White House is courting disaster, warns Kerry

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=qw1119965221106B262&click_id=2813&set_id=1

White House is courting disaster, warns Kerry



Washington - United States President George Bush is "courting disaster" with his Iraq policy, former presidential contender John Kerry wrote in a newspaper opinion piece on Tuesday, ahead of a major speech by the president on the situation in Iraq.

"It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success," the Democratic US senator from Massachusetts wrote in the New York Times.

"The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists," Kerry wrote.

"The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections," Kerry said, adding that such a programme would be one of the conditions that would "set the stage for American forces to begin to come home".

His comments appeared ahead of Bush's speech marking the first anniversary of the transfer of civilian authority from United States to an Iraqi government. - Sapa-AFP

<</SNIP>>

[maddezmom]

1. AP:Bush to Defend Iraq Policy in Address

Kerry's right the problem is there is no plan, never has been and never will be one.

~snip~

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that Bush will stress the need for patience as Iraq moves toward establishing a permanent democratic government. She acknowledged that continuing insurgent violence and the loss of life makes it hard for Americans "to focus on the quiet process that's going on in Iraq of building a political consensus toward a stable and democratic Iraq."

"I know it's difficult and the president will acknowledge that," Rice said on NBC's "Today" show. "But the United States has been through difficult times before to come out on the other side with a more stable world."

Although attacks frequently take the lives of American troops, Bush has said they will not leave until Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped to keep the peace. He has refused to give a timetable for troop withdrawal, even though some Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress are supporting a resolution that calls for Bush to start bringing them home by Oct. 1, 2006.

"The key to success in Iraq is for the Iraqis to be able and capable of defending their democracy against terrorists," Bush said Monday, then turned to what has been the signature achievement of the conflict that began in Baghdad more than two years ago. "Parallel with the security track is a political track. Obviously, the political track has made progress this year when 8 million people went to the polls and voted."

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050628/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_

[Vincardog]

2. Kerry is wrong the plan is was and always will be

for a state of PERPETUAL WAR. The Chimp's handlers at the PNAC use war for profit and control. They always have and hope to continue forever. The dismal state of affairs in Iraq is by design.
These are EVIL persons. :puke:

[confludemocrat]

8. That's true, Kerry failed his chance to make that point. Why?

What is he afraid of? This is a moment (a rare opportunity) to knock the tar out of the warmongering-and-militarism for crony profit. Get it out in the open, expose it. I think John's afraid of being seen as a "liberal"--afraid of his own shadow, politically.

[leesa]

64. Um. He's FOR the war. He only thought the planning was wrong.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

20. Yup. And permanent military bases in Iraq

[ashling]

51. "Last throes" is an accurate description

when you look at it their way.

20 years is but a blip in time when youi are looking at perpetual

[politicasista]

53. Name one candidate that would have had a better plan?

[joeunderdog]

55. Pay no attention to the Memos behind the curtain.

Once again, Kerry gets knee deep in the obvious and unquantifiable and sidesteps those pesky watershed issues of illegal wars and so forth. Taking on the Downing Street Memos on Shrub Speech day might be a little too messy for Mr. Politician.

It's kinda like talking about needing to do better at your campaign strategy while you ignore the issue that renders all those campaign questions meaningless--election fraud. (sigh) Guess his position on an exit strategy in Iraq would mean something if he had taken hard a position on fair elections.

Naaahhhh...

[jhain]

3. in the NYT?

Ooooooooooh, Poppy must be hopping mad.

THANK YOU, John Kerry.
Kerry is this country's real president.
Despite the horrible disappoinments he is still leading.

[Brooklyn Michael]

4. "Courting"????

....pssst....John....we're way past the "courting" phase. We've courted, wedded and honeymooned, and now we're the proud parents of a bouncing baby disaster.

[Career Prole]

28. LOL!

Oops...shouldn't laugh about it. :eyes:
(But that was pretty funny!)

