Kerry hits it out of the ballpark (NYT Op-Ed)

[scottxyz]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28kerry.html?hp&oref=login


PS - If you want a free login/password to bypass the NYT login, go here:
http://www.bugmenot.com/

[napi21]

1. I guess you are a Kerry supporter, but I don't think Kerry can hit

anything out of the park. He was a bad candidate who waged a bad campaign. He's not going to ever be mpre than a Senator.

[scottxyz]

3. I'm NOT a Kerry supporter

I think he sucked as a candidate. When the Swifties came after him, he shouldn't've recited his resume - he should've attacked Bush for being an AWOL TANG cokehead - who froze and then ran on 9/11. And I also wasn't happy with Kerry when he failed to dig into the Ohio 2004 mess.

But this was a good article. Credit where credit's due.

[LittleClarkie]

9. Indeed, I've never seen scottxyz at any of the sychophant meetings

not one of the "usual subjects."

It is not unknown for the occasional non-Kerry apologist to sent an "attaboy" Kerry's way.

I appreciate the open-minded "credit where credit's due" scott. I try to do the same regardless of the person in question. Biden turns me right off, but even I can admit that he did a good job on the Bolton issue.

[Melodybe]

38. Did he mention the DSM, if not, then give me a fucking break!

Kerry's crumbs are getting more and more stale.

Why? Why? Why? Won't he just fucking call Bush out?

What will Kerry say when the new torture pictures are released?

I hope that the democrats are waiting to pounce until then, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to say something substantial.

[Frederik]

39. He did

briefly.

[Melodybe]

41. Well, then I take back a tiny bit of my anger.

Sorry for being a bitch, after volunteering thousands of hours last year to get Kerry elected, I'm still a bit bitter.

If you couldn't tell, I didn't read it. I'm not giving Kerry the time until he starts really hitting these bastards with the truth. It seems to me that he still is being rather polite to the murdering fuckwads.

But I'll be patient, again.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. I saw him interviewed last night after the speech and on Today, no DSM!

How many people watch C-Span???

Yet last night and this morning he had an audience of 10,000s of viewers, and Nada, Zilch!

[blm]

44. He mentioned DSM on the Senate floor yesterday.

.

[johnaries]

45. He did. He went around to the other Senators about it. He spoke about it

on the Senate floor. He sent a letter with the signatures of 9 other Senators. He even mentioned the DSM again in his speech yesterday.

He's pushing it, if you are paying attention.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Robert Oak]

2. Good job Kerry

As far as Kerry bashing, I think he royally screwed up in August...
but I sense the guy "has it in him" as he showed during the debates.

Honestly I think the country just didn't have enough people pulled
out of denial yet. If the election were held today Kerry would
sweep it.

[Mojambo]

4. Kerry's a good man, a great Senator and was a decent candidate

running against an indecent incumbent and a rigged system.

I have problems with the man's campaign, but he is a GOOD man.

[lonestarnot]

13. Agree!

[ohtransplant]

5. Good metaphor.

He was everywhere today. The Op-Ed piece, the Senate floor speech, a broadcast e-mail, and an appearance on Larry King to top off the day. Each time, he was right on message hammering away. Not only is he a power hitter but I believe he also hits for average.

You don't have to be a Kerry fan to appreciate the effort. I didn't see any other Dems show this level of activity or rhetoric in direct opposition to a Presidential address.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. I saw Kerry interviewed tonight

by Bob Costas on CNN and he was weak. Distanced himself from Kennedy's "quagmire" assessment, Costas played the "isn't the problem that we aren't seeing all the good things happening in Iraq?" card and Kerry AGREED! The guy just doesn't have it in him to stick his neck out on anything. His first response to any question is to be conciliatory and agreeable in a time when we are begging for someone to just stand up and say "enough".

[wisteria]

10. I disagree, I thought he did well, wasn't weak!

If he doesn't think we are in a quagmire over in Iraq right now, then that is his honest opinion. He's been over there, he is aware of all current progress and set backs. I don't see how you can consider someone weak simply because he disagrees with another senator's description of Iraq.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. Do you think

then, that things are actually pretty good in Iraq and that President Bush is not getting a "fair shake", because all the progress we are making is not being reported? Well John Kerry apparently does too.

