Kerry proposed surge in military...

[k_jerome]

Now Bush wants to surge troops in Iraq. Aren't they the same?

[globalvillage]

1. No.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3024240

[rodeodance]

39. apples and oranges (OP)

[TayTay]

2. No they are not

There was no proposal from Kerry to 'surge' the numbers in the military. Kerry, and others, have proposed a long-term increase in the permanent number of forces that the US military has available to it for any and all purposes going forward. This is in response to the idea that there are too few troops currently to support what the US wants to do. This is not a 'surge' of any type, it is a permanent addition to the overall size the American military.

The President wants to escalate the number of troops involved in the theater of operations in Iraq. He has proposed adding anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 troops to an ongoing military operation that is actively involved in an occupation. This would involve finding, equipping, training and deploying that many people to an active theater of operations where said people could be used as peace-keepers, nation-builders, fighters, police substitutes and other functions that put them in harm's way on a daily basis. John Kerry, and many other Democrats, do not support this at all.

There is a difference. The 'surge' is an escalation of the war effort that places more lives in jeopardy by placing more Americans in a war zone. The addition of permanent troops is an effort to relieve stress on the military, particularly the US Army and the Marine Corp because they are understaffed and the members of those branches of the service are facing too many deployments and are subject to the involuntary draft of stop-loss.

These are separate things.

[dailykoff]

15. Thank you for explaining the difference clearly. (n/t)

[karynnj]

3. Wasn't one thread with this lie enough???

1) Kerry in 2004 and now, along with Democrats like Reed, was for an increase in the overall size of the military. The point was that the National guard is being misused and the regular military is being sent on back to back missions.

2) The word "surge" is being used to refer to sending more troops to Iraq. Kerry is one of the two Senators who authored Kerry/Feingold - calling for withdrawal by a deadline. Kerry has said that sending additional soldiers is "dead wrong" when asked about it as "McCain's plan.

[k_jerome]

4. whoops, this lie is only accepatable when it is used against Hillary. Sorry. nt.

[karynnj]

5. I seriously don;t understand - did someone lie about

Hillary's position? I didn't see it - but why does that mean 2 threads lying about John Kerry at a point where he is in the Middle east to learn as much as possible and to facilitate diplomacy if he can? He has worked as hard as anyone to push an alternative plan to get us out.

While the Clintons have done less, lying about her position is not something that is reasonable to do. So, am I correct that you have knowingly posted a lie? Don't you think Kerry, who has been working his heart out for the Democratic party and to get Iraq right deserves more respect from you? The RW have spent most of 3 full years smearing every part of his life, family, personality and career - do you need to target him too? You should be ashamed of yourself - consider the company you keep in doing this.

[rox63]

6. Who's lying about Hillary here?

No one that I can see.

[SaveElmer]

7. Uh...here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3024197&mesg_id=3024197

and here...more subtle...but the implication is clear

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3025290&mesg_id=3025290

[karynnj]

28. Neither of those people are associated with Kerry supporters

to my knowledge. I respect both of them, but Madfloridian is a Dean supporter primarilly and genuinely seems to have not picked a 2008 candidate. The article on Hillary gaining Bayh's Fiance person (Penn's wife) was one of the most significant 2008 articles posted.

From memory, Manny is very anti-war and I think supported Feingold (but I may be wrong) I've never seen him in the JK group.

So, why attack Kerry - dishonestly, because Hillary was.

[ray of light]

81. Actually both of those people post AGAINST Kerry!

[comradebillyboy]

9. too true

the lefties are just as inclined to slime hillary as the freepers and with a similar level dishonesty and vitriol.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Actually it's pretty fuckin' stupid either way

if Hillary only suggested it for the same reason Kerry did, which was to alleviate the pressure on the troops already there in stopgap mode.

[Mass]

32. So, two wrongs make a right? How old are you?\nt

[comradebillyboy]

8. kerry is just a twit

bush is a delusional mad man.

[TwilightZone]

11. Are you serious?

Let's see:

"Bush wants...surge...in Iraq"

"Kerry proposed surge in military"

Do they look the same to you?

[Cameron27]

88. Unfortunately, with Bush as Commander in Chief

I think that it will amount to the same thing.

