Wartime Dissent Is Part Of Patriotism, Kerry Says

[norml]

Wartime Dissent Is Part Of Patriotism, Kerry Says
Views on Vietnam, Iraq Wars Defended

By Chris Cillizza
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, April 23, 2006; Page A04

Thirty-five years after Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (D) appeared before a Senate committee to call for an end to the war in Vietnam, he defended that decision yesterday in a speech in his home town and linked it to his current insistence on an early drawdown of troops from Iraq.

Kerry, in remarks delivered in Boston's Faneuil Hall Marketplace, cast dissent in wartime as a patriotic act -- a response to Republican critics who insist that questioning the conduct of the war in Iraq emboldens America's enemies.

"I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties," he said. "They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin."

Yesterday's address was the latest move in Kerry's shadow presidential campaign, launched in the aftermath of his 2004 defeat by President Bush. In a series of speeches, guest columns and television appearances, Kerry has sought to right what many Democrats regard as the defects of that race by outlining a clear exit strategy for Iraq and vowing to fight back against GOP attacks on his and other Democrats' patriotism. Kerry's aggressive attitude is also aimed at wooing liberal voters for a potential presidential bid in 2008.

Beginning last fall, Kerry has advocated setting a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Recently, he said that if an Iraqi government is not formed by May 15, the United States should immediately withdraw its forces.


snip


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042200873.html

[wisteria]

1. Absolutely, we have an obligation to question our government. n/t

[mconvente]

5. Exactly

We have an obligation to question our government even when most of the things they do are good. It's our obligation to make things work as best as they can.

[blm]

2. Kerry has been sticking it to Bush because he OPPOSES Bush's policies

and to be TRUE to what he ran on in 2003 and 4, he is expected to keep opposing Bush in every area that he always disagreed.

I suppose Cillizza thinks Kerry only investigated IranContra for his planned 2004 run, and BCCI, and the illegal wars in Central America, and CIA drugrunning, etc.........

[saltpoint]

3. No wonder the GOP is so nasty to Kerry. Kerry's right, & they're wrong.

Dissent is DEFINITELY an issue now, and Kerry is more persuasive in insisting that dissent is the essence of a democracy than the GOP has been in pretending that it's un-American.

That isn't to say that the Rovian jerks haven't taken their toll. It is to say that the fight goes on, and that John Kerry is a noble soul for helping to fight it.

[AuntiBush]

4. Good for Senator Kerry!

"By drawing heavily on his experiences as a veteran-turned-dissenter, Kerry seemed to be daring Republicans to question his military credentials, which groups such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did during the 2004 contest.

Many Democrats had criticized Kerry for not responding more quickly to those attacks, and he has vowed that he will strike back more aggressively should he run in 2008 -- a strategy he previewed yesterday.

"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 to serve their country," Kerry said. "That is cheap and shameful."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042200873.html

That's right, Senator Kerry. Like a chess game, except * check-mated himself with lie, after lie, after lie... et cetera.

He'd get my vote and rightly so since he was robbed in 2004.

:patriot: :thumbsup:

[Malva Zebrina]

6. When anyone has the temerity to stand up and ask who it is we are

"At war with" then and only then will I respect them. Because the truth is that we are NOT at war with any country or anyone. We are presumed to be "at war" because the Bush propaganda machine has foisted that untruth upon the entire country , when it is, at best, laughable.

We cannot be at "war". With who? Iraq? umm, no, we are the occupiers there and we have conqoured Iraq and they had elections with all those purple fingers to prove it. So, it cannot be Iraq, that we are at "war" with, in spite of the fact that we have our soldiers blown up almost every day. We occupy Iraq. We are building a huge embassy that takes up 140 acres of land--how can we be "at war" with Iraq? And Afganistan. We won that one, remember. So we cannot be at war with Afganistan.

SO WHO IS IT THAT WE ARE ARE WAR WITH?

Anybody got a clue? Nevertheless we keep hearing from the likes of Kerry et al, that we are at "war" with somebody. Anybody. Take your guess and your pick like Bush does. It will be anybody whose stuff we want. and until Kerry and the likes of Clinton, Hillary that is, stop this shit, we will be doomed to continue in the venue of a "war" on nobody we can define, but who will cost us billions of dollars and perhaps a million lives of innocents, our own, included in that.