[LittleClarkie]

18. Did you see the op ed in the NYT or his floor speech

I think you are oversimplying his message. He did say, when he got back from Iraq, that one of the messages the soldiers there wanted him to take back with him was that they were doing some good work there.

It's not about Bush getting a fair shake. He could give two fucks about Bush. I'm sure, knowing Kerry, it's about the troops getting a fair shake.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. I wasn't referring to his message

or his positions. Yes I read his Op/Ed and it was very good, on the money. I was only referring to this short interview on CNN. I know he is a smart man and understands the situation. It has just always been frustration to me that at times like that, on a quick little tv interview, when the situation calls for blunt, straight talk, he just seems too measured, like is is always worried about saying anything too controversial.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[DefenseLawyer]

20. That's fine

I'll ignore your personal attacks, as you are obviously emotionally attached to Mr. Kerry and feel that I have attacked him. I like John Kerry. I think he is a good man and would have been a great President. I voted for, worked for and gave a substantial amount of money to his campaign. But in my opinion, in this interview at least, he is too measured and cautious and deferential to both the interviewer and the President. Sorry to disagree with you. I could say more, but continuing to dally with you is not on my agenda.

[sandnsea]

23. Interesting

Same set of cut and paste talking points I see every time a poster trashes Dems or Kerry. One of these days I'm going to have to sit down and see where it's coming from.

[zann725]

37. Doesn't sound like the same segment I saw..

Kerry had that energy and Presidential confidence and demeanor he had during the Presidential Debates.

I found his energy and determination impressive. The fact that he was NOT announced ahead of time to be making a statement after Shrub's speech, was typical Kerry tactical surprise. And the look on his face told it all.

[Justice]

7. Excellent Op-Ed

[aquart]

8. What a cruel thing to do to Georgie.

The comparison is just painful.

Reminds me of the scene in Jane Eyre when Rochester, trying to explain his bigamy, shows the people his insane legal wife, and then points to the wholesome Jane.

My feeling is that the NYT shouldn't have married George. I can well understand the urge to hide him in an attic, but it's too late to marry John. They blew it.

[LynnTheDem]

11. And #1; LIED their collective ARSE OFF.

Kerry forgot to mention that.

[sandnsea]

16. According to recent polls

Most Americans get that, I suspect they've gotten that for some time now. What they want now is to not make a horrible mistake even worse by leaving these people in chaos.

[LynnTheDem]

22. It's not a problem of "leaving them in chaos"; it's STAYING them in chaos.

[sandnsea]

24. Either way

It's still chaos. There's things we could do that would change the dynamics on the ground without abandoning them altogether.

[LynnTheDem]

25. Sure...get out and leave a blank signed check behind.

[sandnsea]

26. To who?

And how long before you'll be screaming because a genocide is occuring and we're doing nothing like in Rwanda and Darfur?

[LynnTheDem]

28. If a civil war broke out -which goes against Iraq's entire history, that's

up to the Iraqis to fight and to settle. They're adults, they've been taking care of their own business for thousands of years. And in all the times they've been invaded & occupied and kicked out their occupiers, not once has Iraq ever had a civil war.

They don't need us to babysit them.

ALL imperialists use the "we can't leave, it'll be civil war" bullshit. ALL of them. Even the UK during their first attempt to occupy Iraq.

As to whom to leave the check to, put it into a trust fund for whoever is left standing as the Iraqi leader once the Iraqis boot the US puppet exiles. Who to handle the money is a decisiion for the Iraqis to make.

[sandnsea]

31. then so can Darfur & Rwanda

Fuck 'em all, bring all our troops home and let the rest of the world fend for itself. Is that your foreign policy position?

I really don't see how you can say Iraq has never had a civil war, what the hell do you call the slaughter of Kurds and Shiites under Saddam? Leave the money to whoever is left standing? Isn't that how we got Saddam??

[LynnTheDem]

32. There's a huge gaping difference.

The people of Darfur and Rwanda ASKED US for help, ASKED US to intervene.

