ONLY John Kerry could deliver an amazing, kickass speech and get FLAMED.

[WildEyedLiberal]

If ANY other man or woman had given the exact same speech, word for word, that John Kerry gave on Saturday, DU would be falling all over itself slobbering in blind adoration. And with good cause - it was an amazing speech, a speech that cut through all the bullshit and drove right through to the heart of our most fundamental American values - our freedom of speech and our right to criticize the government.

Here's the text of the speech, for those who missed it: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2723

Snips:

I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America’s leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation’s direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.

In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, from the president on down, we’ve heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. And once again we have seen personal attacks on the character of those who speak out. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives—and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.

Yes, any Democrat who gave that speech should be awarded our utmost respect.

But - not just any Democrat gave that speech. John Kerry gave that speech.

So instead, many here on DU, instead of lauding this speech as the righteous call to arms that it is, are spitting contemptuously upon it by attacking the man who wrote these words.

We should be SO LUCKY to have someone like John Kerry on our side - someone with the eloquence and wisdom to write these words and deliver them with force and conviction to a packed house.

But some of you - a few, a minority, but some - sit at your little computer desks and pound out your little anonymous insults from the privacy of your home. You people who would be falling all over yourselves with sycophantic praise if Russ Feingold had given this speech, or Howard Dean, or Al Gore - but because John Kerry gave this speech, you betray your values, sell out your souls for a cheap and cowardly anonymous attack.

"I don't want him in 2008," you whine. Well, isn't that just a crying, goddamn shame. There are lots of Democrats I don't want for 2008 - all of the ones who aren't John Kerry, for starters. But you can bet your ass that if any of them had given such an amazing speech reaffirming the values that ALL OF US should hold dear, I would be singing their praises. This speech transcends electoral politics, but some of you are too blinded by your hate and fear to see that. This speech reaches into the soul of what it is to be an American and reminds us of our sacred duty to stand up for what we believe in. Do you believe in these values, or are you more interested in playing cynical political games? I thought one thing that distinguished liberals was our desire to put the good of the nation above partisan politics. I see now that I am wrong; that many of you don't give a right sot about the values of America, but only in twisting and spinning and tearing down anything and anyone that gets in the way of your personal agenda. You are clearly so patently terrified by the prospect of John Kerry running and siphoning primary support from the candidate of your choice that you attack him- a man who has uncovered more government corruption than any living man, a man who has spoken truth to power in more real and immediate ways than any of you keyboard warriors could ever imagine - in order to advance your own intraparty agenda.

You know what? Russ Feingold would be ASHAMED of you. Al Gore would be ASHAMED of you. Dennis Kucinich would be ASHAMED of you.

Kerry's speech was given in Fanueil Hall. I believe the spirit of Samuel Adams was in the hall that day, listening to John Kerry reaffirm the principles Adams and his compatriots fought for. Sam Adams would be proud.

But some of you can only sit at your computers and sneer. Some of you put narrow agendas ahead of the good of us all - the good that can be accomplished when we stand with ALL of our Democrats who stand up and speak out for us.

How very, very shameful, craven and pathetic.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. !

:applause:

[Notoverit]

2. Poor baby! Whaaaaa!

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. Thank you for proving my point

That you anonymous internet hit-and-run warriors don't give a right fucking shit about America.

Has Kerry "gymed" us again? :rofl:

[BooScout]

22. Ah........

The "I'm more Liberal than you" argument. Good one. :eyes:

[Joe Fields]

37. Why the snide comment?

Kerry IS a decent and honorable man. Perhaps a flawed leader, but I would take what few honest flaws he has any day of the week. I would be proud to have him as my president, if it comes pass.

I will choose to back Al Gore, should he decide to run, but if not, it's Kerry for me.

[BooScout]

54. I think the same as you do........

Kerry is a very decent and honest man. I never said otherwise. However, I think he made some huge mistakes in his bid for the presidency and that makes me question whether he is the right choice for 2008.

But I am sick to death of people getting their shorts bunched up over anyone who does not beleive that Kerry is the greatest thing since sliced bread. This post and the OP is doing just that. It's petulant and trite.

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. Nice strawman

Create a strawman and knock it down. You're good at that, aren't you?

Name me ONE other Democrat who could give a kickass speech like that and then be flamed on DU by dishonest people bringing in unrelated 2008 garbage.

If Feingold had given that speech, would we be seeing a spate of "Whiiine, I don't want Feingold in 2008" threads? I highly doubt it.