Giving Bush more troops and assuming that he won't use the build up to escalate Iraq, is much like handing a knife to a psychopathic murderer and expecting him to use it to make french fries.

There isn't a person Bush will listen to, and I believe, not a law that he won't try to break to keep this war going. The IWR should serve as proof of his intentions. Lets get the troops out of Iraq before we try to build up the military.

[wisteria]

12. No, not the same thing at all. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

13. I am so sick of this bullshit.

Seriously. Whenever John Kerry is involved, there are herculean efforts to parse words, reframe statements, whatever it takes by some here, punctuated by calling people liars and the coup de grace delivered to stop conversation is invoking the accusation of bashing.

Here's the bottom line. Calling for a troop increase and calling for a surge in Iraq are, in fact, two different things. But when you throw Junior into the mix they become IN ESSENCE the same damn thing.

There most certainly can be an argument made for increasing the military for the purposes of relieving our worn-out troops that have been burdened with multiple deployments.

But does anyone seriously think knowing that Junior and the 'cons want a SURGE in Iraq that those extra troops will be used only for that purpose? Pahleeze. We are literally back to the pre-IWR vote when some pretended it was reasonable and then honorable *gag* to vote "yes," spinning its efficacy and mitigating its real damage.

Bush couldn't be trusted to follow the fine points of the IWR, what in god's name makes any of you think he can be trusted to NOT use the extra troops to fulfill what he has already stated he wants to do, what his neocon enablers are advising him to do? Double-down in Iraq.

Someone here at DU is trying to dump this into the lap of Third Way/DLC Democrats. What a bunch of crap. This is most assuredly a Dems-running-for-prez adventure, kids, potential contenders trying to out-propose each other. Kerry, HRC, and other Dems have called for a troop increase. That's a fact. But make no mistake, once you strip away the political posturing, you come down to the simple premise that more troops = more troops in Iraq = more lives lost.

So, bottom line is this. Although technically an increase in troops and a surge in Iraq are two different entities, in the final analysis and this time we have a template to predict what Junior will do, the are in essence the same damn thing.

Please continue to quibble and reframe and parse words to bolster this potential candidate over another. That's epic bullshit IMO. That's cheesy politics and something I would like to think comes second when it comes to matters of life and death. Ha, ha. As if.

[dailykoff]

14. They are pretty clearly NOT the same, but yes, this smear is familiar. (n/t)

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[dailykoff]

21. Meant to put reply here, sorry. (n/t)

[TayTay]

26. This argument is delusional

And reflects a vast ignorance of how the military works. The extra troops for an overall increase in the military will take years to achieve. That is what is in the actual proposal and how the military will implement any increase to the base number of troops in each service division.

These troops will not be available to go to Iraq at the snap of a finger. It takes years to integrate this number of people into an existing structure.

I understand that everything for you is an excuse to smear the Democrats you don't like. But your argument itself, on the merits, is baseless and dumb. What you propose is not achievable and every person who has commented on the issue has stated that.

Now, I understand that actual facts have no place in your usual arguments. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Perhaps if you actually read something about how troops are deployed, equipped, funded and planned for you might make a better argument. The drivel that you wrote above is not possible in this actual physical world that we live in. You don't just snap your fingers and produce troops in Iraq. The troops escalation in Iraq will come from existing troops. This means more deployments for people who may have already been in Iraq multiple times already. It means keeping soldiers and other service people there who are scheduled to rotate home. It is a massive hardship on real people and real families.

I know that you have an all consuming need to showcase your distain of other Dems and wallow in mockery. It's unconcsionable that you would do so on the backs of stressed out military families and not even bother to look up what is actually going on. That is a disgraceful argument. The facts are readily available at neutral sites and in many newspaper accounts. Instead you choose to make your conclusion first and then retrofit selected facts to support it. Excuse me, but isn't that how America wound up in this war to begin with, when people picked the facts they liked, trimmed out extraneous things like truth and then used that to support the war? How awful and morally bankrupt.