[XemaSab]

52. My thoughts exactly

we done eloped with disaster a LONG time ago.

We're celebrating our 5th anniversary with disaster this november.

[Roy]

60. Very, Very, Very, Descriptive...

nt

[ohtransplant]

5. Once again Kerry seems to be everywhere.

Once again, he's out front. An op ed piece the day of *'s address - masterful!

Of course we need a plan. The only ones who don't know that are in the * administration. The emperor's wearing no clothes!

They're still trying to explain why we're still there, why it's going the way it is, how long we'll be there, and why it's costing so much. Cheney and Wolfie said we'd be in and out. They said the oil would pay for it.

Now rummy says we could be there 12 years. I'd like to see * address that tonight.

[gratuitous]

12. I'm glad Kerry's speaking out, make no mistake about that

But is there anything in his op-ed piece that he couldn't have said with equal conviction ten months ago, when he had his chance to derail this express train to disaster?

[karynnj]

16. He actually DID say a great deal of what he said here

In his late September speech at NYU. On CSPAN, it was a truly great speech - and it laid out a clear plan. The media did not give it much attention, repeated the RW talking points that Kerry had no plan, or if he did it was theirs. Meanwhile, Bush had no stated plan and no one cared.

In January, on MTP Kerry re-iterated much of this - even though it was Iraq election day and he knew the media would complain that he was giving Bush credit for the improvement in Iraq.

Kerry has spoken with intelligence, conviction and genuine concern for our soldiers and the world since Bush invaded. How much did you see covered?

[Seabiscuit]

25. Kerry had 2 defining moments during his campaign:

1. The interview with Tim Russert where he was asked if, knowing what he now knew that Saddam had no WMD, no links to Al Queda and posed no threat to the U.S., would he still vote for the IWR? Incredibly, Kerry said yes.

2. During his debate with Bush he agreed with Bush that they both saw the same intelligence and both came to the same conclusion.

Despite all this recent opportunistic anti-war talk, I'd be willing to wager a substantial amount that if Russert asked him the same question today, his answer would be the same. His position on Iraq is a riddle enshrouded in a mystery wrapped in an enigma. "Fun and games!" "Fun and games!"

[gratuitous]

29. Hopefully, Senator Kerry will get traction that Candidate Kerry didn't

But it will probably require some heavy lifting (read: repetition of the message, over and over, in many different venues), and from what I've observed, Kerry shares a shortcoming of mine: Once you say something that's true, you expect that to be the end of it.

In interpersonal relations, that's okay. But in political relations, talking points -- particularly from the Democrats -- have to be rehearsed and reiterated many times before they penetrate into the national discourse.

I hope Kerry stays with it.

[DisassemblingHisLies]

41. Good point, gratuitous.

Obviously not having the mindset of a used car salesman, Kerry has more faith in the people than is deserved. Believing that a simple statement of facts would be absorbed the first time is placing too much faith in today's non-thinking society.

Considering the media's biased pick & choose coverage, Kerry is doing everything he can to get the message out. It just doesn't seem that way, thanks to the media's protection of the corporate-friendly thief-in-chief.

[sandnsea]

17. He did

He gave several speeches on Iraq last year and laid out a plan that would have began withdrawing troops this summer. The left helped the right frame it as "stay the course" so the truth of his plan never got out. Oh well, as long as people can pat themselves on the back for their political purity, the deaths in Iraq are all worth it.

[ohtransplant]

19. I believe he spoke extensively about the need for a plan

during the Presidential debates and campaign. I seem to recall it in a speech here in Columbus just before the election.

Seems many Amurkins weren't paying attention. Instead, many concentrated on vital issues like the Swifties and Kerry's ability to speak French.

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. Courting disaster? Instigated it already would be more accurate.

