Kerry: Our military needs a better ally at home

[cestpaspossible]

I recently traveled to Iraq where I was proud to visit some of America's most remarkable young men and women. I wish I was as proud about what is happening in Washington, where ``supporting the troops'' is often confused with simply supporting the administration's policies. Sometimes supporting the troops means challenging the policies that put them in harm's way or harm the families who pray for their safe return. It also means Congress has a special responsibility to our troops - both in the field and at home.

Our troops must have every tool they need to succeed. Every recent commitment of American military power, including the ``air war'' in Kosovo, has required sizeable ground forces, at the very least to provide post-conflict security. There's just no technological substitute for boots on the ground. I introduced the Strengthening America's Armed Forces and Military Family Bill of Rights Act to permanently increase the size of the military by 30,000 to 40,000 in the Army and 10,000 in the Marine Corps to meet challenges of the new century. Let me be clear: This is not a proposal to increase U.S. forces in Iraq. But our experience there is instructive. Our ground forces are stretched. The Army recently began calling back retirees ranging in age from their mid-40s to late 60s. The Guard and Reserve are stressed, too. The chief of the Army Reserve warns that his troops are ``rapidly degenerating into a broken force'' and at this rate couldn't meet future missions. If we had begun expanding the military in 2003, when Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and many of us began calling for it, our military would not be as overstretched as it is today.

We need a Military Family Bill of Rights, a set of policies enshrined in law to meet the needs of military families. Investing in military families isn't just compassionate - it's a smart investment in our national security. The Military Family Bill of Rights would:

Expand TRICARE to all Guard and Reserve members, whether mobilized or not. Members failing physicals impacts combat readiness, yet as many as one in five do not have health insurance.
Allow widows to stay in military housing for one year. For those with children, the current policy of 180 days can mean changing schools in the course of a year.
Establish a Military Family Relief Fund. Just as we let Americans donate a few dollars to finance presidential elections on their tax forms, they should be able to thank our troops.
Allow penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for deployment-related expenses, like increased child care.
Offer a tax credit to small businesses that make up the difference between Reserve and National Guard members' civilian and military pay.
Expand post-traumatic stress disorder programs and require more outreach. As many as one in six soldiers returning from Iraq show symptoms of PTSD, yet barely half of all VA medical centers have treatment facilities.
Increase the military death benefit. Last year I proposed increasing the benefit so that, combined with the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, the families of those who die in military service would receive $500,000. No one can put a price on a life, but the current $12,000 is insulting. The president recently embraced a formula to reach $500,000 but limited it to deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress should embrace the broader benefit for all troops, regardless of where they die, and act immediately to make it law.
Boston Herald Op-Ed, 2/28/05

[Trillo]

1. Instead of making a "flat" payment amount

the articles says $500,000, why not a percentage of average income, to isolate the benefit from the creep effect of inflation? For example, if American's average income is $20K, then the benefit could pay 2500% of that defined value. Then, as average incomes rise or fall in the dynamic economy, the benefit would also rise or fall in lockstep.

[cestpaspossible]

3. Hmm

Kerry mentions a 'formula' but I don't know how the 500,000 figure is arrived at... what you're saying makes sense to me...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The idiot still wants more troops and more money for "defense".

The "world's mightiest military" needs more troops? More money?

Have another lunch on the lobbyists, John.

[cestpaspossible]

5. So you think the widows should get kicked out of housing

in the middle of the school year? What about the death benefit... are you against raising it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Yes. There's nothing to prevent them from buying life insurance.

Of course, if insurance benefits were extended to all Americans, I'd be all for it.

What differentiates GI's from coal miners? Or, truck drivers? Or, typists?

They took the job.

[Trillo]

8. The alternative is a draft. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The alternative is to cut the size of the military and the "defense" budge

I fought the draft in the '60s, burned my draft card. No great heroism on my part, I'd already put in my time. Now, I think that was a mistake. The all-volunteer military takes the sting out of making war.

