most corrupt government our nation has ever seen. Those (like Kerry) who should be complaining the loudest are playing it safe and below the radar as to not rock the status quo boat.

We're not looking for 'perfection'. We're looking for someone to fight and not back down.

Too many Democratic politicians are playing politics as usual. They know Bush needs to face impeachment. They know he must be investigated and go on trial for his many crimes against the US and humanity.

Time for Democratic leaders to be less self-serving and be PUBLIC SERVANTS.

[LittleClarkie]

156. Go look at his front page

if it's still there, it was devoted to election issues.

http://www.johnkerry.com/features/votingrights/

And my favorite bit, the link to a form for setting up action teams, with the accompanying text, in part:

"And, as the greatest, wealthiest nation on earth, our citizens should never be forced to vote on old, unaccountable and non transparent voting machines from companies controlled by partisan activists."

http://www.johnkerry.com/features/count/actionteam.php

In addition, there is the pending bill on election reform. There is the lawsuit that still is pending in Ohio (lawyer's name is Don McTigue) that K/E initiated to try and get at the evidence. Nobody seems to be too hot to assign it a court date, but then I imagine the process is being run by Republicans.

You asked for something, anything. Is that something, anything enough?

[Dr Fate]

162. ...

...

[LittleClarkie]

165. Three very nice points ya got there

I'm intrigued.

[kerrygoddess]

171. Here's my point

[TayTay]

151. Same way you can ask somebody

to be the First Iraqi to die because they don't have anyone there to protect them.

The Vietnam War was a fuck-up in the beginning, the middle and at the end. Millions of people died because we didn't have a good 'exit strategy.' Did the mothers and fathers who screamed because their children were killed by Pol Pot matter less than the ones who were killed by the Americans?

We have to have an 'exit strategy' that actually tries to do some good. We are in Iraq, we now have to use our brains to get out in a way that reduces the death toll. To just say 'get out now' is a brain-dead, immoral and irresponsible reaction to our respnsibilities in that country.

I voted for the 'Get Out of Iraq' resolution at the MA Dem convention in May. I belive in it. I also believe that we can't just drop everything and go. It's wrong. It's not wrong because of what Bush and his cronies did to get us in there, it's wrong because of the suffering, death and destruction that will follow.

Kerry is proposing steps that will lead to that. I believe in what he is saying. Like it or not, we broke the friggin place, we have a moral responsibility to try and get a solution. What Bush is doing is not working and making things worse. Kerry is trying to make it better. And he is fulfilling my requirement that it be a moral solution. That's what I support and that's why I continue to give Kerry money in his PAC. He's earned it with these kinds of thoughtful solutions.

[Senior citizen]

153. Protect them from whom?

Sadaam? I don't think he's a threat any more.

The Iraq war was a fuck-up in the beginning, the middle, and if we don't withdraw immediately, it will be in the end, no matter what "exit strategy" we come up with. Because while we're thinking about it, we're killing more Iraqis, spawning more hatred and dissention, provoking more terrorism, and destroying more cities and homes.

It is at least 100,000 too late to worry about the first Iraqi dying. They didn't attack us. The question is now who will be the last American to die while we're preparing an exit strategy instead of withdrawing.

We had no reason to go into Iraq. We have no reason to be there now (unless you count repairing the damage we've done, which we can't do because we're too busy causing more damage), and we have no rational reason not to get out. We were the aggressor in an unjustified war. There is only one thing we can do to regain even a modicum of dignity and respect: admit we were wrong, apologize, and get the hell out.

We started the war in Iraq by invading. We are continuing the war in Iraq as an unwanted occupying force. We are the ones who have been killing Iraqis, not the Taliban, not Al Queda, and not Sadaam Hussein. Sadaam did kill Iraqi Kurds, but it was with our weapons and our approval. While he was in power, the Taliban and Al Queda weren't even in Iraq and had no reason to be there. And we cannot protect the Iraqis from us by staying there. We are the problem and so long as we are the problem we cannot be part of the solution.

I'm sorry if we were lied to. I'm sorry if we were duped. It doesn't matter now. What matters is that for whatever reason, we did a very bad thing: an international war crime--a crime against humanity. And we must stop. What are we, some kind of BTK who can't stop until caught and forced to stop? Are we supposed to discuss all our torture and killing in clinical terms without emotion, as if it is just another day at the office? You don't plan a lengthy exit strategy from a war crime. You stop it. And you see that the culprits are brought to justice, not tortured. Not even BFEE. I am deeply saddened to see that so many of us have completely lost our moorings, but heartened by those who know a war crime when they see one and want it to stop before a single other life is lost for no goddamn reason.

