'It's Time to Get Over It' John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On

[kalian]

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kerry-Get-Over-It9feb04.htm

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the domestic battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Project for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

..more..

So, why is Kerry doing this? Looks like a "damned if you do, damned
if you don't" type election is coming up. And NO, I will NOT support
Kerry if he is member of a similar group that mimics PNAC.

[patriotvoice]

1. Yes.

I suspect it will be more of the same from whomever wins. I'd rather give Kerry a shot, though; there's only a chance he'll fuck up. Mr. Bush, however, will screw it up most assuredly.

[tjwash]

23. I thought the one thing this administration would be able to to well...

...is run a freakin' war, but they have screwed that up six ways to sunday as well.

[wyldwolf]

2. A better question is...

..why repost a four month old article that has been posted here before? It's beginning to resemble the primary season at DU again.

And NO, I will NOT support
Kerry if he is member of a similar group that mimics PNAC.

OK.

[htuttle]

3. Hate to break it to ya, John, but we're just getting started

Be advised next January!

[wyldwolf]

17. Hate to break it to you, htuttle...

But when Kerry wins and starts working to undo Bush's damage, the small group on the left who tries to tear down Kerry will dwindle and be taken even less seriously than they are now.

Be advised next January!

[kalian]

22. Sigh....

too bad Kerry has already stated that our troops won't be coming home
until THE END of his "first" term. :eyes:
Too bad its not sooner...which means, that he's going to following
PNAC...or maybe this "democratic" version of it in the meantime...
Enjoy.

[Alerter_]

29. Kerry said four more years of War in Iraq, didn't he?

He said he'd bring the troops home "by the end of his first term". Dean said that about deficits if I remember, and we all laughed at him.

[kiahzero]

46. Actually no

He said that they would definitely be home by the end of his first term, not that they would not be coming home until them.

Reading comprehension is a good thing.

"If elected, Kerry promised that virtually all U.S. combat troops will be out of Iraq - away from "the death zone" - by the end of his first term."

[kalian]

49. Comprhension and interpretation....

are two VERY different things.
And the "death zone" is a very vague defintion IMHO...

[kiahzero]

50. How much interpretation is in "out of Iraq?"

There's not much room for interpretation. Troops will be out of Iraq sometime before the end of his first term.

[Zhade]

58. With 14 permanent military bases being constructed as we speak?

Dream on - we're NEVER leaving Iraq, until we're FORCED out.

Just like in Viet Nam, actually...

[RapidCreek]

57. Yea so good to know, he'll further blur the distinction between

the parties....If Kerry is elected you can bet you sweet ass he'll be a one term wonder. Why vote for a fake Democrat when you get the same thing with a Republican AND pay lower taxes?

RC

[saracat]

77. Too bad

You are trying to misrepresent and damage our nominee!

[Nlighten1]

28. We will see myldwolf...

Care to explain what damage it is that Kerry is going to undo?

[wyldwolf]

73. you need an explanation to the damage Bush has done?

Really? Do you really need that answered?

[Nlighten1]

78. No...the damage Bush has done is obvious.

I would like to see you explain how/what Kerry is going to do to repair it.

Bush has destroyed pretty much everything he has touched since he has been in office. And I will add that the Democrats were more than happy to let him do it and John Kerry was one of those Democrats. So why, if they were so happy to let Bush do these things are they "now" so willing to reverse course and "fix" them.

And what is it that they will be fixing? Naturally, the topics will include the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, taxes, Medicare and others.

Help me out here, how is Kerry going to help fix these things when so many Democrats helped Bush break them.

[wyldwolf]

86. Kerry's issue statements speak for themselves

I would like to see you explain how/what Kerry is going to do to repair it.

How or what? "How" isn't something I can explain for I am not John Kerry nor am I in the political process. I just know he will. When my car breaks down, I don't know how the mechanic will fix it, I just know he will. But do I know for a certainty? 100% sure? Of course not, but he will work to undo the damage and I take him at his word.

And I will add that the Democrats were more than happy to let him do it and John Kerry was one of those Democrats. So why, if they were so happy to let Bush do these things are they "now" so willing to reverse course and "fix" them.

Such an absurd statement can't go without proof, let's see a loooong list of the things Democrats have "let" Bush do. "Let" being the operative word (I assume you don't mean "outvoted")

And what is it that they will be fixing? Naturally, the topics will include the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, taxes, Medicare and others.

Naturally.

You nailed some of them on your first try.