[Trillo]

13. "The all-volunteer military takes the sting out of making war."

Not if they're being paid more. As pay, or benefit increases, the costs of waging war also increase.

Would you be as willing, if the medical procedure were voluntarily available, to be deliberately irradiated to destroy your immune system and wait for the inevitable outcome?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. I must need more coffee. Your analogy is beyond me.

I was thinking in terms of lives lost. It's all very easy to brand the dead as "heroes" who volunteered to valiantly die for the cause of God, motherhood and apple pie. Quite another thing for a draftee to die who was sent off to kill for a cause he didn't believe in.

But, I am curious about your analogy. I can't make a thing out of it.

[cestpaspossible]

17. So are you for or against having a draft?

I can't tell.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. For.

If we are to send kids to kill and die for the politicians and their corporate bosses under the rubric of "patriotism" "heroism" etc, let there be a draft to bring the citizens of this country face to face with the reality of war rather than the "glorious cause" BS so beloved of politicians. It's all very nice for JoeSchmoe citizen to sit back and watch the Oscars or Wheel of Fortune and wave the flag, when his kids aren't threatened with death. The "patriotism" diminishes rapidly when the body bags start coming home.

[cestpaspossible]

22. Well, nice to see we agree on something.

Rangel is right.

[cestpaspossible]

9. Nice to know where you stand, thanks. Against military widows.

Standing against motherhood AND the troops. Good luck in your future efforts to formulate a winning political message, lol.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Standing for peace. A novel concept. Want to throw in apple pie?

I'm not against the "troops", I'm against the military and the politicians who send them to kill and weep crocodile tears over the results..like the good senator. As for motherhood, the last I heard, that's a voluntary state to put oneself in.

I don't give a rip about a "winning political message".

[cestpaspossible]

15. You just said you want to kick widows out of housing.

How will that advance the cause of peace?



I don't give a rip about a "winning political message".

Well, that much is obvious. Once again, however, you are in a tiny, tiny minority. Most of us actually do want to craft a winning political message so we can actually achieve some positive results.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. How about non-military widows? Don't they deserve the same?

Are you willing to have them kicked out?

Paying the troops more through benefits only makes the military a more inviting choice for potential recruits. I want it to be reduced to a bad choice.

Being pro-military may be a "winning political message", so is "cutting taxes", and, according to some, being "pro-gun", anti-abortion rights, anti-affirmative action, pro-business, etc. It works for the Republicans.

Doesn't make it right.

[cestpaspossible]

20. Meanwhile back on the planet Earth

we are discussing a bill called the Military Family Bill of Rights. One of the provisions is to extend the amount of time the widowed of KIAs get to remain in military housing.


"How about non-military widows? Don't they deserve the same? Are you willing to have them kicked out? "

I'm not sure on what planet that question would be relevant to the discussion or indeed would even make sense (how do the spouses of these non-military widows get killed in action and why are they living in military housing in the first place?). When you find out on what planet these questions make sense, let me know.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Planet earth. Where uninsured widows get kicked out of the homes.

Do the mortgage companies extend the time that widows get kicked out of their homes when their husbands are killed?

Why should someone holding a military job deserve more than ordinary citizens?

[cestpaspossible]

25. Neptune. Where being in favor of x means being against y.

What are you talking about? Why are you unable to respond on-topic?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. The topic is the same.

You favor giving military families more benefits and the military more money and troops. I don't. You seem to feel that citizens attached to the military have some special right to benefits over those of ordinary citizens. I don't.

Why do you want to add to the military's budget? Kerry's "plan" calls for more troops "not to be sent to Iraq". How naive can you be? 40,000 more troops "aren't sent to Iraq", which frees up 40,000 other troops to be sent to Iraq, or any other "enemy" the government decides is worth subduing.

It's all a scam. Kerry is still trying to justify his vote for the war and make himself "electable".