The IRAQIS did NOT. They want us OUT NOW.

The IRAQIS say GET OUT NOW. Period.

And sorry but the FACT IS, Iraq has NEVER had a civil war.

Need links?

"How WE GOT Saddam"???

"WE"??? :wow:

[sandnsea]

34. Oh wait a minute now

The Shiites never asked for help? The Kurds? Come on now, you must know better than that. Iraq didn't just start two years ago.

What do you call it when one group rises up and another slaughters them? Tea parties?

The last man standing was Saddam, we gave Iran & Iraq money and arms. That's how WE, yes WE, got him. :shrug:

Are you denying that Saddam was a US 'gift' to the world?

And you know Lynn, just because you SAY the Iraqis want us out now, doesn't actually make it so. I suspect opinions are mixed and vary from area to area and week to week, depending on whether the power is on or a building has been bombed. It's literally impossible for every single human to have the exact same opinion.

[LynnTheDem]

36. You COULD try actually listening to the IRAQIS. That's how I formed my

opinion that they want us OUT NOW. They've been saying so for 2 years now.

Every day there are articles in LBN with Iraqis saying they just want us the hell out. There are polls, there are interviews. There are blogs.

That's how I knew Iraqis OPPOSED bush's attacking their country in the first place.

The Shia & Kurds did not ask the US or the UN to intervene or invade or occupy Iraq.

"WE" didn't get a damn thing; the IRAQIS got Hussein. And getting rid of him, or not, was a decision for the IRAQIS to make, not us.

And what I call it "when one group rises up and another slaughters them" is both the 1991 Iraqi insurgency, AND the 1991 Iraqi government putting down of the Iraqi insurgency.

The third thing I call it is America's attacking and invading and occupying and "shock & awe" bombing the crap out of a people and a nation that hadn't been doing one damn thing to anyone.

The IRAQIS want us the hell out of THEIR country. End of story. :)

[sandnsea]

40. You're twisting history

THE IRAQI'S GOT HUSSEIN!!!! All by themselves??? How can you say such a thing, I know you know better. I know you know the problems in Iraq started before 1991 as well. I would hope you know the Shi'ites and Kurds did, in fact, ask us to intervene. 60-80% of that country was ecstatic that Saddam was thrown out. What good do you think it does to twist facts? I will never ever understand that.

The polls have NOT consistently shown the Iraqi's want us OUT over the last 2 years, many have shown that the vast majority want the US to stay in. I'm sure it is much less now than at the beginning, MUCH less. But it is still wrong to say everybody in Iraq wants us out, it's just not true. What is also unclear is who it is that wants us out. Sunnis Baathists? Islamists? I doubt those who support a secular democracy over an Islamist state want us out, even today.

None of this means it was the right thing to go to Iraq and it doesn't mean Bush gives a shit about these people or democracy. It also doesn't mean that the only other solution available is to leave. It most certainly doesn't mean that supporting the Iraqi people is the same as supporting Bush's war. If this was only about the US occupation, they wouldn't be blowing up their own citizens, would they? It's more complicated and it really doesn't do the cause of getting out of Iraq any good to make it a singularly anti-American issue.

[LynnTheDem]

42. Never mind.

Iraq for Iraqis; invaders GO HOME.

[sandnsea]

43. Never mind, hmmm

Not really good enough when so many lives are on the line. I just think people get further when they argue from as truthful a place as possible. The attacks are not all being done in the name of freedom fighting, no politician has an immediate withdrawal plan.

I've said it before, the biggest problem with the far left is that they say any old thing they want because they know they'll never have to face the consequences. I guess that's easy to do when you just make up the facts as you go or select some and discard others.

It just seems to me that the most important thing right now is to force Bush to commit to specifics. How many troops are going to be withdrawn when "x" happens, when "y" happens, etc. How many Iraqi police does Baghdad need for security. How many do they have now, how many troops can come home when they have their full number. We should probably make a list like that. It seems much more productive than a vague "Invaders GO HOME" chant. Accountability for consequences means you have to do more than that.

[LynnTheDem]

48. "Never mind" as in "whatever, so NOT worth debating with you"

Bye. :)

[sandnsea]

49. Can't deal with facts huh?

Disappointed, you're smarter than that.