[BooScout]

79. Hillery Clinton...n/t

[Maddy McCall]

99. That's "Hillary."

[stepnw1f]

10. durrrrrrrrrrrrrr (nt)

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. Hahaha

I like your response better.

[Journeyman]

13. Well, that certainly added value to the debate. . .

Is this in line with your intellectual development, or have you stretched?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[WildEyedLiberal]

Heh

I didn't want to come out and say it... so thanks for doing it for me. }(

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. Nice!

:eyes:

[Terran1212]

58. I just blame him for not being this brave during election season

But I liked the speech; but I still don't endorse much of his political stances.

[LuckyLib]

3. Kerry's speech was stunning. I'd hate to think we'd get to

November with only that one lone Senate voice telling it like it is.

[rockymountaindem]

4. Great post, but you forgot one thing: projection.

Sometimes people just see what they want to see, whether its there or not. If people want to see John Kerry making a campaign speech, instead of a policy speech, that's what they're going to see. Nevermind that the only person who knows if Kerry's going to run in '08 right now is John Kerry.

[ncteechur]

5. You are absolutely correct! Many may disagree with the way

Kerry ran his campaign, GOP shenanigans aside, but I don't think anyone should
question the fact that John Kerry is an American statesman. Period.

[ProSense]

6. I found Senator Feingold

Senator Russ Feingold









http://www.johnkerry.com/action/deadline/?sc=e.20060418

[creeksneakers2]

7. I was one

After some feedback I changed my mind. I'm still angry at the guy but he is on our side, and did his best. He's learning too. I regret attacking him after he made a great speech.

[babylonsister]

9. Converts are most welcome!

:hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Thank you for your honesty

His speech was not about 2008. It was about something we can all support - the right and duty of citizens to protest their government - regardless of who our personal 08 preference is.

[babylonsister]

11. Your post says it all, WEL. Thank you! nt

[jumpoffdaplanet]

15. He cut and run in Nov 2004...

Anything he says now is meaningless.

When he had a chance to make a real difference he ran away with his tail between his legs.

He can whine about bush all he wants, but it's just whining and he deserves all the flames that comes his way.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

29. You may not know this, but

here are some of the actions Kerry took:

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey (which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf


They were thrown out by the courts, by partisan players, but if there was solid evidence not even partisanship would have been able to refute the case. As Conyers report stated:

Whether the cumulative effect of these legal violations would have altered the actual outcome is not known at this time. However, we do know that there are many serious and intentional violations which violate Ohio’s own law, that the Secretary of State has done everything in his power to avoid accounting for such violations, and it is incumbent on Congress to protect the integrity of its own laws by recognizing the seriousness of these legal violations.

B. Need for Further Congressional Hearings

It is also clear the U.S. Congress needs to conduct additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities in the Ohio presidential election and around the country.

While we have conducted our own Democratic hearings and investigation, we have been handicapped by the fact that key participants in the election, such as Secretary of State Blackwell, have refused to cooperate in our hearings or respond to Mr. Conyers questions. While GAO officials are prepared to move forward with a wide ranging analysis of systemic problems in the 2004 elections, they are not planning to conduct the kind of specific investigation needed to get to the bottom of the range of problems evident in Ohio. As a result, it appears that the only means of obtaining his cooperation in any congressional investigation is under the threat of subpoena, which only the Majority may require.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/issues/issues/election.html

Summary:

The evidence hasn't been found and only the Republicans can launch a Congressional investigation with the power to subpoena individuals. Many of the legal motions were thrown out because there was no smoking gun.

[zulchzulu]

49. How dare you point out evidence that Kerry-Edwards fought post-election!

What the hell is wrong with you! We had a perfectly good circle jerk going on here and you had to bring in evidence that Kerry actually has done what he could with post-election efforts! Next thing you know, you'll mention how John Conyers appreciated the Kerry-Edwards team for fighting the good fight with the Ohio vote.

:sarcasm:

[ray of light]

87. Wasn't there election reform that Kerry was sponsoring too?

I'm sorry if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've been around here.

[Mass]

43. Sorry, as one of his constituents I expect him to speak out, whether you

like it or not.

[ray of light]

72. ha ha ha...such old garbage you spew.

And not even a shred of truth either. But since your comment has been asked and answered too many times, I suggest you do some research before you spew some more gunk

[TayTay]

103. He did not cut and run

There are still lawsuits pending in Ohio. There were some that were dismissed that had support from Kerry. They are still a presence in te legal battle in Ohio.