[cestpaspossible]

34. Speak for yourself.

You are welcome to say what your views are. Please don't pretend to speak for me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. As in?

Show me where I'm "speaking" for you? Are you not supporting Kerry's position?

[cestpaspossible]

37. It's not rocket science.

When you make statements such as "I believe..." "I favor..." "I think..." you are speaking for yourself.

When you make statements such as "You believe..." "You favor..." "You think..." you are pretending to speak for me.

Like I said, it is a pretty simple concept, not rocket science. Do you 'get it' now?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Well, that's a nice evasion.

Sure, I "get it". Rather than defend what you're advocating you'd rather avoid answering the questions. So, how about it? Do you agree with Kerry's "plan"?

It's not rocket science.

[cestpaspossible]

42. LOL

I agree with everything I wrote.

[iwantmycountryback]

92. It seems like he's interested in helping military families

That desperately need it. He also seems interested in helping soldiers who come home with PTSD and who aren't getting any help. And maybe he wants soldiers to have shorter tours of duty. I really don't understand what your fucking problem is with anything short a very radically left agenda.

[dave123williams]

4. All done; he's all done.

[Leilani]

7. He's obviously trying to polish his "military credentials"

for 2008.

Jack Reed(D) & Chuck Hagel(R) have cosponsored a bill that's been sitting in the Senate, long before Sen Kerry's big "Military Speech" several weeks back.

This is all PR.

Whether you agree or disagree with his proposals, others have been working hard on military issues while he was skiing, or wind surfing.

[cestpaspossible]

11. So, you agree with him, but your dislike of him is too strong to overcome?

That's what I seem to get out of your comment.

[Leilani]

24. Nope, what I'm saying is

He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

I hear his press releases, I hear him telling us COUNTLESS times that he went to Iraq, trying to burnish credentials.

He was running for Commander-in-Chief & never visited Iraq until after the election...other Senators have been there 3, 4, & 5 times.

If he was truly concerned about the situation, he would have done more than just talk about it.

Talk is cheap.

[cestpaspossible]

26. Your rhetoric is bullshit. Your dislike of Kerry is palpable

and attempting to deny that it is coloring your comments doesn't exactly make you look credible.

[Leilani]

45. No, I started out pretty neutral on Kerry

When Wes Clark dropped out, I backed Kerry.

But the more I watched & learned, the bigger my disillusion grew.

Let's just say, now, I weigh everything he says, because I believe he's not what I thought he was.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Horsehockey!

He's been one of those people fighing hard for the military and veterans.

Lest we forget, he was one of the founding members of the Vietnam Veterans of America. He was among the first to fight for VV issues, starting with 1971 and continuing.

What I see him fighting for is the Powell Doctrine, the one where you go in force, know what your objective is, get the job done and then know how you're going to get back out again, ie an exit strategy. The Bush Doctrine is war on the cheap.

Fighting for the military family bill of rights, and speaking up on military or veteran issues is something he has always done. No polishing necessary.

It's so disconcerting to hear the left and the right agree on this issue. "He's windsurfing when he should be working" "He doesn't really care" "He's an elitist" "Everything he does is for personal gain."

Ptewi!

If you don't know what he's been doing, you haven't been paying attention. Why, I don't know. Personally I wouldn't let others tell me what to think. But there you have it.

[Leilani]

28. Don't lecture me!!!

What do you know about the military?

I know plenty, & what I said was true.

Where was the good Senator when others were going to Iraq to assess the situation?

He ran for Commander-in-Chief & never visited Iraq till after the election. Others have gone many times.

Does he have any co-sponsors for this bill? Is he working to get it on the calendar, or is he simply bloviating?

[cestpaspossible]

30. Too bad, you're forced to hear a viewpoint other than your own.

Poor you.

:nopity:

[Leilani]

38. No, I enjoy hearing other's opinions

as long as they're well informed.