[LynnTheDem]

51. LOL!!!

"can't deal with facts" :rofl:

Whatever, dear. ;)

[sandnsea]

54. You want to try now?

I'll repost:

THE IRAQI'S GOT HUSSEIN!!!! All by themselves??? How can you say such a thing, I know you know better. I know you know the problems in Iraq started before 1991 as well. I would hope you know the Shi'ites and Kurds did, in fact, ask us to intervene. 60-80% of that country was ecstatic that Saddam was thrown out. What good do you think it does to twist facts? I will never ever understand that.

The polls have NOT consistently shown the Iraqi's want us OUT over the last 2 years, many have shown that the vast majority want the US to stay in. I'm sure it is much less now than at the beginning, MUCH less. But it is still wrong to say everybody in Iraq wants us out, it's just not true. What is also unclear is who it is that wants us out. Sunnis Baathists? Islamists? I doubt those who support a secular democracy over an Islamist state want us out, even today.

None of this means it was the right thing to go to Iraq and it doesn't mean Bush gives a shit about these people or democracy. It also doesn't mean that the only other solution available is to leave. It most certainly doesn't mean that supporting the Iraqi people is the same as supporting Bush's war. If this was only about the US occupation, they wouldn't be blowing up their own citizens, would they? It's more complicated and it really doesn't do the cause of getting out of Iraq any good to make it a singularly anti-American issue.

[LynnTheDem]

55. Facts;

Kurdish leader shuns US move to oust Saddam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,739916,00.html

Independent Iraqis Oppose Bush's War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,907780,00.html

February 2004: 33 percent want withdrawal within a year; 40 percent, withdrawal once an Iraqi government is in place; 27 percent, a longer or more open-ended stay. (Oxford Research International)

March-April 2004: 57 percent, "leave immediately"; 36 percent, "stay longer". (Gallup)

June 2004: 41 percent, "immediate withdrawal"; 45 percent, withdrawal after election of a permanent government; 10 percent, 2 years or longer. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA).

June 2004: 30 percent desire immediate withdrawal, 51 percent want withdrawal after a government is elected, 13 percent said that Coalition forces should remain until stability was achieved. (Iraq Centre for Research & Strategic Studies)

June 2004: 53 percent say leave now or "within a few months" or "until an Interim Government is in place" or "in six months to a year"; 33.5 percent allow "more than one year" or "until permanent government is in place"; 13.6 percent, even longer if necessary. (Oxford Research International)

January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal either immediately or after an elected government is in place. (Zogby)

February 2004: 56.3 percent of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. "Strongly oppose" versus "strongly support" is 2.5-to-1. (Oxford Research International)

March-April 2004: 58 percent say US forces have behaved very or fairly badly; 34 percent say US forces have behaved very or fairly well. The ratio between those saying "very bad" and those saying "very well": 3-to-1. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today)

March-April 2004: 30 percent say that attacks on US forces were somewhat or completely justified; another 22 percent said they were sometimes justified. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today)

May 2004: 87 percent express little or no confidence in US coalition forces; 92 percent view coalition forces as occupiers, rather than liberators or peace keepers. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA)

June 2004: 67 percent of Iraqis strongly or somewhat oppose the presence of Coalition troops; 30 percent support. (Iraq Centre for Research & Strategic Studies)

June 2004: 58 percent of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. Strongly oppose versus strongly support is 3-to-1. (Oxford Research International)

June 2004: 70 percent say Coalition troops are an occupying or exploiting force; 30 percent say a liberating or peacekeeping force. (Oxford Research International)

June 2004: Majority of Iraqis say invasion was wrong;
Invasion of Iraq was absolutely right say 13.2 percent; somewhat right, 27.6 percent; somewhat wrong, 25.7 percent; absolutely wrong, 33.5 percent. (Oxford Research International)

March-April 2004: 46 percent say the US invasion has done more harm than good; 33 percent say more good. (Gallup)

March-April 2004: 42 percent say Iraq is better off today than before the invasion, 39 percent say worse, 17 percent say the same. (Gallup)

August 2004: 46 percent of Iraqis say their situation has improved since the fall of Hussein, 31 percent say it has grown worse, and 21 percent say it is unchanged. (International Republican Institute)

57% said the coalition should "leave immediately"...
Among respondents in Shi'ite and Sunni Arab areas-- that is, leaving out Kurdish respondents--the numbers favoring an immediate pullout were even higher: 61% to 30% among Shi'ites and 65% to 27% among Sunnis.