Perhaps Kerry himself will address this when he speaks there on May 20th at Kenyon College commencement. Some of the students at that college stayed in line for long, long hours in order to vote for Kerry. Perhaps he will have something to say about that effort and the circumstances that made it necessary.

[wisteria]

16. That is because they don't want people to remember or realize

how amazing he actually is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. "...playing cynical political games?" You mean like the IWR vote?

[blm]

18. If I may, WEL - Kerry supporters please help Kucinich - he's about to get

railroaded out of his seat by dirty tricks. I found Kerry BECAUSE of my anti-corruption mindset that was influenced by Dennis Kucinich in the 70s.

The GOPs are pulling a stealth primary. We NEED the tough Kerry fighters to join this battle. And if you can, please let Kerry's office know what is happening in Ohio.

Let Chris Heinz know, too. He can help.

Thanks for indulging me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2588292

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. I kicked it for you

I'll link to your post in the Kerry forum, too. Kucinich is a great fighter for the American people.

[blm]

44. Thanks - Kerry and Kucinich have been my greatest influences - and DK was

my FIRST campaign in 72.

[BooScout]

19. You apparently don't understand what dissent is.

You chose to attack yet again anyone who's opinion of the man that differs from your own. Kerry is not God for Christ's sake. He ran for President, he lost (possibly due to Voter Fraud), he chose not to contest suspect voting irregularities that quite possibly cost him the election, he didn't respond in a forceful enough matter to Swift Boaters, he voted for the War in Iraq and later said he was duped into it..........same thing with the Patiot Act, he made a speech, we commented on him, the speech and whether he's the right choice for the Democratic Nominee. I question whether he's the right choice. I don't think he is.....but will vote for him if he is chosen..... My opinion. Love it or leave it.

And learn to practice what you preach before you "sit at your little computer desks and pound out your little anonymous insults from the privacy of your home."

:eyes:

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. What's there to dissent about?

You don't like Kerry's speech? You disagree that dissent is patriotic? You don't think Kerry should call for withdrawal from Iraq or stand up for Americans' right to question their government?

What the FUCK does all the tripe and blather in your post have to do with Kerry's speech in Fanueil Hall on Saturday?

Hiding your completely pointless and unrelated cheap shots behind the banner of "dissent" is lazy and tiresome. Dissent against what, exactly? John Kerry's amazing speech? Frankly, anyone dissenting against what he said on Saturday needs to learn a few things about what our country stands for.

[BooScout]

34. Loved his speech.......

Don't much care for Kerry as the nominee. Your name calling and your own cheap shots are what is tiresome.

By 'dissent" I meant anyone disagreeing with your opinion of Kerry.

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. "Loved the speech"

Oh really? That's why you're running around DU tearing Kerry down in several threads as we speak?

It is interesting to me that the people who keep bringing up Kerry in 2008 are the people who are campaigning for other candidates. Give me a fucking break. YOU bring up 2008, YOU create that strawman in EVERY SINGLE KERRY THREAD to justify attacking him.

This thread is NOT about Kerry in 2008, it is about his speech. The only ones making it about 2008 are those who need to introduce that as a strawman to justify attacking him.

You are proving my OP down to the word. It's cheap and it's dishonest.

[BooScout]

90. This thread isn't about his speech at all.........

It's about you attacking anyone who thinks that Kerry is not the best person for the job of President as you have deen doing for days. Your post is a direct response to others that don't agree with you. Nothing else. Don't even pretend it's not. It's spurious.

I agree wholeheartedly with Kerry's speech. I wish it had been given two years ago but I'll take it now.

[WildEyedLiberal]

97. More strawmen

This thread would not exist if at least 5 threads attacking John Kerry had not sprung up over the past two days, on the heels of his amazing speech.

It's just a coincidence that people post a thread about why they don't want Kerry in 2008 a day after he gives an outstanding speech. Yeah, and I've got a bridge to sell you. :eyes:

[BooScout]

107. Face it.........

Karry is a potential candidate. If he is going to be in the public eye, people are going to discuss him and the possibility of another run.

It's no more of a coincidence that Kerry fans are lauding him as God's gift to America when he made a speech. A speech along the lines of what most of us here have been saying for more than several years now.