[ProSense]

27. True, plus

the cost:

Though he didn't give an exact number, he said it would take significant time, saying 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers could be added per year. Schoomaker has said it costs roughly $1.2 billion to increase the Army by 10,000 soldiers.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[TayTay]

33. Again, you refuse to acknowledge your own argument

And want to hide behind your moral righteousness on the war. Not one word of concern for families straining under the burden of multiple deployments, not one word on how nice it might be if someone didn't have to serve a 4th tour of duty in Iraq because there would be others to share out that burden.

Shameless. Morally bankrupt and shameless. Any excuse to divert attention from a real issue to a smear. How utterly sad and shameful.

Some issues, believe it or not, have to do with people. The people currently deployed are being asked to contribute far above any sense of fairness or balance. Doesn't that even mean anything to you? Don't you feel anything for someone who is beig stop-lossed, or sent back to Iraq for the 3rd or 4th time? Don't you think, that at some point, that person should get relief. Not because it helps a certain politician but because it is inherently unfair to ask people to take on that burden?

Isn't anything above politics to you?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[TayTay]

48. Yeah, I bet real arguments in which you have to defend

the indefensible do make you vomit. The immorality of your position is apparent. The lack of facts on your part and the desire to make every argument political is apparent.

I believe it. Given that there is no substance to your arguments, I am not surprised that all that is left is your vomit here.

[AtomicKitten]

50. that's it?

I'd say you've run completely out of gas. That happens when nobody is buying the BS you are selling.

Have a nice day.

[TayTay]

60. Funny, there was another thread that asked for real information

from actual people who have served in the military and who know how a deployment works and want it takes to increase the overall size of the military.

No one is arguing your point of view. Not a one.

You have no facts, no argument and nothing but bile. How pathetic. You excuse this, of course, with paranoid rants about people being out to get you. Perhaps you might want to talk to your doctor about your medications, they may be losing their efficiency and affect.

For now, there are a lot of us who have better things to do than argue with the terminally bitter and the willfully uninformed. I believe that's why the ignore option was put into DU.

Since you never say anything worth listening too, I will consign you to the ignore file. You are a waste of time. I wonder what the candidates you will wind up working for would say about such an antagonistic, hostile and fact-free person advocating for them? Hmmmm, I would not put you to work on an actual campaign, the tone would become too nasty and too vitriolic and it would cost votes.

Goodbye!

[AtomicKitten]

64. a classic case of projection

The rest of DU will get a kick out of this. I can't tell you how many times people have said the very same thing about you and yours!

I wonder what the candidates you will wind up working for would say about such an antagonistic, hostile and fact-free person advocating for them? Hmmmm, I would not put you to work on an actual campaign, the tone would become too nasty and too vitriolic and it would cost votes.

Now remember, you've put me on ignore. No peaking!

[Cameron27]

91. To assume that Bush will use a build up of

the military to relieve troops in Iraq is as delusional as Bush is himself, and there might be a hint of moral bankruptcy involved in calling those who are trying to point that out as shameless.

edited: spelling

[dailykoff]

20. I do and it is. Kerry MAKES the law. If Bush BREAKS it,

that is a separate issue. There are remedies which obviously should have been pursued long ago but were not.

This isn't Kerry's fault and it shouldn't be his concern in making legislation.

[AtomicKitten]

22. you don't know what you are talking about

seriously -- you clearly don't understand the conversation so I won't waste my time

[dailykoff]

23. Thanks for your gracious concession. (n/t)

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

37. The one making herculean efforts is YOU

Looking back over this thread and the 3 other threads deling with either Hillary's or Kerry's position on this, anyone can go back and see the poster with the most posts on this is ATOMICKITTEN.

It is you who see everything in a political light and a chance to attack Senator Kerry. How many posts do you make on an average day attacking the Senator - when you are not attacking us.

[AtomicKitten]

38. right

If you think for one minute DU doesn't have their eyes open and know PRECISELY how the Kerry Klan operates, than you truly have lost all touch with reality. This is the same conversation that is played out over and over and over again because YOU and YOURS have a one-track mind. Politics is politics and all players are open for discussion. I have repeatedly framed this as HRC, Kerry and others wanting to increase troop levels. It is YOU and YOURS that ALWAYS brings the focus to one person. That is YOUR problem, YOUR direction. If you don't like it, then stop effin doing it and confine your nonstop one-track train of thought to the JK Fanclub. Otherwise quit complaining about something you are creating.