In Baghdad, where U.S. forces are concentrated, the numbers were highest of all: 75% favored an immediate pullout, with only 21% opposed.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060304Media.html

Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, which is partly funded by the State Department and has coordinated its work with the Coalition Provisional Authority, more than half of all Iraqis-- including the Kurds-- want an immediate withdrawal of US forces...
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060304Media.html

The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year.

55% of Iraqis say they would feel safer if Coalition forces departed right away.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/

2005:

Newsweek reports that "Every major poll shows an ever-larger majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857145/site/newsweek/


Referances:

Press Release, Survey Finds Deep Divisions in Iraq; Sunni Arabs Overwhelmingly Reject Sunday Elections; Majority of Sunnis, Shiites Favor U.S. Withdrawal, New Abu Dhabi TV - Zogby Poll Reveals (Utica, NY: Zogby International, 28 January 2005), available at: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957

International Republican Institute polls: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, September 24 - October 4, 2004 (Washington DC: International Republican Institute, October 2004), available at: http://www.iri.org/pub.asp?id=7676767887;Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, July 24 - August 2, 2004 (Washington DC: International Republican Institute, August 2004), available at: http://www.iri.org/pub.asp?id=7676767885

Oxford Research International polls: National Survey of Iraq, February 2004 (Oxford, UK: Oxford Research International); National Survey of Iraq, June 2004 (Oxford, UK: Oxford Research International); both available at: http://www.oxfordresearch.com/publications.html

Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA poll: Public Opinion in Iraq: First Poll Following Abu Ghraib Revelations 14-23 May 2004 (Baghdad: CPA, May 2004), available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217741/site/newsweek/

Gallup poll conducted with USA Today and CNN: Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow, "Poll: Iraqis out of patience," USA Today, 28 April 2004; "Key findings: Nationwide survey of 3,500 Iraqis," USA Today, 28 April 2004, available at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm. Also see: Richard Burkholder, Gallup Poll of Iraq: Liberated, Occupied, or in Limbo? (Princeton, NJ: Gallop Organization, 28 April 2004).

Juan Cole, "Spinning Iraqi Opinion at Taxpayer Expense," Antiwar.com, 25 October 2004, available at: http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3843

Robin Wright, "Religious Leaders Ahead in Iraq Poll; U.S.-Supported Government Is Losing Ground, Washington Post, 22 October 2004, p. 1;

Mark Turner, "80% of Iraqis want coalition troops out," Financial Times, 7 July 2004;

Michael Hirsh, "Grim Numbers," Newsweek, 16 June 2004;

John Lemke, "Poll: Security, unemployment major problems, UPI, 25 May 2004.

"Opinion Polls in Iraq," Iraqanalysis.org, http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

Iraq Index: Tracking Reconstruction and Security in Post-Saddam Iraq (Washington DC: Brookings Institution), section on public opinion polls; available at: http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

Frederick Barton and Bathsheba Crocker, project directors, Progress or Peril? Measuring Iraq's Reconstruction (Washington DC: CSIS, September 2004), available at: http://www.csis.org/features/0410_progressperil.pdf

[LynnTheDem]

56. 2003 better than 2004 & 2005, but hardly a "vast majority".

YouGov poll in Iraq, July 2003;

-Three in four of Baghdad residents say the city is now more dangerous than when Saddam Hussein was in power.

-32 per cent say that everyday life is better now than it was a year ago. Twice as many say it is either just as bad (16 per cent) or actually worse (47 per cent).

-71% want power handed over within 12 months

-56% want US troops to remain for at least 12 months

-Believed reason for bush's war; “to secure oil supplies” (47 per cent) and “to help Israel” (41 per cent). Just 23 per cent said US aim was “to liberate the people of Iraq”, while 7 per cent said “to protect Kuwait”.