Kerry will work to bring back jobs lost during the Bush administration through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.

Kerry will roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare.

crack down on corporations that are hiding their money in Bermuda to avoid paying their fair share and will end special tax giveaways to companies that ship jobs abroad. And he will defend the rights of workers, consumers and shareholders in holding corporations accountable for their actions.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

more...

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

is Kerry going to help fix these things when so many Democrats helped Bush break them.

Your question makes no sense. If I had a field covered in weeds, I could plow that field down no matter who put the weeds there. It is irrelevant who voted for or against certain things. After all, if the democrats (like you say) helped Bush do these things, they will help Kerry undo them. Regardless of who helped Bush do these things, as President, Kerry will wield tremendous power to undo them.

[Forkboy]

30. Am I the only one who finds it funny

that you seem more upset buy the term "newbie" than "pimp"?

[wyldwolf]

75. you must be.

And is that the best you can do?

[Forkboy]

85. I just find it funny

sue me

[Jose Diablo]

53. I don't think it will be a small group on the left

I think the administration, even Kerry's, will be forced to renounce the agenda's of both the PPI and PNAC.

The mid-terms will be decisive and the political center will move to the left.

Once Kerry's in place, we are coming for the DLC next. I doubt the DLC will end, but it will be purged of the neocon ideologues.

[wyldwolf]

74. snicker

"we are coming for the DLC next..."

Who did you come for first?

Purged? bwahahahahaha..

So, how ya' gonna do this?

[Andromeda]

64. Amen to that.

:thumbsup:

[Andy_Stephenson]

70. and raise it a halleluiah

:kick:

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[freetobegay]

4. Worst piece of journalism I have read in awhile!

The claims don't substantiate the facts, but then again they never do when going after Kerry.

Bottom line you can vote for whoever you want. If I said it once I'll say it a thousand times, at this point Kerry has a free card with me to get rid of Bush! After Kerry is in office & I see his plan in action I'll deal with it then.

[FlashHarry]

5. Jesus Fucking Christ!

Kerry is a billion times better than Bush. He's right on Iraq, by the way. Leaving it in a shambles would be a huge mistake. We need to have UN troops on the ground (preferably from Kuwait, Jordan and any other Arab countries), while we withdraw our own. Only Kerry will be able to broker this sort of deal. Bush is universally despised.

That's not even taking into account domestic policies, such as health care, abortion rights, taxes, etc.

Anyone who thinks that Kerry and Bush are a Coke/Pepsi choice is seriously deluded.

And I'll say it again, If you vote for a third-party candidate, or don't vote at all, you effectively give your vote to Bush!

[H2O Man]

6. I'm not sure what your exact concern is.

Who ever put this article out is saying that there is no significant difference between democrats and republicans. Think for yourself: do you notice any subtle differences between, say, bush and Clinton? For example, the war in Iraq? The deficit? The judges being nominated for federal courts?
America IS America. Who ever is the president will obviously have to have some connection with business and the global economy. Or, do you think that a president can deal with the loss of American jobs to foreign markets WITHOUT dealing with business interests at home and abroad?
The movement to SAVE AMERICA is not completed by electing Kerry. But it sure as hell starts with kicking bush & co. out of Washington. Get out of here with that Pepsi and Coke business. The difference between bush and Kerry is the difference between shit and sugar.

[kalian]

21. There isn't any difference between dems and pukes....

when it comes to foreign policy...just different HUES to how its
applied.

[H2O Man]

36. Fascinating!

Here I thought there was a significant difference between Clinton NOT invading Iraq, and bush INVADING Iraq! But it's just a different hue! Listen: Malcolm X used to accurately say that there was no more difference between a democrat and a republican than there was between a fox and a wolf. But times change, and Malcolm changed. He came to recognize that it was mighty important to understand what a peoples' vote could accomplish. Kerry is far from perfect, but the simple truth is that there is a significant difference between him and bush. More: there isn't a better alternative available today. I'd like to make sure that there are a lot less American kids killing and being killed in Iraq.

[kalian]

43. One would question...as it was questioned....

when Clinton and Blair decided for Operation Fox.... Hmm, interesting.

[parasim]

48. I want to believe you

However, when Kerry says things like this, the differences aren't quite so evident:

'As president, my number one security goal will be to prevent the terrorists from gaining weapons of mass murder, and ensure that hostile states disarm.  It is a daunting goal, but an indisputable one—and we can achieve it. 

Sounds not so dissimilar to what Bush says, does it?