[AlGore-08.com]

7. Thanks for voting for the damn war in the first place, Sen. Kerry!

Smirk didn't have a plan when you voted for it, so what... ? You were okay with not having a plan then? You just now learned not having a plan was a bad thing? You just now saw the poll numbers showing that the war is officially unpopular? What?

[Bread and Circus]

21. Exactly, Kerry needs to go crawl under a rock.

Seriously, I gave thousands of dollars to stop George Bush and Kerry stands idly by while the election is stolen.

Never again!

[second edition]

35. Funny, I gave a whole lot of money also,

but I came away thinking Kerry worked extremely hard to win this election. I don't ever recall him being idle while the election was stolen. The Bush team has four years to get in place what they needed to win, with that kind of planning versus Kerry only having three/four months of planning time, John Kerry came very, very close to winning.

[howmad1]

57. I WISH KERRY WOULD STOP.........

giving advice to the moron. Just suppose the idiot has an epiphany and realizes everything Kerry suggest is right. Well, the next thing you know, the putz goes down as one great president for following Kerry's' suggestions. Jeez, I wish Kerry would stop with the advice already. If this moronic putz president does nothing about Iraq until 2006, there's a good chance we could win congress back, start impeachment proceedings, send the prick and his entourage to jail, and win by a landslide in 2008, no thanks to Kerry. Sure, several more young Americans will probably die in Iraq (it's going to happen anyway)if the asshole does nothing, but those soldiers will go down in history as giving their lives to rid the world of Bush. Now that's heroic.

Kerry, make up for your failings as a rotten presidential candidate and keep your trap shut till the 2006 elections, PLEEEZE.

[ginnyinWI]

61. No chance--he'd never take advice from Kerry!

No chance of any epiphanies. Maybe some in the Congress will listen, though, and it will hasten the end of this debacle. In that case Kerry would get credit.

Obviously, as he is a combat veteran, I think Kerry is giving this advice to try to help the troops whom he cares about a great deal. He's not about to hold back for political gain. I don't think anybody needs to die to get rid of Bush's power--he's self destructing as we speak.

[sandnsea]

69. Actually he does it all the time

One of these days I'll make a list, but they regularly do what Kerry suggests; six months later. I wish Bush would get an epiphany and act right in Iraq. I don't care about the politics, I care about the Iraqi people and our troops. Maybe that's the difference between the so-called grassroots and the rest of the Democratic Party, I don't know.

[sandnsea]

22. The DSM

The case being made in conjunction with the DSM is that Bush was promising NOT to go to war and working through the UN while he was actually planning a war.

So which is it? Was the IWR a vote for war and the DSM means nothing? Or did Bush ask for the IWR as part of his UN ruse to pretend he was attempting to avoid war?

Can't have it both ways.

[wiggs]

27. That's right. Kerry should be one of the most vocal.

Kerry's defense of his votes included statements about giving authority to the president in order to have a better chance for diplomatic success. His campaign may have turned on his votes for IWR and 87 billion funding and the whole issue was difficult for him to explain, even though his positions were entirely reasonable if not regrettable.

Here's DSM (and many other sources) saying that there was no chance for diplomatic success because the president really wasn't headed in that direction. The hopes of our nation in avoiding war were placed in the administration's hands by a congress that was either 1) strongarmed and deceived, in which case Kerry, and all of congress for that matter, should be hopping mad....or 2) complicit and happy to help in the care and feeding of our gigantic corporations by invading another country

Do you see Kerry hopping mad? Do you see him or most of congress being part of the checks and balances that would keep a rogue administration in check? Do you see many of them going beyond DSM to talk about all the other articles, interviews, and books that say the same thing? (Of course, Conyers is excepted). How many are using plain language to reach the american people about the disaster in Iraq, napalm, torture, deficits, medicare impending doom, environment, darfur, Plame, Sibel, peak oil, etc etc etc?

Kerry's mysteriously careful, and measured statements are symbolic of the larger problem we have with congress's complicity with the worst, most dangerous rogue administration we've ever seen.