[TayTay]

157. From death, torture and despair.

We broke the friggin country. We invaded. We have a moral responsibility to protect these people.

A moral responsibility. We don't just waltz in, break the place apart and then leave and throw up our hands and abandon human beings to death. It wrong.

What we need is a better way to get out that tries to protect the innocent. Americans used to believe in protecting the innocent. We can't just abandon our responsibility and pretend we don't have any just because we hate *. This is morally wrong. (And is at least as wrong as * invading.)

[Senior citizen]

166. You said it.

"We broke the friggin country. We invaded."

But then you followed with a nonsequitur. We have no "moral" responsibility. We don't even have any morals. WE broke the friggin country. We invaded. We didn't go in "to protect these people" and we haven't protected them. We are killing them and we are incapable of protecting them from us unless we stop killing them and get out.

A moral responsibility doesn't just waltz in and break the place apart. They were in no danger of death before we invaded. We caused all the death. Our moral responsibility is to admit our moral irresponsibility in invading a country that had done us no harm, and to stop killing them.

welshTerrier2 explained clearly above that "we can't just cut and run" is a Rovian talking point. Please read the thread before posting, and please don't repeat right-wing talking points. They're wrong and they're boring.

----------

Completely apart from that, I finally caught my breath and went back and thanked some of the posters who contributed to this thread much more lucidly than I could. For those I missed, thank you. It really feels good to be in such expressive company. The problem may be that those accustomed to Rovian talking points can't hear anything until it has been repeated several thousand times, in which case we're never likely to get through to them.

[paulk]

169. oh come on

"we can't just cut and run" is not a Rovian talking point. That is so fucking cheap of you. You expect to have any kind of serious discussion when you throw out that kind of bullshit?

Accusing people of right wing talking points when they don't agree with you is the lowest. Absolute bottom feeder stuff.

[welshTerrier2]

172. the neo-con line ...

the neo-con line has always been, since the US invaded Iraq, that we can't just cut and run because Iraq would become a terrorist state that would threaten the US ...

the actual quote i commented on above was made by another poster in this thread when she argued the BP'er advocated "cutting and running and leaving the Iraqis devastated" or words to that effect ...

the BP'er did not say there shouldn't be humanitarian efforts after the US does the only sensible thing and lets the healing in Iraq begin by ending the occupation ... the only way Iraq is going to become a terrorist state is if the US remains there ...

can you not see what is happening in Iraq? do you believe bush's investors are going to let him just leave without getting their hooks planted first? do you think those fighting against the US will ever believe we're there because "we're the good guys"? there will be no PEACE; there will be no democracy; there will be no infrastructure rebuilding until the political will in this country (i.e. the American people) forces those who supposedly represent us to stand up and do the right thing ...

yeah, "cut and run" is a Rovian talking point ... but you make a good point too: it's not only a Rovian talking point; it's one shared by far too many Democrats as well ...

[Q]

167. What does 'hating Bush' have to do with anything?

You're presenting a false choice when you suggest that the only alternative is to 'throw up our hands and abandon human beings to death'. Leaving Iraq doesn't have to mean that and few if any are saying that we should leave Iraq in chaos without a plan.

But any reasonable plan has to include US forces leaving and allowing a 'third party' to work with the Iraqis to restore peace and order. Those who invaded Iraq and 'shocked and awed' the civilian population can never be transformed into a peacekeeping force. Their mission is over. It's now time for the military and war profiteers to leave.

There is no argument about Iraq needing to be 'fixed'. The argument is about whether those who destroyed it in the first place should be the ones to do it.

Our 'responsibility' is to leave and pay for damages. We should pay the Iraqi people directly and allow them to restore their own country and dignity. Right now the war profiteers are skimming so much off the top that little of it actually makes it to the people.

[kerrygoddess]

170. Switiching from the U.S. Military to Peacekeeping force...

won't happen over night. What you are missing is that Kerry has been pushing for others to get involved and to put this into motion. They can't just snap their fingers and make that happen though.

[Moderator]

173. Locking, this thread has outlived it's usefulness

the Rules state: Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.