Kerry backs off Kennedys description of Iraq as a quagmire- wtf is it then

[In Truth We Trust]

mr kerry and when the fuck are you going to make your major speach about DSM? It's only been two fucking months suince they've become public-christ!

[Dr Ron]

1. He never planned a major speech

He is formally requesting an investigation under Senate rules. He did mention DSM in his floor speech today, although that wasn't the main topic.

Your topic title totally misrepresents what Kerry said tonight.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. He quietly said it can become a quagmire. He also had the

opportunity to mention the DSM and he never did.

[Dr Ron]

13. Kerry has spent the day attacking Bush's actions in Iraq

This isn't about just the DSM, which he did mention today, but about the war in general. He had very little time and many issues to bring up tonight.

I fail to understand why people like you persist in posting such distortions of what Kerry said today.

[Dawgs]

3. I've been wondering where all of the bitter Dean loving, Kerry hating...

DUers have been.

[LittleClarkie]

4. Don't have to be Dean-loving

equal opportunity hateration.

[Mass]

11. wrong place

[Djinn]

5. that's right

you can't possibly think Kerry's a useless stooge in a suit unless you're a bitter "Dean" lover :eyes:

[politicasista]

6. Me too

It seems to always happen everytime Kerry gives a speech or appears somewhere. I think mentioning his name brings out the bitterness in them. :evilgrin:

[msongs]

7. how karl rove of you to say that....

one can be critical and supportive of both people and still be decent caring human beings and democrats...

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

[Mass]

12. dont mix the two, please

I know plenty of people who like the two and other who hate both.

[blm]

8. He said it's not there yet, IF Bush follows a different policy like the

one Kerry laid out today where other countries help train Iraqi troops faster so ours can leave sooner, and where Bush tells the Iraqi people that we will not stay or keep bases there or have any say over their resources.

[James T. Kirk]

9. How about a "maelstrom"?

I think that word is about as arcane as "quagmire".

[pinto]

10. Would be good to post a link for discussion's sake. Thanks.

[femme.democratique]

14. Kerry is certainly adept at underwhelming his base.

[politicasista]

15. Yawn

Thanks for the Rovian talking points. :boring:

[femme.democratique]

16. Its not a talking point, its the truth

Sorry you can't handle it. We must be able to see into the faults of ALL we trust to govern, and Kerry hasn't delivered what he promised.

[LittleClarkie]

17. Not "THE TRUTH"

Just your opinion. Which you are of course welcome to.

In a way, what might be considered his base would be those who still rather like him, I reckon. We are seldom underwhelmed, since we know how he tends to be. We get those bright flashes when he's pissed off, but mostly it's Johnny the Wonk.

Some may be underwhelmed. Some of those might be the Democratic base. I hardly think you speak for all of them, however.

You are underwhelmed. Alrighty then.

[In Truth We Trust]

18. LittleClarkie I think you rock. Seriously. You seem to be a very fair and

just person.

As to my original post I want to add that I am a fan of John Kerry's who like all of us worked very hard to get elected in '04. I am just very frustrated with ANY person of power and influence who isn't willing to speak the truth. Mr. Kennedy said Iraq was a quagmire. I agree. How Mr. Kerry doesn't agree confounds me.

I am an equal opportunity truth squad when it comes to what I perceive as less than strident advocasy of truth and principles.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Thanks for the kind words, I try.

I often fail when I get my dander up. But I do try.

I dunno why he doesn't see a quagmire. He's seen quagmires (Vietnam). But he also seems really cautious in what he says in public about things that might affect the troops. It's like ever since his testimony, he's afraid his words will be used against them. Might be a McCain influence. But he cringes when he hears that 1971 testimony now. He wishes he'd found different words than "war crimes" and "attrocities," though he knows that came from his gut at the time. I think he's afraid such words will be used against the troops.

I also know he actually thinks terrorism and international crime is a real threat. It would be as if Kerry 1971 believed in the Domino theory. So I think that's another reason he's not the dove that Kennedy is, or that some folks wish he was.

So sometimes I wonder what he's thinking in private, and how much it matches what he says publicly. Almost as if he's hyper aware of how his words can affect people.

[In Truth We Trust]

20. His courage and integrity of 1971 is what propelled him to where he is

ultimately today. As a former native Bay Stater who voted for him as Middlesex County prosecutor, Lt. Gov. and Senator I am aware of his voting record and political trepidatious pecadillos. I wish there were more vehement rhetoric re: election fraWd and DSM.

Kennedy is the real deal and I wish JK would have agreed with the senior senators accurate assesment imo.

[snickersnee]

21. now see what happens???

people start being civil to each other, and before you know it peace and understanding are breaking out all over! Seriously, I've lurked long enough to know how rare and fragile such exchanges are. Well done, you two.

I think it's possible to be "underwhelmed" by some of Kerry's responses and actions without necessarily being a "hater" or having some ulterior motive. Same goes for any other "leader". I think sharing our perceptions and debating optimal strategies, which includes analyzing (but not beating to death) shortcomings, is one of the greatest aspects of such boards.

As to my 2cents, I don't know Kerry well, but I suspect it has a lot to do with what LittleClarkie speculated about. Also, remember that Kerry, along with virtually everyone else, got co-opted and "went along" with *'s early prosecution of the "war" far more than most of us would have liked. So did the bulk of America. They accepted a lot of premises ("9/11 changed everything", "they hate us for our freedoms, not our policies and practices", "saddam has WMD"), premises which they must now find ways to reject before they can fully oppose the war. They don't want to lead unless they are sure they are being followed - if they misread public opinion and get too far out in front of the pack, they fear being called traitors or even french!

In a way, democracy is that form of government whereby you shoot the messenger by firing squad. If people don't like your message, they don't like you. It's hard to tell them they were fooled without sounding like you're calling them stupid; it's hard to face the carnage you've caused and the damage endured, when you let yourself be manipulated and misled into killing and maiming, all based on a lie, while you cheered and ruffled your flag.

So that's a very delicate message to try and deliver. And moreso because the worse news is that there are few if any good options left; the toothpaste has left the tube, and most everyone has goo on their hands. Those few brave souls who shouted from the sidelines are again marginalized as "lefty idealists" or "smelly hippies", because it's easier to live with denial if all the cool kids are doing it.

Until enough people start baying for blood, demanding revenge for this betrayal of sacred trust, and for the blood of their children given up for a lie, I'm not looking to Kerry, or Clark, or Obama etc. to step forward and call the beast by it's name. Guess that makes me a cynic. Hey, prove me wrong, kids!

I don't "hate" them though.