[karynnj]

40. So, now we are the Kerry Klan?

Now if you said Kerry clan, I would say that I (and I assume the rest of the JK group) are not so fortunate as to be part of Kerry's large extended talented family. The use of Klan exposes you.

As, I said, anyone can see that one of the people who created this issue by conflating Iraq and the military itself is YOU. It is simply fact that you have posted more.

[AtomicKitten]

42. I don't travel in a herd.

You operate in a tag-team, I do not. Do the math.

So right about now you will call me a liar and tell me I have reading comprehension problems and scream "smear" or "bashing," all the while projecting that very behavior on everyone that doesn't conform to your groupthink. We know the drill. It is predictable because of its repetitiveness here. Yawn.

[ProSense]

63. Are you sure?

You're among the herd of Kerry detractors here, here and here!

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

69. Free to be me! n/t

[Cameron27]

93. Are you being paid by Kerry's staff?

It does make a difference in the debate IMHO, and isn't something to lightly shrug off.

[Imagevision]

16. Hillary wanted to send 100,000 more troops last year!!

[SaveElmer]

17. No...

She along with a number of other Democrats wanted to increase the size of the military to take the strain off of soldiers in Iraq having to do 3 and 4 tours of duty...big difference...as has been pointed out several times

[LittleClarkie]

19. One had a plan, and a reason. The other, does not.

Do you really think that Bush cares that he's overworking the troops? That the increase would be temporary, and just to alleviate the pressure and the fatigue these soldiers are under? That there is an overall plan?

But I guess you know the answer already. You're making a point about Kerry and Hillary and Bush, and referring to another thread. But I would dispute your claim that "how come it's okay with Kerry, but not with Hillary?" refrain. Generally, it's not cool when either one is taken out of context.

But answer me this, if you would. Are Hillary's and Kerry's positions on Iraq close, or is Hillary the more hawkish of the two? It seems to me she's been represented as supporting the war. Is that not a fair assessment? Educate me if you would. Seriously and sincerely. Thanks.

[dailykoff]

24. Please link to Kerry's call for a "surge," thanks. (n/t)

[TayTay]

29. They can't link to it, cuz it doesn't exist

Not that that matters to a lot of people. If it doesn't exist, then they will simply make it up, like Rove and Republicans do. What does truth matter anyway, it only gets in the way of a good smear.

Oh and the actual families and people who are really affected because there aren't enough people to carry out the duties now expected of the US military? Well, they don't care about these people. Theire existence and problems only cloud up a good effort at a smear.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

41. That article doesn't say anything about a surge!

WASHINGTON - Senator John F. Kerry yesterday called for the United States to add 40,000 troops to its ground forces and improve benefits to military families, the latest in a series of signature issues from his presidential campaign that he has pledged to push in Congress.

The writers use of the words "ground forces" is used to conflate increasing the size of the military with Bush's call for adding more troops to Iraq.

In fact, the article states that this was "signature issues from his presidential campaign," which was http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3024240&mesg_id=3024240">increase the military, not the troops in Iraq.

[AtomicKitten]

43. self-serving semantics -- you're fave argument

I have already stated elsewhere that calling for more troops is not the same thing as calling for a surge in Iraq, however, in my opinion, they are IN EFFECT the same because of the most-assured, already demonstrated end result. You are perfectly welcome to disagree which no doubt will come in the form of your particular brand of nastiness.

Please feel free to continue to argue the semantics of a word while I continue to not be moved by your tag-team's nonstop efforts to manipulate and chastise and browbeat all who do not conform to your groupthink. Yawn.

[ProSense]

51. Your opinion is not what matters

in this instance:

8/18/2004 11:53:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Mark Kitchens of Kerry-Edwards 2004, 202-464-2800

CINCINNATI, Aug. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following fact sheet was released today by Kerry-Edwards 2004:

Today, our military is overextended and our troops are overburdened. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions. To accomplish this, they will (1) expand our active duty forces, (2) double America's Special Forces capability and increase other specialized personnel, (3) complete the process of transformation, (4) add homeland security as an additional National Guard mission, and (5) enact a Military Family Bill of Rights to relieve the burden on military families. And John Kerry will ensure that returning veterans receive the transitional support and employment protection that they deserve.