[cestpaspossible]

41. Too bad, you have to hear the ones you disagree with as well.

You can pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is uninformed if you want, perhaps it will make you feel good.


It doesn't exactly qualify as insightful or persuasive rhetoric, however, it looks more like childish whining.

[LittleClarkie]

43. Indeed

Kerry cares much about veterans, as many who've taken a good, hard, open-minded look at him can attest. I fear that those who say otherwise never did bother to take a good, hard, unbiased open-minded look at him.

I do wonder where folks like our friend here get their info, though. It could be enlightening.

[LittleClarkie]

40. Okay, so tell

What DO you know about the military, now that you bring it up? I'm willing to hear where you are coming from, experience-wise.

I know the military somewhat. My dad was career Navy, my sister Air Force, my brother Army, my brother in law Navy. I'm an onion in a petunia patch as far as that goes. Most of my military experience comes from being moved here and there and everywhere as a kid.

But from your comments, and whatever you might know about the military, you know precious little about our former candidate. What you said was unfair. He cares more than you care to know, apparently.

[Leilani]

44. I don't post personal info on a discussion board

but my family & I had direct experiences with Vietnam & now Iraq.

And I started out liking Kerry, I supported him.

But the more I saw, the less I liked. And it was the info I learned from watching him & researching him, & talking to others who knew more about him than I did.

It is because of my feelings FOR the military, that I have come to my decisions.

[LittleClarkie]

46. But as I watched and researched and spoke to people who knew him

during the campaign I came to a different conclusion.

I started off NOT liking him, at all. But the more I found out the more I came to like and support him. I haven't seen anything yet to change my mind.

My feelings for the military run pretty deep too, and in fact played a part in my feeling about Kerry, esp. when he was being smeared. I felt the same about Clelland, I don't even know much about him.

So there you have it. Agree to disagree?

[Leilani]

47. Yes, Peace.

Agree to disagree.

Perceptions are very personal...we see things through our own unique experiences.

[cestpaspossible]

48. Bottom line, you challenged the other poster's right to speak,

saying "What do you know about the military?"

When the same question is asked of you, you pretend it's an unfair question.

I respect your opinion exactly as much as you appear to respect every opinion that does not agree with your own.

[Leilani]

49. I posted my opinions

NOWHERE did I attack anyone, until attacked.

The other poster & I have agreed to disagree.

But you will continually attack ME, which I haven't done to you.

All of this rage & fury is wasted energy, because what it comes down to is Kerry voted YES on the IWR, then he voted No on providing the money needed.

He makes lots of pretty speeches, but others are doing the hard work.

I deal in facts, not personal attacks on other posters.

Nowhere did you address my concerns on issues, you simply lashed out.

End of discussion.

[cestpaspossible]

58. post 28: "Don't lecture me!!! What do you know about the military?"

That is not an opinion.

Those are your words. That was your question of the other poster, and when he/she asked it of your, you pretended it was not a fair question.

[CWebster]

14. Or,

Don't worry kids, if more of you go to kill and die for our corporations, just to demonstrate how much better I am, I will earmark a larger slice when you come back fucked up for the rest of your life.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0228-01.htm

what a guy.

[LittleClarkie]

27. Railing against the neocon idea that one can wage war on the cheap

That must be why the neocons thought that they could "do" most of the Middle East relatively quickly. I read a political analysis somewhere that suggested this administration has been kicking out anyone with military experience for a reason. They have their mostly untested neocon theories on how to democratize the Middle East, and all these pesky military naysayers keep getting in the way. It never seems to occur to them that the military naysayers know what they're talking about. Nah, let's not use the Powell Doctrine, which was produced by a military person and has proven effective. Let's go with untested theories from chicken hawks instead. Nyah, that's the ticket.

Kerry's just trying to explain to these people exactly what "support the troops" means. You don't send them in somewhere understaffed and underequipped. And you damn well make sure you take care of them once they come home.