Congress may eventurally turn on Bush, but only when his low approvals threaten 2006 and 2008 elections... obviously not when he steps over legal and moral lines though because those lines have been crossed repeatedly and with enthusiasm.

I was a big Kerry fan...but my patience is lost with these guys tip-toeing around and playing losing politics while our country's future is threatened. This is serious business.

[sandnsea]

30. Yes I Do

I've seen him comment on Iraq at every turn, way more than ever gets reported. He gave a speech on the Senate floor the end of April where he specifically said our troops were being used to protect oil all over the world, point blank said it. It got NO response. Just like his DSM letter got NO response. Most people on the left would rather cut off their arm than help John Kerry get his message out and it's always been that way. Honestly, if I'd known lefties were really going to be such assholes about Kerry's campaign, I'd have supported running Howard Dean just to watch the slaughter and shut them up permanently.

What the friggin' hell is measured about this???

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28kerry.html?hp

[wiggs]

33. He is measured in many ways

But in short it is simply weak and wrong-minded to request politely that a DYSFUNCTIONAL, INCOMPETENT ROGUE ADMINISTRATION admit they are wrong and start behaving competently.

It is time for action, not posturing. Checks and balances come in the form of resolutions, legislation, and investigations, not speeches. Kerry's thoughtfulness, intelligence, and measured ways would have served us well as president I believe, but that's not want I want from someone who's watching a house burn down with people inside. If he's not jumping up and down because that's not style, fine....but he should be using his brilliance to dice up this dangerous war mongering cabal and corporatocracy. He's simply not.

By asking for a timetable and strategy for exit he implies that 1) the administration is paying attention to anyting he or congress says, 2) they have interest in exiting Iraq, and 3) they are capable of devising effective strategy. Obviously, none of the three are likely.

My criticism is not just of Kerry...most of congress is doing the same thing and I'm angry with them all.

[ginnyinWI]

62. Kerry is furious!

He is. Those of us who have watched him a lot know the signs. He's not someone like Dean, who yells, but he gets very steely-eyed and intense, and you can tell. He knows that the way to get the message out is to come across as rational. Slice 'em and dice 'em, but stay outwardly cool the whole time!

[second edition]

34. Last resort! He voted to provide Bush with the authority to go to war.

Not the war. He has always felt war in Iraq should only be pursued when all else had failed and only then, with world support.If you are going to criticize the man get your facts straight. It really isn't a hard position too understand. You don't have to agree with it, but don't just sound off on repub talking points.
Also, he has talked about this plan during the election and also on a Meet the Press segment in January. Most of what he wrote is not new just a little more detailed.

[sandnsea]

58. I would say updated

To address where we're at today. The saddest thing, it's exactly what the majority of Americans want and have always wanted. The people realized Bush sold us a bill of goods a very long time ago, they were just looking for the person who would at least make something good of the mess. When the spin said Kerry was the same as Bush, the people saw no reason to change. That spin came from more places than just Rove, and couldn't have been further from the truth.

[cyr330]

9. Oh, the nerve

If he's so anti-war, why the fuck did he vote for it?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

10. Smoke and mirrors

He lost his voice and integrity the instant he conceded without a fight. I have no interest in anything he says now-- it seems every time he opens his mouth it's a day late and a dollar short.

I am not impressed.

[donsu]

11. like who cares anymore what Kerry says about anything?

nt

[second edition]

36. Well people who have a clue for a start! n/t

[MadisonProgressive]

13. The reason he won't do a withdrawl timetable

is because we are building 14 PERMANENT bases. We intent to occupy those bases - FOREVER!

[Just Me]

15. Yep. Permanent occupation is the plan.

Are there still people who don't get that? :shrug:

[karynnj]

18. Note he UNEQUIVOCALLY said we need to state we will not keep bases

How many others have said this? Kennedy is the only one I know of. I would think Feingold may have as well, but I'm not certain of this.