Well, there is one difference, at least Kerry is not using the "You're either with us or against us" rhetoric.

[H2O Man]

51. Yeah, you are right.

Kerry's not wanting unstable forces to have nuclear weapons is really outrageous. Clearly, there is no difference between him and bush. The fact that bush LIES when he says things and Kerry tells the TRUTH when he says things isn't as important as "connecting the dots".....I appreciate your effort to expose Kerry as a farce, who presents a terrible danger to world peace .... obviously, we're like WAY better off if everyone has a nuclear weapon.

[parasim]

56. Clearly you failed to see my point.

If you honestly think that my comment was to try to expose Kerry as a farce, who presents a terrible danger to world peace or that he is a liar or that he wants unstable forces to have nuclear weapons then I apologize for misleading you.

What I was trying to say was I want to believe that he will really change the direction of the country but he hasn't said anything that makes me believe that yet. Is that considered demonizing him?

Perhaps you could direct me to statements he has made that indicate a clear message as to what he plans to do to get us out of the mess in Iraq as well as a more sane approach to fighting terrorism, if you feel so inclined.



For the record: I will not vote for Bush or anybody that would help him stay in office, but I am hoping that whoever it is, changes the course we are on. I am equally concerned about what happens after the election as I am the election itself.

[msmcghee]

63. So you'd prefer that . .

. . terrorists gain large arsenals of WMD and that hostile nations that hate us are well armed with nuclear weapons?

The difference, that you care not to see because it would wreck your little theory, is that Kerry believes those are good goals for our nation and would pursue them diplomatically. I, and most sane people I suspect, would agree with those goals.

Bush* simply uses them as sound bite excuses to attack whoever he wishes . . . and provide more tax cuts for the wealthy, of course.

[parasim]

66. No, of course I don't prefer that...

... but apparently I have given you the idea that I do. My error. Although, it's unfortunate that you and others decide to reply to my questioning with theories of your own about me rather than explain to me what Kerry's actual positions are.

However, you and H20 Man's bitchslapping did compel me to read the entire speech that I pulled my quote from to see if I could better understand what he was saying. I have to say that I was a bit ignorant to the context of the quote I cited.

Indeed, he was presenting a different approach than the current administration. and yes, I do agree that working to stop rogue groups from getting their hands on bomb-making materials is one thing that we need to address.

So, yes, now I do see that at least with that issue, Kerry is quite different than Bush. I was wrong.

[msmcghee]

68. Sorry about the energy of my reply.

It's so easy to read more into a post than was intended - and so easy to put more in than was meant - especially when the topic is so urgent.

:pals:

[DemBones DemBones]

69. I salute you for reading the

entire speech, realizing you hadn't fully understood the context of the quote, and admitting that here. Too many of us don't read as carefully as we should or admit our mistakes when we realize them.

:yourock:


As for Kerry v. Bush, I want Dennis Kucinich to be president but I will vote for John Kerry because he isn't George W. Bush* and he will be an improvement over Bush.*

[Andy_Stephenson]

72. Kerry for President

but after the election, we cannot simply be glad Bush* is gone...we must pressure him to get us the heck out of Iraq, as quickly as possible. I for one, would like to see a timetable within the first 45 days of his taking office.

[RapidCreek]

61. Then why are you supporting a guy who

voted to send them to their deaths and makes quite clear his interest in sending a whole lot more?

You talk in circles.

RC

[Astarho]

84. Sanctions vs. Invasion

either way thousands of Iraqis are dead.

[RapidCreek]

59. Nah...it's the difference between a healthy

crap and diarrhea. They both stink...it's just that a chronic case of the screaming shits will kill ya. I wouldn't want to put either in my mouth or find either on my rug.

RC

[AG78]

7. This is the road...

we're going down no matter what. One party gets us there slower. The other runs over everything without asking questions. But it's the same destination.

It's just in the concept of "America". It's a land mass, with arbitrary borders, that is controlled by multi-national corporations. Outside of the corporations, it's been that way since day one. For the first 190 years of the country, not everyone had rights in the country of the free. For a few years in the 60's, democracy seemed to exist. Come the 70's, the corporations really took over. Now we're here.

We're an offensive empire. We're quite the militaristic country. This is what we do.

Still have to vote Kerry however. Get this insane administration out, and then go from there.