This is how you support the troops, Mr. Bush. This isn't KMart. There is not blue light special.

[cestpaspossible]

29. A magnetic ribbon won't do it.

[LittleClarkie]

32. What do you mean?! I spent $4 on that ribbon

If that's not supporting the troops I don't know what is.

But those bums better not show up with their hand out. Support is one thing, but let some "faith based initiative" take care of them. I ain't no charity. (ptwi)

[MadHound]

33. Nice ideas John, but you're missing the big one.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Tsk. Tsk. How dare you confront him with that solution?

The "poor widows" wouldn't be widows from the war he voted for.

[Q]

50. What pandering BS...

...why not just give Healthcare and related coverage to ALL AMERICANS instead of just the military? The troops would be automatically covered when they got back from Bush and Kerry's wars.

And why more troops for wars that needn't be fought in the first place? Why more tax dollars for illegal, unprovoked aggression?

Our government has gone far astray of the Constitution by allowing ONE MAN to declare 'war' instead of congress.

Kerry is indeed part of the problem when he can't even admit that Bush lied this nation into war. He supported it for political gain and is still trying to win the 'miltary vote' with his pandering and outright lies.

God help America.

[karynnj]

52. Kerry did say Bush took us to war based on lies many many times

and not as a last resort. It was said so often you knew the words he was going to use. Why would a Democrat not make Bush take responsibility for his acts. Kerry would not have started this war if he was President and would not now be building 14 bases. This war is a disaster do not spread the blame. No matter who the Democrats elect in 2008, we want this to be a Republican war.

[TayTay]

83. Yeah, and Kennedy is right there with him

Look what he did today? http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4239471/detail.html Imagine that turncoat 'so-called' liberal asking for aid for returning vets with no arms.

Kennedy (and what has he ever done for liberalism, I ask you?) is backing the troops and trying to get the current Admin not to double their copays, and help them out with education and housing. (What a DLC-loving rethug bastard. I have to find someone more consistently liberal than Kennedy. Anybody in the current majority party that has the actual power to pass legislation that you can recommend?)

By the way, look at what that Rethug Keendy said: (The turncoat)
"These are not the spendthrifts. These are not the Enrons; these are not the WorldComs that have abused the bankruptcy system. These are people who are serving our country," said Kennedy. Kennedy said tens of thousands of veterans are forced into bankruptcy when they return home. Many of them work for small companies who simply can't afford to pay them while they are gone.

Kennedy and Kerry. MA's own Rethugs in Dem clothing. We in MA have got to learn to elect real liberals. Honestly, we are turning into such a suck-up Red State. It's just awful. Why can't MA be more liberally pure? Why can't we find more liberal people than Kennedy & Kerry to elect? Sigh!

[cindyw]

51. Good for you Kerry. You have some class, unlike some who see an idea

and say wahhhh, it's not exactly as I would want it, so Kerry must be a neo-con pig. Get over yourselves. Like it or not, these people are fighting and dying and they deserve better when they come home.

P.S. If you want to convince people that the government can manage a universal health care system, then the military would be a great test run.

[Q]

53. They're fighting and dying...

...and that's why many of us are pissed. They don't have to die. Kerry would rather help Bush maintain the charade of a 'good war' in Iraq while even the troops don't understand what the hell they're doing there.

Was it WMD? Liberation? Hope of democracy? Bull friggin shit. It seems our entire nation has been hypnotized into believing that we're in Iraq for a purpose beyond the plans of a few PNAC Neocons and their allies.

I would bet that every father, mother, sister and brother would rather have the troops home than to have to collect on Kerry's death plan.

No...he's not a 'neo-con' nor a pig. But he IS a politician trying to set himself up for 2008 on the backs of the troops. Why not just admit the truth that the war was/is a lie, bring the troops home and let them live out their lives?

Nationalism is an ugly thing.