The formal reason for going to war, “to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction” came last. Just 6 per cent think this was America’s and Britain’s main motive.

-Opinion of the people of Baghdad towards Americans, three months after they occupied their city; friendly (26 per cent), hostile (18 per cent), 50 per cent feel “neither friendly nor hostile”.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_3/16_poll.html

[LynnTheDem]

57. September 2003; Zogby Poll

Iraqis Do Not Trust Americans, Says Poll

-Asked if the US and UK should help make sure a fair government is set up in Iraq, or should the Iraqis work this out themselves, 31.5 per cent wanted help while 58.5 per cent did not.

-Some 38.2 per cent agreed that democracy could work well in Iraq, while 50.2 per cent agreed with the statement that "democracy is a western way of doing things and it will not work here".

-Asked whether in the next five years the US would "help" Iraq, 35.3 per cent said yes while 50 per cent said the US would "hurt" Iraq. Asked the same of the UN, the figures were almost reversed, with 50.2 per cent saying it would help and 18.5 per cent the opposite.

-Reguarding US and British troops, some 31 per cent wanted them to leave in six months and a total of 65.5 per cent in a year. Some 25 per cent said they should stay two years or more.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0911-01.htm

[libodem]

12. all those points are well taken

but I still don't think * cares one iota. He wanted into Iraq since 1998 when almost every one in his circle of influence undersigned a letter to President Clinton, encouraging his Administration to go into Iraq. I think * spent those 44 vacation days In Crawford setting up 9/11 with Prince Bandar in 2001. They needed their 'Pearl Harbor' and they designed the perfect excuse to get into Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline and secure the poppy trade. They could barely wait to get into Iraq. I think they were shocked that the world didn't back them, after pimping all the sympathy they could sell from 9/11. Even if they didn't MIHOP, they have made a mockery of it's solemn significance by whoring it as an excuse to spread white-collar, corporate terrorism around the globe. No, they couldn't wait to get the number one item on the * agenda completed, and start ticking off the rest of the list. All they wanted was in there. They didn't care how ill-concieved or ill constructed the plan was...all they wanted was in there with their feet on the ground to support the arms cartel and Halliburton and the oil companies. The welfare of the fighting men is secondary. The infrastructure and people of Iraq and their 'liberty' and 'democracy' a distant after thought.

[LittleClarkie]

19. He doesn't have to care

The American people just have to see the comparison between what they have and what they could have had, and weep.

It's more about the peoples than the Chimperor.

[1democracy]

27. There is only one way out that * will never take...

hand it over to the UN.

[blm]

50. Good point. I think W only cares about showing power, not using it WISELY

or EFFECTIVELY.

[leftofthedial]

29. didn't he already say this during the "campaign"?

you remember the campaign? that bunch of speeches that preceeded his concession speech.

[blm]

46. he did, but the media edited out alot of it in favor of Rove's storyline

that Democrats never offer an alternative plan on Iraq.

[leftofthedial]

52. before Kerry's concession speech.

[zara]

30. Kerry can be proud that he only lost by a little...

or not at all but wasn't a sore loserman like Dino Rossi.
And he took on DSM so bravely.
Alas he will not be the dem nominee in 2008. The whiff of loser lingers.
It will be Hillary.
Dems will slaver over the smell of someone who has the cachet of a winner. She stood by power. Slept with power. (When power was not sleeping with somebody else!!!)
Even if the right wing will "lesbo" her and slime her, and the msm will just say amen, and equal time the right wing nut bags and their echo chamber of slander and deceit.
Welcome to funhouse America.
And we can still win in Iraq, right Joe Biden!!!

[nomatrix]

33. Thanks for pointing that out, Scottxyz

One of the critical points he mentioned was the divorce rate in the military is up 75% from 2002, 300% from 2000.

[LightningFlash]

35. I don't think he hit it out of the park...

Soft-low ball, it was still a good spike of reference anyway.

[B Calm]

53. Kerry needs to listen to Mike Malloy! He just might learn how

to kick republicans in the nuts!