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. aw shucks, I sort of suspected as much

.
.
.

looks like I'll have to find another Continent to retire to

preferably one with no oil, gas, or anything else that the US "deserves" to maintain their lifestyle

(sigh)

[rucky]

9. Here's Kerry's Quote

for those of us who want to spend minimal time sifting through bullshit:

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."

okay, now you can comment...

[wyldwolf]

12. Damnit! Now you've spoiled all these whiners' nights with your logic!

How dare you cut through the bullshit and expose the original post in this thread for what it is.

[H2O Man]

13. Having read that quote carefully,

who do you picture saying it: (A) bush, holding a can of Pepsi? or (B) Kerry, holding a can of Coke? Maybe is Ralph Nader and his pet bottle of Dr. Pepper!

[Nlighten1]

26. Hmmm

That quote says...

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."


1. Get over the Vietnam war.
2. It wasn't a good example of America of US military power.
and or
3. The exception being what exactly?


Can someone explain to me how this is a plus for Kerry having said this?

[H2O Man]

42. I haven't seen anyone say it was a "plus"

and so I wouldn't even try to "explaint to (you) how this is a plus for Kerry having said this." But I will suggest that to understand what Kerry meant, one needs to stick to what he said .... and he never said "get over the Vietnam war." He did say move beyond the misinterpretations. That, in the context of his statement, clearly implies that he is speaking in terms of a national reconciliation. Those who twist his words could either not grasp the meaning of reconciliation, or simply oppose it for a variety of reasons.

The end of his statement appears to be an accurate assessment of the large number of people who express what they feel are their "opinions" on Vietnam, but which actually are not opinions at all. The word opinion implies that a person has a factual foundation on which to build. Like Mark Twain said, the problem in the world today is not one of ignorance, it's one of people knowing so darned much that just ain't so. I do think it's a plus that old Mark Twain said that.

[Sinistrous]

45. Who is saying it is a "plus" for Kerry?

It simply refutes the implication in the twaddle quoted in the original message that Kerry was advising to get over the Iraq war.

[Nlighten1]

47. Ahhh...

I see.

[Sinistrous]

60. Such profundity.

Nighty night.

[WilliamPitt]

14. Thanks

[Sinistrous]

24. How many of us realize that Kerry was urging people to "get over" the

war in VIET NAM, and not Iraq:

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century.

(Emphasis mine.)

[Nlighten1]

27. I caught that too...

see my above post.

[Alerter_]

38. Vietnam was an exception?

Like the Phillipines and Haiti and Cuba and Panama were exceptions?

[Nlighten1]

40. Exactly.

If you look at Vietnam and ignore the others it is easy to call it an exception.

[hippywife]

80. And let us not forget

the terrorism caused by men in suits with pens that do far greater damage to far greater numbers of people. These are the covert acts of terrorism that lead to the overt acts of war.

[RoyGBiv]

54. Thank you...

Ya know, you'd think the people on DU would know by now to be a bit more observant of the potential of anti-Kery propaganda than some are.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. my question to the author is.....

would you support any democrat? after nearly 3500 posts, you certainly haven't seen fit to support this site; this is not a criticism, just an observation....

[0rganism]

11. The question to ask is whether you prefer multinationalism to US hegemony

I take Sen. Kerry at his word when he says he'll involve other nations in the process of encouraging global "progress". Conversely, the PNAC paradigm puts American foreign policy directly at the service of multinational corporations, with or without international allies. While "progressive internationalism" may not be much better in the long run than the naked imperialism we have now, I think there is a qualitative difference which needs to be recognized.

Sen. Kerry deserves your vote in November based on domestic policy differences alone, but we shouldn't overlook this opportunity for a stepwise improvement in foreign policy either.

[kalian]

18. Thank you for your post....

You've stated what concerns me the most. Very eloquently I might
add.
Again, thank you.

[Nlighten1]

32. It will be stepwise only if...

he can actually convince other countries to come in and help us. Otherwise we will be stuck with the Bush doctrine.

[SideshowScott]

15. Hey Vote for whoever you want.Just dont cry to me when Bush does his worst

So far we have seen Bush give our surplus to his buddies and the Rich, put a boob fearing calico cat hating nazi fundie nutjob at attorney general, pack his administration with crooks and cheats, run like a coward when we were attacked, turn a blind eye to his buddies at Enron while they scammed millions out of investors, employees and California, willfully lie to us about going to war in Iraq, made us a joke to the world, made us HATED by the world, and the list goes on and on and on.....
And hes just getting warmed up.
And you really think Kerry would be a worst choice as president??
Putting how I feel and who im voting for aside, the lesser of two evils crap is nonsense. Bush needs to go, im sure we can all agree to that. I think Kerry would listen to us a thousand time more while Bush is ignoring any idea or voice left of John McCain. I think Kerry would be a more competent leader than Bush could ever be.
Vote who you want to but the fact and reality of it is that its ether Bush or Kerry its way to late for a 3rd party to even think he or she has a chance or even can put a dent in Vote to be heard.