[cindyw]

56. When did Kerry say it was a good war? It simply is. Agree or not. I happen

to not. But being a liberal, I believe that the troops deserve everything Kerry is talking about. Are you suggesting that Kerry should show his opposition by stiffing the troops. I agree they would be better off home, but here we are. By the way, if you pulled them out today and brought them home, they would still need everything Kerry is talking about.

[Q]

60. Why would Kerry support a 'bad' war?

The implication of his votes and words are clear: he is in full support of this illegal war.

I think the troops deserve not to be lied to. This isn't about 'stiffing' them. It's about sending them unnecessarily into harm's way for a war THAT DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN.

If the truth were known on a national level...Bush and every representative that voted for this war knowing that it wasn't necessary are guilty of treason.

Sure...it's nice to 'support the troops' and give them money when they're killed, blinded or their arms and legs are shattered. But what the fuck ever happened to honor and integrity? What kind of a politician would send Americans to war when they KNEW it wasn't in defense of our country or security?

Live the lie if you so desire. But the troops deserve more than Kerry's plan. They deserve the truth.

[cestpaspossible]

65. Why would an internet poster spread the rightwing meme

that supporting the troops is the same thing as agreeing with the orders they were given by their civilian leaders?

[Q]

77. Why would an internet poster...

...accuse another poster of 'spreading a rightwing meme' while attempting to distort their words?

Don't look this way if you're looking for a loyalty oath that defies both truth and logic.

[cestpaspossible]

80. Just which words of yours did I 'attempt to distort'?

Kerry comes out with a bill that would:

Expand TRICARE to all Guard and Reserve members, whether mobilized or not. Members failing physicals impacts combat readiness, yet as many as one in five do not have health insurance.
Allow widows to stay in military housing for one year. For those with children, the current policy of 180 days can mean changing schools in the course of a year.
Establish a Military Family Relief Fund. Just as we let Americans donate a few dollars to finance presidential elections on their tax forms, they should be able to thank our troops.
Allow penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for deployment-related expenses, like increased child care.
Offer a tax credit to small businesses that make up the difference between Reserve and National Guard members' civilian and military pay.
Expand post-traumatic stress disorder programs and require more outreach. As many as one in six soldiers returning from Iraq show symptoms of PTSD, yet barely half of all VA medical centers have treatment facilities.
Increase the military death benefit. Last year I proposed increasing the benefit so that, combined with the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, the families of those who die in military service would receive $500,000. No one can put a price on a life, but the current $12,000 is insulting. The president recently embraced a formula to reach $500,000 but limited it to deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress should embrace the broader benefit for all troops, regardless of where they die, and act immediately to make it law.

and your comment is:

. Why would Kerry support a 'bad' war?

The implication of his votes and words are clear: he is in full support of this illegal war.


That's what YOU SAID, it's not some distortion of mine. You conflated supporting the troops, and supporting the war. That is one of the classic RW memes being spread today.

[Q]

88. Look...what's up with your accusations about my spreading RWing BS?

My opinon of Kerry's support for the 'war' has nothing to do with the RWing or their memes. A RWing meme wouldn't include trashing Bush for lying this nation into war.

Kerry is carrying water for Bush by his continued support for a war that not only didn't have to happen...but was based on lies and deceptions. Kerry knows this and that makes him a liar.

Sorry that you're offended by the truth. But the whole world knows that we're in Iraq for any other reason than that stated by Bush or Kerry. I'm not going to defend liars...whether they're on the left or right.

[cestpaspossible]

90. I quoted your words. If they embarass you it's your fault.

[Malva Zebrina]

54. Can't make any sense out of this

going from one cloud to the next.

Going from one obfuscation to the next without a real clue as to what this guy really wants

I think Kerry has been too long on the belt way and is using confusing rhetoric without any real attempt to define his position, but continually uses what is "out there" and safe, to latch on to as his interpretation to what will bring him some fame somewhere.

Sorry. I can't make any sense out of this at all.

