So Kerry calls for MORE TROOPS in Iraq, and just as he raises DSM

[UdoKier]

as an excuse for his and other "democrats'" unconscionable votes to give Bush a blank check to go to war, the antiKerry squad starts posting threads calling him on his lack of straightforwardness.


(Funny how a little tweaked wording makes a world of difference.)

The "goal", if I may say so, is to tear down Kerry as a future democratic candidate, because he a.) would lose b.) would take the party even further in the wrong direction.

As for his work to get an official investigation going in the Senate, great. It's dandy. But I don't believe for a second that he's interested in taking this President down, so much as he's looking for a way to justify his, and other cowardly democrats' IWR votes. We ALL KNEW it was a lie then, and so did every member of the House and Senate with a functioning synapse.

I don't believe in coincidence, either.

The ramped up urgency in salvaging Kerry today is pretty obvious. It's all about the DLC trying to preserve their hold over the party, even though their charm has long since worn off for most democrats, and most Americans in general.

[CatWoman]

1. ooooooooo-kay

[merh]

2. Don't buy the poor spin.

Kerry called for more troops on the boarders of Iraq to try to prevent the influx of the insurgency.

Don't let them rove you.

See discussion here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3977640

[UdoKier]

3. Please. It's not the first time he's said we didn't have enough troops.

Has he ever said we never should have gone? I don't think so. Has he ever called for immediate withdrawal of all US troops? I don't think so.

Nothing short of that will satisfy me.

[merh]

4. Please, read the actual comments he made

and the discussion in the other thread.

Immediate withdrawal would be nice, can't happen until we get another force in there to help prevent civil war (NATO/UN). But until then, give the soldiers fighting over there the right tools to fight and take steps to protect them, which includeds protecting the boarders and not the oil fields!

[UdoKier]

7. I don't have a problem with UN troops

It is not our country, we have no business being there, period. We should relinquish control of the Iraqi oil industry we've stolen from them, as well as all the other industries we've privatized and sold off for peanuts to Bush cronies.

As for civil war, you are repeating Bushite spin. You have no idea what would happen if we left. These people managed to coexist for decades before we were there. They are not animals. Most of them probably just want their lives back to normal. Some theoretical civil war SCENARIO is not sufficient cause to occupy another country. Period.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. They managed to co-exist...

under a military dictator who would disembowel you at the first sign that you might make trouble. You're dealing with three major ethnic groups that dislike each other only slightly less than they dislike the United States. If we're not in the picture, it only leaves each other as the objects of their hatred. Leaving the country in a political and military vacuum leaves an extremely high risk of civil war.

[UdoKier]

16. Again, you are making assumptions with no basis in fact.

I realize there are all kinds of ethnic conflicts. There are here, too. It is their country. I am a HUGE believer in the right of nations to have self-determination. If things were to degenerate into armed conflict, there would be cause for THE UN (NOT THE US) to intervene.

But all this talk about civil war is pure conjecture, based on Bush and Hawk-dem spin, and gives the Iraqi ZERO credit for being intelligent human beings who might actually be able to solve their own fucking problems.

US OUT OF IRAQ - NOW!!!

[Malva Zebrina]

15. So wait

We are now in Iraq, losing more and more of our young, because we are trying to prevent a civil war? Excuse me? There already is a civil war. We know nothing about tribal warfare and know nothing about how those things are negotiated amongst themselves. They will continue this warfare until some solution is reached and it will take human life in order to do so.

But the notion that we have to stay there to prevent a civil war, goes way beyond what the purpose of a military is about. We do not use our military to invade and then use them to intervene in tribal disputes and warfare. IT does not work. We all know we are there to secure the oil fields, to capitalize on the chaos for big corporate profits, and to establish bases there in order to establish hegemony over the entire ME. That is why we are there and no one cares, imo, about a civil war, at least no one of our wise "leaders" than they care about restoring water and electricity.

I say, we get out, and let them solve it between themselves and they are capable of doing so without the interference of warmongering invaders. No deaths reslulting from a civil war, can be greater than what we have wreaked upon the people there. No insult can be greater than what George Bush has perpetrated upon the people of Iraq with lies.