The article really reeks of half truths and lies by the by..I believe it when I see more proof.. But as of right now my main goal is to see Bush out of the white house and Kerry is not only the Best man for the job but the one who can do it.

[kalian]

20. I'll cry HARDER....

when we vote for Kerry and NOTHING changes.
Note...AOL keyword is CHANGE. If Kerry continues to do the same
shit as Bush would have done...then what? :eyes:

[MirrorAshes]

34. What good does this serve us *now*?

If we look back in a few years and see that Kerry has done a bad job, we'll learn from the mistake and hopefully be able to use it as a chance to truly move forward. The point is we will *NEVER* have a *CHANCE* to move forward with Bush in office.

Kerry may not be perfect, but there is hope with him in charge. With Bush there is none.

[jackstraw45]

16. I think John Kerry, who SERVED in Vietnam, has the damn right

to express his opinion on that war.

Jeez, people, use your heads.

[kalian]

19. On "that" war...

but maybe not this one... :eyes:
I don't think that the author is refuting his "right" to comment
on the Nam war, but the author IS bringing up a point as to where
Kerry wants us to go with regards to our foreign policy....

[NNN0LHI]

81. There are some of us who do NOT need the "author" to explain...

...where Kerry wants us to go with regards to our foreign policy. That may be hard for you to comprehend? But there are many freethinkers on this board who do very well deciding that kind of thing for themselves. Then there are the others who need directions to get to their own bathroom. :eyes: That is just the way it is.

Don

[usregimechange]

25. So he can get elected in this stupid electorate. I mean that... nt

[Walt Starr]

31. Well, here's my personal slogan

Vote for Kerry November 2nd.
Protest Kerry November 3rd.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. I am not giving Kerry a blank check

I will vote for him on November 2 and celebrate his inauguration on January 20; I am prepared to demonstrate against his policies and initiatives on January 21.

The war is immoral. All colonialism is immoral. Get over it.

[Walt Starr]

37. I'm not waiting for January 21st

The protests begin on November 3rd. Don't even let his ass get in before holding his feet to the fire.

[Pastiche423]

35. "...a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration"

IOW, PPI is a nuanced PNAC.

[Q]

39. Excerpt from a Kerry speech BEFORE the Iraq boondoggle:

"In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response."

- Now...either Kerry wanted to invade Iraq under false pretenses...or he believed the Bush* propaganda about Saddam, nuclear weapons and all the rest. He didn't listen THEN to the millions of 'anti-war' protestors...nor the warnings from Ritter and others who were on the ground and KNEW Saddam had been disarmed and his army in disarray.

- Vietnam and Iraq have many things in common...including the inability of candidates to be seen as 'anti-war' when the war fever is at its highest and nationalism drives policy instead of reason.

[KoKo]

52. I don't know, "Q" it sounds like "Condaleeeeezah" to me. I heard him give

that speech during the lead up to the Invasion where many of us here were monitoring every speech on C-Span II. It doesn't sound any better to me today than it did then.

He was pretty emphatic in his catagloging of Saddam's WMD, while Senator Byrd was pretty emphatic in saying "WHY NOW?" WHAT's THE BIG RUSH?

A pretty big contrast there. :shrug: Thanks for the post.

[mmonk]

41. First thing is to elect Kerry

Second thing, re-establish the concept of a democratic republic (by moving over to the wing of the party that wants to return ie: Gore? DK? Dean?).

[mmonk]

44. America has never been great

due to imperialism. The more we go down that path, the weaker we will become (as no one will want to deal with us, just counter us).

[KoKo]

55. Either Kerry will be come a "Magician" or he's pulling a Bush with

this "Kinder Empire" thing. Some would have us "trust him" and figure after the election he will come in and turnover all Bush's dreadful policies and dismantling of the Constitution and our Progressive Polcies since FDR. But, how is he going to renegotiate what's been given away through Congress? What took Bush three years (and God knows what he's going to do before he leaves) will take Kerry his whole first term to try to achieve. And, what about Congress. Kerry can wave a wand and make us go back to 1999?