[fedupinBushcountry]

40. Voter Fraud?

Come on if you are going to diss at least put the right words in it ELECTION FRAUD. duh :rollingeyes:

Yeah well its her opinion too, Love it or leave it. :rollingeyes:

When you say attack, do you mean give out truth with facts to back it up? Thats called debate, get educated on politics before you slam people just because they don't agree with you.

[BooScout]

63. Excuse the fuck out of me.......

What the hell is the OP doing but slamming people because they don't agree with him?

Duuuuuh.........get educated on politics yourself.......and a brush up on debating wouldn't hurt either.

[LittleClarkie]

42. He not God, tis true

But the reaction to him from some tends to be Pavlovian and kneejerk. You can tell by the pat phrases that get trotted out "too little too late" as if there is an expiration date on calling for peace or "I don't want him in 2008" even when the subject isn't about 2008. Saying "good job, dude" doesn't have to mean you're going to vote for the guy in 2008. I'm not a Hillary fan, but if she says something good, I will say "good job, dudette". If that advances her chances in 2008, oh well.

It would be nice sometimes if the man's name could be mentioned in regard to an event without the inevitable comment about him going away or not running, even when that's not the topic at hand. The man is a Senator, and ain't going away any time soon.

Some folks here won't vote for him again. We get it. We don't have to be reminded by the same people every day. Our short-term memory is fine. We're not Drew Barrymore and this isn't "50 First Dates"

Btw, you'll have to forgive WEL, as she was one of the lucky few from the Kerry group who got to meet the Senator on his birthday. They brought a card signed by the group, and he showed up at the pub after his party to hang out with them. Having met and talked to him, surely it's understandable that she hates to see people not even stop and think before they cough up a response that surely must be saved somewhere on their desktops so they can just cut and paste the thing, as it hardly changes.

It sometimes seems as though he could cure cancer, and there would always be someone there to say "Too little, too late"

[seito]

20. Well said

K & R :thumbsup:

[Maven]

21. Loved his speech this time, but

Where were you when he gave that speech in Mississippi after the election, saying that he would support a ban on same-sex marriage in Mass.?

I won't rehash our debate from the other thread.

[Mass]

28. It was not a speech - he was answering to a question from the BG

asking whether the Mass. Democrats should include gay marriage in their platform.

Though I disagree with Kerry on that, what he said according to the Boston Globe article was that he did not think it was a good thing to include it on his platform.

To my knowledge, while Kerry said that he could support a constitutionnal amendment in MA that would include civil union with full rights, I dont think he ever did a speech on this issue and during the campaign, he said that, if he was president, he would give all the same federal rights to same-sex couples in civil unions or partnerships.

This said, I would have prefer that he endorsed the word "marriage".

[blm]

33. He didn't say that - that was internet rumor.

He was asked after a speech in MIss, about putting gay-marriage in the Mass platform, and he said he didn't THINK that most of the Dem voters were ready to support it, as he didn't see it while he was out on the road talking with them during the campaign.

He didn't say he supported a ban on gay marriage.

[Dr Ron]

84. The opposite is true

Not only did Kerry never give a speech saying he would support a ban on same sex marriage, he refused advice to do so during the campaign. He personally does not support same sex marriage on a political level he has opposed efforts to ban same sex marriage.

Bill Clinton had advised Kerry to support the bans on same sex marriage where they were on the ballot, claiming this would help him pick up those states. Kerry refused this advice.

[Rose Siding]

23. Speaking of anonymous insults

What dem hasn't been critically discussed on DU?

[WildEyedLiberal]

61. Do you think if Feingold had given that exact same speech word for word

That we'd now be seeing multiple "I don't want Feingold in 2008, I can't support him!" threads?

Be honest.

[Rose Siding]

74. That would be relevant if pols were defined by a single speech

I seem to recall plenty of accolades for the speech, too.

Beyond that, it isn't productive to try to muscle anyone into agreeing.

(and that's me being honest, although I would have been even if you hadn't asked)

Peace.

[WildEyedLiberal]

81. My thread isn't demanding support for Kerry in 2008

My thread is saying that it's shameful for anyone to use this wonderful speech of his as an excuse to bring up the 2008 strawman and attack him.

[BooScout]

108. Maybe not.........

But if Hillery had said it we would.

[DemNoir]

25. I guess your too busy swooning to remember...

Press: "Knowing what you know today would you still vote for the war?"

Kerry: "YES!"

His campaign was over that day.

[Mass]

32. That was two years ago, more or less. He has evolved since.

as should all intelligent people.