[sandnsea]

31. I'm beginning to like these threads

They help keep my ignore list up to date! :)

[second edition]

38. Funny! Honestly though, some people seen to only read what

they want to into what he says- kind of like Repubs.

[FormerOstrich]

14. trained and equipped to keep the peace

I keep struggling with trained and equipped to keep the peace. It doesn't seem to me that we are very successful at keeping the peace and God knows we are certainly equipped. So are we training them to be targets, too.

Next, I think we are successful at arming people. However, I can't help but think that if we hand them a bunch of equipment before leaving, a certain percentage of it is used against us.....(maybe I'm wrong).

So I think this little statement needs quantified some. I don't get it.

[sandnsea]

23. Hmmm

So you think the solution is to take all their weapons and have no police force or defense from attack by other countries at all?

[FormerOstrich]

24. No, I don't think that....

I think we need to get out. We arm everyone else, we should arm them, too. On our way out.

Actually, I really think that we should divide the country up except for a few "common" areas. Tell each group that the oil will be split on the same percentage each groups population. Then explain that we will be securing the oil fields and the borders for them (and the oil is theirs for each group to do what they may with their split). Then I would explain that if one group encroached on another and the one being encroached upon asked us, we would come in and defend them. We'd be real close there at the border.

[sandnsea]

26. That doesn't fit with your other post

Which seemed to imply that arming them was a bad idea.

Anyway, I agree with you in some regards. But you aren't laying out a "get out now" strategy either. Arming Iraqis and training them is what Kerry and many Democrats have been saying for some time, which has been misconstrued into supporting Bush's stay the course plan. And since the groups are already encroaching on each other, I don't quite see how your plan would work. Although I do agree we should patrol the borders and let the Iraqi's work out most of their own security within the populations. Having our troops do search and destroy, or whatever they called it, was probably the biggest mistake that was made.

[wiggs]

32. Kerry misses the point

By asking the administration to do things well from now on is giving them way too much credit.

This administration has proven that they are incapable of competent strategy and changing course. Policy always drives action with them, regardless of facts and expert advice and they have proven time and time again IN EVERY POLICY AREA that the wrong choices will be made. Carville said a long time ago that the 2004 campaign should be about incompetence. THIS IS A DYSFUNCTIONAL ADMINISTRATION!!! What area of policy is actually better than it was 5 years ago? Education? Environment? Deficit? Wages? Foreign Policy? Health Care? Veteran's affairs? Homeland Security? Trade?

They screwed up everything from the beginning and now we are simply asking them to start doing things correctly? KERRY AND THE REST SHOULD BE WAY BEYOND ASKING THEM TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT. It is time to state flatly that we have no confidence in our administration. Fucking period.

(Note: I'm not sure I believe they want to avoid disaster in Iraq...either way, Iraq is not going to get better).

I am so pissed this morning....torture, napalm, Iraq disaster, DSM all out there, and we get measured politics and pussyfooting. Outrage, yelling, screaming, ridicule, and jumping up and down is the only healthy response to this administration's performance over the last 3 years!

[Iowa]

43. Good posts wiggs...

:applause:

[NNN0LHI]

37. Is Kerry trying to say Bush isn't killing Iraqis efficiently enough?

And whats this "a breeding ground for jihadists" crap? Hey John, get a fucking clue dude. These are Iraqis fighting for their country. You been over there. You should know that. I am afraid when it comes to Iraq Kerry may have been worse than Bush.

And when you get a minute Senator see if you can find out what our military is doing with the bodies of all these "jihadists" that they have been killing for going on three fucking years. Please put my mind to ease and tell me we are not digging mass graves like Saddam did.

Don

[second edition]

39. NO, he is saying they haven't handled keeping the piece well

at all,and they have not done all they can to protect our soldiers and Iraqs.