Or, he will continue the Bush policies with modifications. If we can't take back the House, he can't do much. Taking back the Senate with Daschle still in place will only be a "finger in the dyke," so what does he do?

This is why we need to know NOW what he WANTS to do...and for some of us it's not looking good like he's following too closely in Bush's boots.

:shrug:

[quaker bill]

62. I simply do not like Kerry's policy here.

I have contributed to Kerry's campaign, I will work to elect him and he has my vote for a number of other reasons. Primary among them is the simple joy of watching Bush leave for Crawfish Texas on January 20. It will be my 50th birthday and I can think of no finer present than watching that bozo leave town.

All that being aside, I disagree with Kerry on policy on Iraq. He is too similar to Bush on this issue. I agree that they are not the same, but a "muscular" foriegn policy as advocated by Kerry and PPI is what created the Iraq situation that eventually resulted in war. We armed Saddam and made him "all he could be" in service of just such a muscular foriegn policy. The people who armed Saddam all thought it was a great idea at the time.

Bottom line is that it will not matter. Read the tea leaves folks, Bush is backing out as fast as he can. This was supposed to be a profit making venture, they (the Iraqi's) were going to love us, cheap oil was going to flow, and Bush was going to be at 70 percent in the polls by now.

Bush* maybe ignorant, but his resume strongly suggests that he knows a losing business proposition when he is in the middle of one. Read up on Harken Oil if you have doubts.

If there is any way Bush can do it, the war will not be a big issue on the table come November. Take it to the bank, he will put this fire out. Enough damage may have been done that he will lose anyway, but not for lack of trying.

As to the Kerry administration, I expect that there is no way short of another major attack on US soil that we will be involved in another war over the next 4 years. The American people's tolerance for such international adventures has about run out. Another attack and we will respond, but short of that, I just don't see it happening.

No one in his right mind will attempt to sell us on another war over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sanctions yes, invasion, I just don't think so.

So while I don't care for Kerry's announced foriegn policy, I don't really think he will have a chance to do all that much of it. It will probably take most of his first term just to patch up the foriegn alliances and domestic programs Bush* has trashed.

I concur with many of the other posters here that the differences between Kerry and Bush are far larger than the Nader camp would have us believe. I probably also agree with many that the Nader run is the most self destructive thing progressives can do to themselves politically.

[msmcghee]

65. If I was a terrorist . .

. . it would be clear to me that;

1) I could deliver a serious attack to the US and kill a lot of people sometime during the next few months.

2) I could repeat that every few months.

3) There's nothing any American administration could do about it (the Billy Jack effect).

4) Voters will blame the incumbent - even if the policy was the best possible under the circumstances . .

. . guaranteeing political instability and chaos in our economy for many years into the future. (Barring some miracle of conciliation initiated by a Kerry administration, that could be our future, in any case.)

It's a bit like IP. It makes no difference what Israel does, barring some major move toward reconciliation, Hamas and Islamic Jihad will continue to bomb Israelis until there are no more of them in Palestine.

Similarly, our high-tech warfare has met it's match in the world of radical Islamic conflict - and there's nothing we can do about it. We can't even admit it.

The only answer is accommodation. But that would be too painful for a politician, or rather, it would make them too easily vulnerable in a nation that's become as partisan and radicalized as we have. After 9/11 - no American of either party, running for president, can appear too accommodating or they'll suffer the consequences. Just what Osama wanted. He Billy Jack'ed us - and that's how the US lost it's groove.

[Jack Rabbit]

67. This story is four months old

Just a little perspective.

Kerry can say whatever he wants now. It won't matter. By January 20, when he takes office, the situation will be different than it is now. That will probably be a further deterioration of the Bushie position.

[saracat]

76. This is OLD From Feb.04

And designed to cause trouble!

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. precisely.........

:thumbsup:

[Classical_Liberal]

79. Kerry is to the right of Carter and Clinton on Israel/Palestine

This proves that he is more neocon than a progressive internationalists.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

83. JK better understand that we are not questioning the troops but...

the Government that sent them on that mission.

:argh:

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."

I fully support JK but he better not give us any crap!!!

[BiggJawn]

87. I have better questions....WHO is Mark Hand? And...

WHAT is mindfully-dot-org?

"So, why is Kerry doing this? Looks like a "damned if you do, damned
if you don't" type election is coming up. And NO, I will NOT support
Kerry if he is member of a similar group that mimics PNAC."

Karl Rove thanks you. He LIKES to know he's getting his money's worth.