[DemNoir]

We needed him 2 years ago!

At a critical point in history he spit the bit.

[Mass]

48. as I said, people need to move on.

We should support all Democrats who speak out now in their efforts to speak out. Nobody is asking you to support more than that.

[Dr Ron]

86. Move on---or quote Kerry correctly

As I noted in another response to this, this isn't even a correct account of what Kerry said.

They leave out the important part which he said about how he would have voted for the authorization, he would have used it differently, to achieve a diplomatic settlement rather than to go to war.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[DemNoir]

46. Your wrong

He had his chance we gave it to him. It was a critcal point in history and he blew it.

You can call people all the names you want, that will never change.

[WildEyedLiberal]

65. Talking points are so trite

Did you just copy and paste that? "He blew it, whine whine whine, he had his chance, whine whine whine..."

So tiring. :boring:

[LittleClarkie]

55. Nah, it's just that those of us who pay attention to the man

think him a good one.

And if his campaign died that day, it got revived by the debates. Suddenly people saw a winner. Too bad we couldn't have gotten the big "mo" going sooner, or we might have pulled it off. (some say we did, actually)

[Dr Ron]

75. That's not exactly what he said

He said he would have still voted as he did to (to authorize force as a last resort) but also said he would have used the authorization differently--to achieve a diplomatic settlement rather than to go to war.

He later did agree he was wrong to vote yes as Bush had no intention of seeking a diplomatic settlement as he promised.

[peacebird]

26. oh for crying in a bucket... Some of us were underwhelmed and said so.

Too little too late. Glad he spoke the obvious, glad he was eloquent, clear and concise.

I'm not "flaming" Kerry - merely saying that I am underwhelmed by his actions since 9/11. Yes - I voted for him in the last election but even then he pussyfooted around when he should have spoken forcefully. Now that bush is hovering consistenly in the low 30's - NOW he speaks out forcefully.

Well - jeez - even the repukes are distancing themselves from bush now. Byrd has spoken out loudly - repeatedly - while Kerry was silent. Come on - I can support Dems and STILL (heaven forfend!) EXPECT them to show courage and leadership even when it isn't easy.

I will still vote dem - but I reserve the right to be underwhelmed if the Dems with the most name recognition quiver before the repugs instead of standing up for truth and democracy. Standing up NOW is great but it would have been better if he had spoken out this way LAST year or the year before.

If we saw through the sham of the run up to war then WHY DIDN'T THEY?

They did. They were just too afraid of appearing unpatriotic to DO THEIR JOBS. That is a huge part of why I'm UNDERWHLEMED by Kerry now. Great speech notwithstanding.

[ProSense]

39. I guess these

truths aren't self-evident.

Kerry Hits Nail on Head

By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 04 October 2004

Snip...

John Kerry cut to the heart of the matter when he said during Thursday’s debate with George W. Bush that, "a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn’t have long-term designs on it." Kerry cited the U.S. construction of 14 military bases in Iraq that are said to have "a rather permanent concept to them."

Building these bases belies Bush’s protestations that he has "no ambitions of empire."

Snip...

Yes, as Kerry said, Bush made "a colossal error of judgment" when he invaded Iraq. "I will make a flat statement," Kerry declared during the debate. "The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq." With that promise, John Kerry turned the policy of Team Bush on its head. Kerry was also right on when, responding to Bush’s debate mantra that Kerry sends mixed messages, the Senator said: "You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, ‘You can’t have nuclear weapons,’ but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

more...

http://www.uncle-scam.com/Breaking/oct-04/to-10-4.pdf#search=\'no%20longterm%20designs%20on%20staying%20in%20Iraq%20John%20Kerry\'

[peacebird]

69. Kerry's hindsight came in 2004, he still voted for the war

and said he didn't regret the vote.

Look - the man is bright, he's good, and he's a career politician. I wish he had been brave enough to speak out against the free-speech zones at the inauguration of bush the first time.

I wish he had been brave enough to speak out against the war in Iraq instead of supporting it. I wish he were honest enough about equality of all citizens to speak in support of gay marriage.

I mostly wish he had spoken out BEFORE bush's numbers were in the toilet. Perhaps then I would have trusted that he was speaking his honest truth NOT posturing. It was a great speech - had he given it LAST YEAR - when bush had better numbers I would have seen it as an honest attack against the bush administrations policies.

Now it seems just a wee bit curious to hear him speak out. Why now? Because it's politically safer?