[ohtransplant]

42. I don't think he's suggesting that .

My understanding of the term "a breeding ground for jihadists" is that there was no "jihad" in Iraq before the US invaded, that this incursion is the biggest recruiting bonanza jihadists of every stripe (inside and outside of Iraq) could have hoped for, that foreign fighters enter Iraq every day to enter the fray.

Please excuse my feeble attempt at explanation. These are my words and reflect my understanding. I don't suggest that I speak for the Senator or anyone else.

[Mairead]

40. Empty suit, empty head!

"Jihadists", Kerry you jackass??!? "Jihad" is not a synonym for "resistance" and it GODDAMNED sure isn't a synonym for "terror"!! Who the hell writes your speeches--Rove??

[NNN0LHI]

50. I think Kerry has been watching too much Lou Dobbs n/t

[Mairead]

56. Is that what it is? I know it must be something--nobody could

naturally be that vacant and still be running around loose.

[sabra]

44. Advance: In address to Senate, Kerry says Iraq now breeding group for....

<<SNIP>>
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Advance_In_address_to_Senate_Kerry_says_Iraq_now_breeding_group_for_te_0628.html

Advance: In address to Senate, Kerry says Iraq now breeding group for terrorists
RAW STORY


Says 'there is still time to get it right;' Suggests empowering militias

The following is an advance copy of Sen. John Kerry's remarks to the Senate provided to RAW STORY on the eve of a speech by President Bush slated tonight to rally Americans on supporting his war in Iraq.

#
Mr. President, tonight President Bush will speak to the nation about the situation in Iraq. And I think we all have a sense of what he'll say. He'll talk about the march of democracy and the courage of our troops across the world. He'll speak with pride about Iraqi elections and the end of tyranny, and stress the importance of fighting terror. And that's fine - we all agree with that - but those words alone won't be enough to improve a situation clearly headed in a perilous direction. We need new, strong policy to get it right in Iraq. Today, we have no realistic strategy to reduce the risks to our soldiers and achieve our goals. While our military has done a superb job, our civilian leadership has not, and our soldiers are paying the price every day. We need a realistic plan for success. To do that, we must tear down the wall of arrogance. When the Vice President absurdly claims the "insurgency is in its last throes" he insults the common sense and intelligence of the American people, and diminishes our stature in the world. And how can we expect the Iraqi people to take us seriously and do their part when the White House says the insurgency is fading, yet they live in constant fear, the explosions waking them up at night, reminding Iraqis of the danger inherent in even the short walk to work or school the next morning.

While we shouldn't dwell on mistakes, we need to understand their consequences on our ability to effectively move forward. With allies reading the Downing Street memo, and the American people realizing the rationalization for this war changed midstream, it becomes that much harder to rally the collective strength of the nation and the world to our cause.

We have to acknowledge the past to overcome it, because the truth is the stubbornness of this Administration matters. It hurts our chances for success. It leads to frustrated expectations at home, makes it so much more difficult for the Iraqi people to embrace this cause, and makes it so much easier for sidelined nations to turn their back on a common interest and say: "OK, it's their deal." And the bottom line is that when it comes to war and the safety of American troops, there is no time for excuses. It's time for the Administration to tell the truth about what's happening on the ground and open up to new ideas about how to get the job done. Admitting mistakes is a necessary hurdle and a constructive tool for this Administration if it wants to build the strength necessary to get it right in Iraq. Admitting mistakes paves the way for elected officials and the American people to come together to move forward. Admitting mistakes lays the groundwork for a climate of cooperation that allows allies to add to our own strength. Admitting mistakes eases the concerns of the Iraqi people, and helps us make them understand that there will be no success unless they embrace the burden of their own future.

<</SNIP>>

[sabra]

45. Timing is everything

<<SNIP>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28kerry.html?hp

The Speech the President Should Give
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly


By JOHN F. KERRY
Published: June 28, 2005
Boston

TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.