But of course, we cannot get out because that would mean that Halliburton would lose it's lucrative businesses there, and a host of other American corporations would lose their hold there also. That is why , I think, some in government are advocating staying the course and are desperately trying to hold on to the occupation and the imperialism while at the same time, bashing Bush for his impetuousity and incompetance.

Notice they do not advocate we leave without first being sure that the corporations are protected and established.

Never mind caring about such ideological pursuits such as the war was illegal and was prosecuted according to lies, over and over. That is chicken shit to them compared to protecting American corporations and their establishment in Iraq.

I believe this

[rox63]

13. Remember?

"Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"?
How'd you get your head so far up your arse? That must have been painful... :hurts:

[UdoKier]

18. Very facile wording.

As though there was a right time to invade Iraq.

[Johonny]

5. I don't know

If the presidents "plan" has any chance of working then we need more troops. We need troops to restore order, troops to restore infrastructure, troops to restore aid, troops to train their troops... I mean if we really wanted something positive to come out of this mess. We need real help from real allies. It's probably too late. It's 2 years from what we should of, could of, would of done. Now we need to leave. Bush has no ability to attract more troops to Iraq, no ability to bring more allies to Iraq and no plan on what a win would look like.

[KG]

6. cool! more death and destruction and money wasted on a lie!

rock on!

[saracat]

8. Yeah and this agenda of this post is obvious too.!

I also don't believe in coincidence.Bashing that begins as soon as a leading Democrat takes action and gets publicity can only be from a negative source! This is NOT supportive of the Democratic Party.

[UdoKier]

9. "leading"? Kerry?

LMFAO



EDIT: By the way, the democratic party as it is now constituted, with at least half of its elected officials all across the land being every bid as blood-drenched and sold-out as the repukes, is already dead, as far as I'm concerned. It died when the dems voted for an obviously fraudulent war, and then nominated a peacenik turned warmonger to run for president.

The ONLY reason I supported Kerry at all was because Bush was so fucking HORRIBLE, not because Kerry was so great.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

[CatWoman]

10. cut him some slack

these threads are his vitamins -- he needs to post at least one a day.

[Just Me]

11. For crying out loud!

:spank:

[LightningFlash]

14. Oh its just all spin again. Kerry does not equal DLC!

Kerry is not allied with the DLC and doesn't represent them. :thumbsdown:

The guy is hard to gauge sometimes, but he is not officially part of the DLC. Hillary and the Clintons, hell, none of them like him. He is NOT DLC! He doesn't follow DLC.

He helped Biden write a few DLC laws, but the worry about him being a corrupt DLCer is unfounded. His respect is to the troops and he wants to fulfill this investigation.

If we're wrong then....Okay? :shrug: But he has poll numbers in the tank (except for those who voted for him from last year...) and he's trying to do something to help.

[saracat]

19. You are sooo right!

Some don't even recognize that Kery is one of the most liberal of our Senators. He always has been and that alone makes himnot acceptable to the DLC. All anyone has to do is check his record.The nay sayers also never can point to anyone who is doing more! Kerry was the first Senator to speak out about DSM but they don't even want to look at that! Sigh. They prefer to believe spin and negative inuendo. They truly buy in to "eating our own".

[DemBones DemBones]

17. Remember "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die

in an unjust war?" I liked that John Kerry better. Why doesn't he get it that Iraq is as unjust, hopeless, and illegal as Viet Nam?

[UdoKier]

21. I did too. It was in desparate hope that that John Kerry might resurface-

-that I ever supported his candidacy. He has managed to disappoint me over and over again since.


And to those who point accusing fingers, as though anyone who might dare criticize St. Kerry must be somehow aligned with the right, all I can say is, looking at the right, they seem to be a going helluva lot more after Dean than Kerry. Their pet 'liberals' on Fox News like Susan Estrich are constantly on the attack against Dean or anybody who tells it like it is. You will NEVER see me doing that.

[ginnyinWI]

20. we knew the attacks would come. we knew the RW would drop by.

:nopity: Getting old.

[The Magistrate]

22. Locking

This is continmuation of a dispute from another thread.