That's not leadership.

Therefore - again - I reserve the right to be underwhelmed.

[ProSense]

80. It really wasn't hindsight.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests. Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

This Administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is strong on rhetoric, but short on execution. It relies primarily and unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found, but will not be deterred by our military might.

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=189831

[blm]

95. Kerry's NEVER done what's politically safe and anyone who KNOWS his record

knows the truth.

It was UNSAFE for Kerry to offer the FIRST pro-gay protection legislation ever in the Senate. No one supported gay rights then.

It was UNSAFE for Kerry to investigate IranContra.

It was even MORE UNSAFE for Kerry to uncover BCCI.

It was UNSAFE for Kerry to uncover the illegal wars in Central America.

It was UNSAFE for Kerry to uncover CIA drugrunning.

It was UNSAFE for Kerry to advocate for gays to serve openly in the military.

It was UNSAFE for Kerry to expose Tora Bora with no Dem backing him up.

It was UNSAFE for Kerry to attack the FCC for OKing corporate media expansion.

It was UNSAFE for Kerry to expose the global terror networks and their financing.

I guess you side with thse who think all Kerry did was phony grandstanding - according to Nixon, Reagan, Bush and their RW media machine.

[Dr Ron]

101. He did not vote "for the war"

Kerry made it clear his vote was to give Bush the leverage to seek a diplomatic settlement. Unfortunately Bush lied regarding his plans to do this.

Kerry spoke out many times before the war against going to war unless we were proven to be threatened by WMD. This includes his speech at the time of the IWR vote, an op e din the NY TImes, an article in Foreign Affairs, his pre-war Georgetown Speech, and many other less prominent statements. At the onset of the war he protested by calling for regime change in the United States.

While he does not speak for gay marriage, he has opposed attempts to ban gay marriage and supports civil unions which contain all the rights of marriage.

Why now? Not beause its safer but because he is said the same thing he has been saying since before the war. The only differnece is that now he tied it into his Vietnam protests of 35 years ago.

[blm]

62. Kerry was the first to attack Bush post 9-11 - Tora Bora ring a bell?

Dems, even Dean, sided with Bush over Kerry on his Tora Bora criticism. Where were you then?

Kerry's been consistently attacking Bush on choosing war when weapons inspections were proving war was not necessary. Did you notice?

Kerry submitted the first detailed withdrawal plan in October 2005 - Did you notice? Gary Hart and Tom Hayden did and supported it.

Now, with civil war in Iraq, Kerry has submitted an even stronger plan. And you could care less.

[peacebird]

73. blm - you nkow nothing about my cares or concerns

Resorting to personal attacks is silly.

We disagree,

That is all.

[blm]

104. If you CARED you would KNOW the facts instead of ignoring them

I guess I could be more generous and say I urge you to get the facts before you make blanket statements that are easily proven false. But, your post wasn't very generous to Kerry, so I replied in kind.

[Dr Ron]

91. Kerry was the first on many attacks

As early as 2002 the New York Times ran an article on how Kerry differed from the other Democrats in being willing to criticize Bush's foreign policy while other Democrats were afraid to in the post 9/11 climate.

[U4ikLefty]

35. Great speech...I hope he is SENATOR for many years to come!!! n/t

[saltpoint]

36. I would love to have his ability with language, not to mention his

command of American history.

I read it, but I don't get the wide sweep the way Kerry does.

That speech this weekend was splendid. While Bush was riding a bike through the California mud, Kerry was at work as a public servant in a threatened democracy.

The contrast speaks for itself.

[leftofthedial]

41. it was a kickass speech!

:thumbsup:

I wish he'd done that even once in 2004.

[LittleClarkie]

47. Thanks for the kudos

That means alot coming from you. I know you're not always pleased with him.

I was so proud of him for embracing his dissident self.

[leftofthedial]

70. I wish the Democratic Party would explicitly embrace

much of what Kerry said

I know I can't generalize from my own experience, but I believe, based on my experiences recently that forthrightly calling a spade a spade would go a long way to convincing the huge reservoir of bush-hating, but not-quite-Dem-loving American fence sitters.

[LittleClarkie]

76. If people can get away from the Republican spin long enough

to think for themselves. I hope that's happening. I'll believe it when I see it though. Maybe if we get the votes in November I'll believe.