Expand America's Active Duty Forces As president, John Kerry will ensure that our military has sufficient troop strength to protect our national security without placing an undue burden on the men and women of our armed forces. He will:

-- Add 40,000 Troops to the Active Duty Army to Prevent and Prepare for Other Possible Conflicts (not to increase the overall number of soldiers in Iraq). Currently, the Bush administration is relying on temporary solutions including "Stop Loss" orders, recalling the Individual Ready Reserve and extending tours to meet our commitments. These temporary measures have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the underlying reality: we need more troops.

Your opinion doesn't negate his statement. Your saying something doesn't mean that's what he would have done. Kerry said not in Iraq. This was his campaign. As president he said he would have increased the size of the military, and would have withdrawn the troops from Iraq.

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

KERRY: And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

[k_jerome]

52. Kerry is known for standing for both sides of an issue. nt.

[karynnj]

55. Actually that is not true when you look at his record

That is a standard Republican smear that has been used against many Democrats. Bill Clinton brilliantly turned this into what was a plus for him introducing the word "triangulation" to many people. (Previously, I knew the word only as a technique to establish the location of an object in a 3 dimensional space.) When you actually look at Kerry's 20 plus year record, he has been very consistent.

[k_jerome]

56. its not just repubs, many Democrats are frustrated with him. nt.

[ProSense]

59. Many Democrats are frustrated with Clinton and other Democrats!

Do a search!

[k_jerome]

66. never said they weren't. i am not the one that is delusional here. nt.

[karynnj]

67. Not delusional, but willing to start a thread based on a lie

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3025502&mesg_id=3025550

[AtomicKitten]

71. Both Kerry and HRC want to increase troop levels - that is a fact

I realize you have a limited repertoire to draw from your bag of repartee - "smear," "lie," "bashing" - but make an effort here. 'Kay?

[ProSense]

75. Again the herd!

The OP asked about the difference between Kerry's campaign call for a larger military and Bush's call for more troops in Iraq.

Difference.

[AtomicKitten]

77. try to follow along here

The post I was responding to is disputing the Kerry wants to increase troop size. Both he and HRC (and other Democrats as well), in fact, do.

[ProSense]

78. Did you miss the

the title of the post you responded to:

Not delusional, but willing to start a thread based on a lie

Reading is fundamental!

While you're at it: Read the OP again!

[AtomicKitten]

80. yes, reading comprehension is essential

There is no lie involved here; that is just the same old red herring your team throws out there to muddle the discussion.

Reading comprehension IS essential ... try it sometime instead of your "I know you are but what am I" nonsense

[karynnj]

62. It is true that a faction of the Democratic party

has itself persistantly attacked Senator Kerry since the election. They wanted to insure that he had no role after the election - even though as the man who was convincingly chosen as the nominee, he had the right to be considered one of the party's leaders. Within days of a close defeat, he was stabbed in the back by people like Bill Clinton, who made a point of saying Kerry rejected his advice to endorse all the gay bashing bills - which would have shown what you wanted to show - that Kerry had no firm positions.

[AtomicKitten]

74. That was Kerry's idea -- not Clinton's.

I'm afraid dissing the gay community was Kerry's idea, not Clinton's, but this purposeful disinformation is posted here at DU over and over again.

Democrats' platform shouldn't back gay marriage, Kerry says

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | May 6, 2005

BATON ROUGE, La. -- US Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it's a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.

Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.

''I'm opposed to it being in a platform. I think it's a mistake," Kerry said shortly after hosting a forum on his universal children's healthcare bill in Baton Rouge. ''I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

Some analysts believe that the same-sex marriage issue contributed to Kerry's loss to President Bush in last year's presidential campaign. Kerry's position puts him at odds with the state Democratic Party chairman and his fellow Bay State senator, Edward M. Kennedy, who is scheduled to address the party convention next weekend.

Kerry said he does not plan to attend this year's state Democratic convention or to lobby against the same-sex marriage plank. He said he has not been closely monitoring debate over the state party platform.