The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

<</SNIP>>

[wakfs]

46. That's all well and good

But where was Senator Kerry on this important issue in August, September, and October of last year? Proclaiming in all earnestness, "I voted for it before I voted against it." Yeah, that worked REAL well.

Shut up and move aside, Senator. Too little, too late.

[karynnj]

49. Where were YOU in August, September, October

In September, Kerry gave a tremendous speech on Iraq at NYU where he concisely listed the 4 things he would do to enable us to get out of Iraq. He then repeated the 4 things even more concisely on David Letterman. He made at least 2 sometimes 3 campaign stops a day throughout Sept and Oct (as he had in Aug), repeating the same 4 points in addition to speaking about other issues.

If you didn't watch CSPAN, you probably saw little or none of this. BECAUSE THE MEDIA CHOSE NOT TO COVER IT! Kerry couldn't go to every house. He had all his positions on the web site. His wife, daughters, step sons, John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, their daughter and many surrogates discussed it as well. The problem is you need more unfiltered MSM coverage than they got. That's why the debates helped as much as they did people got to see Kerry.

[sandnsea]

59. Before that in MO

Before that at WU, before that at CFR, and on and on. They helped him lose and then have the gaul to turn around and bash him. If they had any decency at all, they'd realize the blood is now on THEIR hands.

[karynnj]

65. Definitely agree

He had asked about Aug - Oct, but I should have listed the earlier ones - as they go back pretty far. I agree that if the extreme left would have looked at Kerry's history AND asked him tough questions, they would have been more likely to support him. It might then have been harder for Rove to say Bush and Kerry had the same plan - which is impossible as Bush never defined a plan.

[politicasista]

54. Yawn

Thanks for the Rovian talking points. :boring:

[ginnyinWI]

63. Can't have a Kerry thread without a few RW talking points

Turns everything sour. I guess we should all just give up. :sarcasm:

[JEDinBKLYN]

47. Things You Won't Hear Tonight

Things you probably won't see or hear in tonight's speech:

The Downing Street Memo.
Halliburton.
Cash in duffel bags.
The use of napalm in Iraq.
Accountability.
The Truth.
Tom Cruise.
The search for WMD. (by the way, how's that going?)
A 'Mission Accomplished' banner. (but it'll be there in spirit)
Use of the term "Bring It On". (oh, it's already been brought'n)
The real effects of the Iraq War on the fight against terrorism.

More Here: http://daysbreak.blogspot.com">BULLSHIT ACCOMPLISHED

[SaveAmerica]

48. Note Kerry's use of 'course'; Bush's course leads to disaster and

course with no strategy (strategery) so tomorrow you can couple that with Bush's calls to 'stay the course'.

[1democracy]

66. Kerry Speech I wish I heard, based on DU comments

Mr. President, I stand before you tonight to say I've lost confidence in you. I feel tricked and misled, finally realizing that you had been planning an invasion of Iraq long before you came to Congress.
I trusted that the information you gave us about the WMD was accurate, an indication the US was in grave danger, and therefore we must move quickly to authorize you to take action.
But you were wrong, your intelligence was wrong, Moreover, the Downing Street Minutes show your administration was looking for reasons to invade Iraq. The same batch of documents also show that you stepped up bombing of Iraq to try to push Saddam to action that would require a US attack. When I voted to authorize you to use force as a last resort after diplomatic solutions had been exhausted, I assumed you were seriously pursuing diplomatic solutions. I was wrong. You misused my trust in your administration- I take my vote back in support of your war.
From this point forward you will have to work had to earn my trust on anything at all. You have lost the trust of the American people and a significant part of Congress. There is no "spin" that can make facts of lies.
Consider this my vote of "no confidence", and the end of trust in your administration, despite anything it can say. I can think of nothing that can rehabilitate my view of you.

[1democracy]

67. P.S. To DUers- Please add to or edit the above to make powerful!

[YvonneCa]

68. Patience...

...it's called positioning.;)