[Yollam]

51. I agree with the poster you're attacking.

I realize that you don't think anyone should ever be allowed to say anything about Kerry, but the fact is that A LOT of DUers would NOT be enthused about him getting another nomination. If you want to boost him, cheerlead him, and point out his many good qualities, then more power to you, and may the best person win, but your determination to squelch any and all criticism of Sen. Kerry seems to verge on the neurotic.

Your post here is tantamount to "calling out" another poster, and probably against posting rules, since it refers to another thread. If you disagree with the assessment of the Fanueil Hall speech, why not go to that thread and tell the poster why he's wrong, instead of basically declaring Kerry off-limits from criticism?

[LittleClarkie]

68. But we're not talking about the nomination

we're talking about a speech.

But no matter what the thread topic, the auto-reply is "I don't want him in 2008."

Alrighty. Personally, I'll still support the guy even if he doesn't run in 2008. It's not about 2008.

Did he give a good speech? If people think so, then would it kill them to say so without sliding over to the tangent. Not every thread about John Kerry is about 2008. Right now, it's about stopping the war. He's rediscovered his inner dissident. Huzzah! Can we get behind the message? That's all I'm looking for personally. I could give a rat's ass who you support in 2008.

I just wish that when I post a 2006 thread, it wouldn't sink like a stone.

[Yollam]

96. Fair point about 2006, but this thread is not about the speech.

It's a veiled attack on another poster in reference to another thread. The OP should be able to give Kerry his huzzahs without slamming other posters or those who disagree in the process.

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. All of what you said has ZERO to do with his speech

Amazing to me how it's always the anti-Kerry faction who introduces 2008 into the debate as a strawman construct that they then can knock down and use as an excuse to attack John Kerry.

I am not calling out anyone. Unfortunately, the idiocy to which I refer in the OP is far too prolific to single out any one particular DUer.

Now will you please explain to me what exactly about his SPEECH you find so worthy of criticism? The "dissent is patriotic" part? The "it is cheap and shameful to accuse political opponents of being unpatriotic" part?

[Yollam]

88. You're right- it has to do with YOUR attacks on non-Kerry-fans.

It's your prerogative to boost him at every opportunity, but this thread is nothing but a veiled attack on another poster and an attempt to silence disagreement with Kerry in general.

If you wanted to, you could have made your post all about how great Kerry's speech was, but instead you had to make a point of slamming anyone who wasn't so impressed.

I didn't come here to slam Kerry. I agree with the poster, because I agree with his assessment of Kerry's weak tone. I never said the speech was crap, nor did the poster.

Your frenzied attacks and overreaction to even the mildest criticism of Kerry are not about to win him any converts, you know....

[BooScout]

98. I have been trying to tell her that......

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

52. Could we maybe amend the Constitution to say that the level of

historical command and command of language demonstrated by Kerry here in this speech will from this point forward be a pre-requisite for the presidency?

Yeah, let's do that.

I'm damned tired of listening to George Bush One and George Bush Two butcher sentences like Bill Frist butchers cats.

The weekend addres by Senator Kerry positively shone.

[sandnsea]

53. This thread could have been a 2004 thread

Because I swear to god, every single whine that is in this thread was on DU then too. Whine whine whine whine. Then wonder how come it's so easy for the right to smear your candidate, and worse, blame your candidate when your own whining contributed to the smear in the first place.

I am not saying any particular poster in this thread did that in 2004. I am saying I saw all of this same shit in 2004. It's nothing new.

Until the grassroots grow enough balls to stand up for their own candidate, DURING campaigns, come hell or high water; we're always going to have the exact same result.

Excellent post WEL.

[bee]

56. ONLY John Kerry?

nah. Everyone is subject, or so it seems to me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. Well, probably the same thing would happen to Hillary

But then again, Hillary is not likely to give such a speech. But you can bet if she does I'll be cheering her.

DU has it's darlings, and they will bend over backwards to ignore or attack any good action taken by anyone else.

[Terran1212]

85. I saw Hillary speak about Iraq

Speaking about how womens' rights are approving there (during an Agnes Scott college commencement speech).

She openly lies about what's happening is what she does.

[cali]

57. It was an excellent speech

but if you're referring to the thoughtful post that raised so much ire from kerry supporters, you're way off base. Despite his good speech yesterday, I still don't support Kerry for 2008. That's my choice and it doesn't make me a Kerry basher. I simply prefer another candidate. BTW, just because someone doesn't have the exhalted number of posts you do, doesn't make them a freeper.