The state party chairman, Philip W. Johnston, said Kerry's opposition will not affect the party's decision to support of same-sex marriage. When the party meets next Saturday in Lowell, he said, the platform is on track to be approved as it stands.

''I have great affection and respect for John, but I disagree on this issue," Johnston said. ''It is important that the state Democratic Party support civil rights. We need to take a stand."

more at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/06/democrats_platform_shouldnt_back_gay_marriage_kerry_says/

[karynnj]

82. Not true

What I said was true.

The Boston Globe article was from 2005 and was in response to Kerry keeping the position that he always had - that he favors civil unions with all the rights as marriage, not gay marriage. (Note: NJ just enacted law that is Kerry's position).

The amendments in 2004 were to take rights that gays had worked out to obtain some of the rights of marriage - Clinton thought it would be good strategy for Kerry to support them. It was in Newsweek. Here's one link I can find:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document

Also, when Bill Clinton was lower in the polls he pushed DOMA, which Kerry voted against and called out for what it was on the floor of the Senate

[AtomicKitten]

84. I believe investigative journalism over a fangirl any day of the week.

um, nice link

[karynnj]

90. But the investigative journalism

does NOT say that Kerry backed the anti-gay amendments in 2004. He didn't. This is about a 2005 MA amendment that Kerry neither supported or fought against.

Kerry has an excellent record on gay rights since he entered the Senate. He doesn't believe in gay marriage because marriage is both a sacrament AND a legal status. What he supports in civil unions with all the rights of marriage. NJ now has this - and I assume that many people taking advantage of it will send out WEDDING invitations and will say they are "married" - and that is not illegal. The fact is that in liberal NJ, this was supported by far more than half the population - where using the word "marriage" took it well below 50%.

As to the link - I couldn't quickly find the Newsweek link and didn't think it was worth the effort.

[MH1]

92. Incorrect. Clinton told Kerry to dis gays in the 2004 election.

In the article you link to, Kerry is answering a reporter's question about how he feels about gay marriage. Being opposed to having support for gay marriage in the state platform is consistent with his historical positions.

It is consistent with his statements when he voted against DOMA, since DOMA did not allow civil unions. Kerry has consistently supported civil unions while opposing gay marriage. That is not an uncommon stance among politicians, but Kerry has been very straightforward about it.

But in 2004, Clinton suggested Kerry come out in favor of gay marriage ballot measures in various states. Some or all of these ballot measures would have barred civil unions as well as gay marriage. Thus, Kerry could not support those ballot measures, even if by failing to follow Clinton's advice, he lost votes.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

58. But it doesn't have anything to do with what he said he would do! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

68. my opinion is based on

historical precedent in this scenario, yours apparently on blind faith. Considering Kerry voted "yes" on the IWR because he expected BushCo to follow the fine points of the resolution - HA, HA, HA - his judgment is suspect in my opinion.

[ProSense]

70. Are you saying he didn't say what he said? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

72. I'm saying he has been wrong before

and I am not inclined to put my faith in him again. I've seen the end result of his bad judgment, his and 27 other Senators. That's what I'm saying.

[ProSense]

76. That's still doesn't change what he said!

And continues to say:

That is the key, not troops. More troops will not resolve the problem of Iraq. And you won't end the violence. What'll happen is you'll create a larger, more prominent target in the absence of the kind of political solution that's needed.

[AtomicKitten]

79. So, you are arguing what is in fact a flip-flop?

He has proposed and supports a troop increase, links already posted numerous times here so I'm not going to waste my time. He and HRC and other Dems have supported a troop increase.

Now you are arguing what is clearly a flip-flop on his behalf? Wow, it's pretty amazing that that doesn't seem to phase you considering he has also said quite the opposite.

This is precisely what k_jerome was talking about when he commented upthread that Kerry is known to stand on both sides of issues.

If you can argue this with a straight face, you are on your own. Wow.

[ProSense]

83. Wow!

2004:

Add 40,000 Troops to the Active Duty Army to Prevent and Prepare for Other Possible Conflicts (not to increase the overall number of soldiers in Iraq).

2006:

That is the key, not troops. More troops will not resolve the problem of Iraq. And you won't end the violence. What'll happen is you'll create a larger, more prominent target in the absence of the kind of political solution that's needed.