As it is, Kerry, who voted to give a doofus and a liar, complete control over wartime activity, cannot aske that question.

I will ask it as an ordianry prole.

SENATOR KERRY

WHO IS IT THAT WE ARE AT "WAR" WITH?

Stand up and challenge the supposition that we are at "war" with some undefined enemy.

Oh, I forgot, you voted for the stupid Dauphine little boy to attack whoever he decides in his presidential decrees, even though he has fucked up everything he has ever embarked upon to prove he is, indeed, smart, even though he only earned a "C" average in all of his "studies" at Yale and Harvard.

He is quite stupid. You , as an intelligent man, know this, yet you fear asking him the big question,mostly becuase, I suspect, you voted to give him the power that he has, unquestionably, abused.

WHO IS IT THAT WE ARE AT WAR WITH?

[beachmom]

8. We are at war with chaos. A chaos that we created.

I haven't quite figured out whether Bush, et al are stupid or highly clever (the oil price is nice and high for their buddies, isn't it?).

In short, we are looking everywhere for the enemy except in the mirror.

Sen. Kerry would agree with you on his yes vote for the IWR. Two weeks ago on MTP, he said it was a "profound mistake". And he won't mind if you're still madder than hell at him for casting that vote. But within that anger, if you can plug his plan to get troops OUT in 2006, even if you preface that with your feelings about his vote, that would be very helpful. That's the task that we have at hand, and it is too important for our troops NOW to let the past keep us stuck in inaction.

If you haven't signed the petition yet, it's in the right upper hand corner on the front screen:

www.johnkerry.com

[SKKY]

7. And if it hadn't been for Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry would be running...

...the show right now.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. Senator. a. we are NOT at war, because it has

not been declared by the Senate, of which you are part.

and

b. Had you been elected, we would be protesting against you now most likely for being there.

[onehandle]

10. If Kerry is the Democratic candidate in 2008.......

I'll vote for him again. Proudly.

[Peace Patriot]

11. Gore/Kerry in '08. Both elected. Both cheated out of it.

The Poetic Justice ticket.

-----------

The only ticket that can beat the Bushite voting machines.

Most Americans know Bush cheated. They would love to see justice served. How better?

----------

Kerry alone has too much to overcome--too many mixed feelings about his early concession and his vote on the war. But as Gore's running mate on the Poetic Justice ticket, he will shine.

Gore's win has been proven. Kerry's win is inferential (due to non-transparency in the election system). And Gore won first. There is also the stability and experience issue. Gore spent eight years a heartbeat away from the presidency. We need experience, competence, a steadying hand. The country is in grave crisis in every way. Gore is the man. And Kerry is a great second in this situation.

I want the American people to win this time. I want democracy restored. I want the will of the majority to be obeyed. I want justice.

[Peace Patriot]

12. About Kerry saying "we are at war." Yeah, he made that mistake in the

campaign as well--buying into the Bush junta shit. I don't like it. But what I like or don't like, regarding policy, is not really the point. I am absolutely convinced that Kerry was elected. BECAUSE he made that mistake (and a number of other biggies), and because Gore won first, Kerry should take the second spot to Gore. We need a TEAM. And not just any team. We need a GREAT team to put this country back together again. With democracy, and open dialogue, and the end of fear, we can reassess the "war on terror," and change the terms and the concepts, and establish peace and justice as our country's objectives, in ways that we have never done before. I think that the two people who WERE elected, getting to be inaugurated, will bring such a refreshing spirit to the country, that anything will be possible.

I'm just way beyond arguing like this with Kerry or Democratic Party policy. We don't even have basic sanity in the White House. Our democracy has been overturned. We have suffered a fascist coup. Two rightwing Bushite corporations counted all our votes in 2004 with "'TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls, for godssakes! Ask Kerry about THAT! How did THAT happen?

It's just useless. We have to go back to square one: DEMOCRACY! Put the people in the White House whom the American people actually elected--and I think a Gore/Kerry ticket can and will do that--and start over.