[WildEyedLiberal]

89. I'm referring to exactly what you just brought up - the 2008 strawman

Bringing up Kerry in 2008 is a complete and total strawman. It is utterly irrelevant in terms of this speech he just gave. People who dislike Kerry needed an excuse to attack him after his name was in the news this weekend, so hell, why not drag out the 2008 bogeyman again and launch several threads whining on and on about Kerry under the excuse that "I don't want him in 2008"?

There are lots of Dems I don't want in 2008, and you don't see me starting threads about them every day complaining about them.

I am not talking about you, but it's really not all that hard to see the agenda of those who, on the heels of an AMAZING speech by John Kerry, start a thread whining about the possibility that he might run in 2008.

[tgnyc]

59. You're right. It's a strong speech. But there's no need to be combative

about it.

So, Hillary, John and Joe all going for it in 08? This will be, well, interesting.

[WildEyedLiberal]

92. If I sound combative, it is only because

I have seen him attacked in at least 5 threads over the past two days here on the heels of giving an amazing speech. It is shameful to me, and I had to speak out.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[blm]

66. The National Security Archives prove differently.

.

[LittleClarkie]

82. Horsehockey

He sure does mean it. If you don't know that, you've not been paying attention.

Sadly, sometimes a conclusion is the place where people stop thinking.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[progressivebydesign]

67. Gee, I can't keep up on whom we're mad at lately..

I like Kerry. I think he's a good man who tries to do good things. I supported him during the campaign. yes.. I was unhappy with what happened after the election, I was sorely disappointed that he did not fight. But.. wtf should I dislike the man? He's a war hero and someone who has worked hard. I try to ignore people who tell me who I should hate now.. like the ones that hate Hillary (whom I suspect many of are faux liberals doing Rove's work).

[seabeyond]

77. in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act

no one is free if any group is oppressed

this weekend i felt the need to add these two stickers onto my car that already has 8 stickers. this morning driving to school i told my boys that i feel the word revolution needs to be seen and heard.

it just escapes me the logic of dissing kerry as we do. and our brightest are front in center dissing the loudest. some more subtly. kerry not only had to battle the media, and the republicans and the swiftboats, there were plenty of democrats that he had to battle to as they fed the non truths and continue to feed non truths. even with the facts are givin the poster goes away and doesnt address only to be back to present the non truth another day.

makes me say just how much these people are really looking to get administration in or their own agenda takes priority

[Maddy McCall]

93. Riiight

Troublemaker. (You got your 14th recommendation from me. Excellent post! :thumbsup: )

[WildEyedLiberal]

102. I'm glad you thought my post was intresting!

:rofl:

:hug: Thanks Maddy!

[DancingBear]

94. Does this how dare you shit EVER end?????????

Really.

I read the "post in question" earlier today.

It seemed to me to be nothing more than concerns raised by the OP on (of all places!) a POLITICAL discussion board.

Not flaming.

Not destroying.

Discussing.

Honestly, if we can't even discuss a speech without somebody somewhere accusing somebody somewhere of doing something somewhere to somebody fer crissakes, well, then, I give up.

Give.It.A.Rest.

[WildEyedLiberal]

100. A "concern" about Kerry running in 2008?

What possible motive could someone have for creating the 2008 strawman in order to stir up resentment against Kerry a MERE DAY after he gave an outstanding speech?

Connect the dots.

[madrchsod]

105. ok i`ll answer you about my feelings because i have been

really critical of john kerry esp. after his win in ohio. yes the win because he did win ohio,we only have to look at the time line of the scandal to realize just how far this went into the whitehouse. when edwards came out that morning and said every vote will be counted then hours later kerry said no they won`t well that soured me on kerry. for all the great things he has done in his life and to fail in his greatest duty to the voters of this country makes me wonder why i voted for him. could he ever win my trust again? i don`t know..maybe if he came out with the truth that that the american people were denied the president they voted for because of the fraud that took place in ohio, then i may vote for him.

[mopinko]

106. any other hypocrite would get the same flame. joe lieberman

would be toasted to a cinder if he got up and gave that speech. the one thing the electorate of this country must do if we are to survive is to learn to judge people by their acts, not their words. otherwise, frank luntz wins.
he said that all the votes would be counted, and they weren't. there is not enough spin in the universe to make that anything but the most dispicable campaign pledge ever broken. sorry. kerry hater for life. flame away.

[pinto]

109. Locking.

This unfortunately seems to have become a flamefest.