Straight face here! Reading skills are useful!

[AtomicKitten]

85. back to the self-serving semantics again ......

Jeez, with a straight face no less!

[ProSense]

86. Wow! Very colorful representation of your true colors! Wrong on every level, but telling! n/t

[ProSense]

87. It's nice to see where you take the debate, when out of a sound argument! n/t

[karynnj]

89. The problem is that you equate (more troops) to (more troops in Iraq)

I realize this is your view.

But, there are others, including Kerry, Hillary, Reed and others.

You are taking ALL Kerry's comments and applying YOUR equivilence - which he and the military itself doesn't agree with - and finding contradictions.

You have made your point. You disagree with increasing the overall military because you see it as giving Bush more ability to fight. You could have started a thread arguing that that would have led to a dialogue on this as a serious issue which it is. Tay and others have posted the other side - our military is being destroyed by multiple deployments.

[mtnsnake]

34. Google Kerry Calls For 40,000 More Troops & you'll get a quarter million links

[karynnj]

61. So, an increase to the overall level of the military was his position

in 2004, 2005 and 2006 - and I presume in 2007. His proposal was actually more detailed and called for more special forces - and was consistent with his few that the war on terror, while usually law inforcement and intelligence would occasionly be military. He went on to explain the special skills that would be needed.

You can also goggle Kerry and withdrawal and get a huge number of hits. He has consistantly said that adding more troops was "dead wrong". He's now over in the Middle east. Blasting Bush's positions from there would be pretty inappropriate. He has over the last 2 years been the stongest voice out there.

[Mass]

31. Thanks for the flamebait.

Are Hillary's supporters that desperate that they need to attack Kerry? Do you feel better now?

How is lying on Kerry going to help her? Please explain. You do not even convince people who hate Kerry, so what good does it do you?

[k_jerome]

44. in Kerry's case, it is the reality. nt.

[Mass]

45. What? That in 2004, he wanted to increase the size of the military?

Yes it is.

How does that relate to the surge in Iraq is my point? He said clearly he opposed escalation in Iraq. How is he like Bush?

This thread is as flamebait as the one you or SaveElmer referred to earlier. I alerted the mods on the first one and I alerted the mods on yours. What bothers me is that you do that as a defense of Hillary?

[k_jerome]

46. they both wish to increase the size of the military. duh. nt

[Mass]

47. Continue your flamebait thread. It does not help Hillary a bit.

I am more and more leaning Obama anyway in the dual between Obama and Hillary. You just pushed me a little bit more in this direction. Thanks for helping.

[k_jerome]

49. your welcome. have a nice day. nt.

[ProSense]

57. Glaring differences, including:

She has pushed hard for higher pay and better equipment for troops and visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan twice. Her staff peppers the Pentagon with requests for information about troop salaries and healthcare. She bucked most of her Democratic colleagues last year and backed new spending for a ''missile shield," the latest version of former President Reagan's strategic defense initiative.

''She is building a record that looks to many as if she is a Republican and not a Democrat on the issues of war and peace," said Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington.

Kerry's position

[karynnj]

53. You admitted in this very thread that you wrote this

beacuse of a similar thread that smeared Hillary. At this point, what is true is:

both Hillary and Kerry (and most Democrats) favor expanding the Military - and this is a consistent long term position.

Kerry said that McCain's idea to add troops is "dead wrong". Bush has now pushed the same idea. Kerry is in the middle east. He has said that speaking out against Bush's policies while on this trip was not appropriate. There is NOTHING in anything he has said in the last year that says he would back more troops in Iraq. There are many statements where he has said it would make things worse.

Hillary is, to my knowledge, still behind the Levin/Reid position. Though not as strong as Kerry/Feingold - it also calls for withdrawing troops - not adding to them.

I do get your frustration that Hillary's position was distorted in one fairly short thread. There was already a very long thread distorting Kerry's position. It was not Kerry people attacking Hillary, so I really don't understand why you are pursuing this.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[ncrainbowgrrl]

94. locking.

this thread has turned into a a trainwreck of personal attacks, general attacks against groups, and other assorted "goodies"