What is his stance, exactly? Support the troops? He mentions that that means to Bush to support the ideology . while the troops are lacking supplies.

Well damn, they are lacking supplies to kill the dissidents? What?

But he fizzles out.

I still have difficulty knowing exactly where he stands and that is his problem, not mine.
It would seem he advocates finishing the job, but what the hell does he think the job is?

Sorry, he has not learned a thing. He is better off being a senator from Massachusetts, if those there would vote for him.

[cestpaspossible]

55. Your feigned ignorance is not credible.

You profess a confusion that I just don't believe really exists in your mind.


I guess if your purpose was to post flamebait, then you achieved it, since I am responding to you.

[Malva Zebrina]

59. Huh? flamebait?

I post to the post and to the ideas in that post, my friend.

If you cannot abide by my ideas, and prefer to call it flamebait, I suggest you put me on ignore.

I do not need to defend my honest opinions or have to suffer accusations of those who do not agree.

These are my thoughts and my feelings about this introductory post that puts forth Kerry's ideas. They are as valid as any.

In my opinion, this rather convoluted and somewhat vague essay of Kerry, sucks.

[cestpaspossible]

62. yeah, flamebait

You are entitled to hold and state any opinion you want, you are even entitled to post things that you do not actually believe, or even totally incoherent ramblings, in an attempt to get other folks worked up.

An I am entitled to laugh at flamebait.

so - lol

[Malva Zebrina]

64. Looks like the only person I got worked up was you

LOL and you are not entitled to call my posts flamebait unless you can cite specifics. You are blindly attacking me, and not sticking to the ideas in the post. that is flamebait.

[cestpaspossible]

67. Just how worked up am I? Am I sad? mad? happy? how can you tell?

you are not entitled to call my posts flamebait

Actually, that's not true. I am indeed allowed to give my opinion about your posts, and I am entitled to use the words I choose, without prior approval from you. And you can call my posts anything you want in return.

So I repeat, your post was imho, meaningless, incoherent flamebait.

[Malva Zebrina]

68. Why?

what is there about it that disturbs you so much?

So much so that you lash out and call it flamebait.

Give me an example of what you think is flamebait about it. Specifics if you please.

[cestpaspossible]

72. Why do you think you know my feelings?

How did you gain this knowledge?

You know, the childish game of baiting with "Why are you so upset" questions only works when the person being baited is on the same juvenile emotional level as the person doing the baiting.


But, go ahead, repeat yourself, if you like...

[karynnj]

57. Your post is harder to understand than Kerry's position

[Malva Zebrina]

61. well I will give you the opportunity to make it clearer

what points is Kerry making that are clear to you?

[cestpaspossible]

63. It's all clear, except what's not clear is why

someone would pretend to not understand simple English.

[Malva Zebrina]

66. It is not clear to me, why you are responding to a question that was

asked of another poster.

[cestpaspossible]

69. Again, your feigned ignorance is impossible to believe.

Is it really not clear to you? When you made that statement, was it truthful?

[Malva Zebrina]

71. what is so hard about letting the other poster reply before you jump in?

I can't understand why you are pre-empting her reply, if she or he has one.

[cestpaspossible]

73. Why pretend I'm preempting something?

We all know that we can all jump in and reply to any post, and that my reply does not actually preempt the other poster.



So why make this post that everyone here knows is meaningless bullshit?

[Malva Zebrina]

75. ce n'est pas possible

[karynnj]

86. My answer is exactly the same as cestpaspossible's

Kerry's statement was extremely clear, simple English. What's not to understand?

[LittleClarkie]

70. Bush is near destroying the military

if you cheer him in that outcome, that's up to you. Books not bombs and all that. But unless we're pulling out tomorrow, that's not practical.

Perhaps you advocate just that type of withdrawl. I'm not sure why, of course, unless you're a Nader supporter, because even the most anti-war candidate this election season, aside from Nader, wasn't proposing immediate withdrawl from Iraq. There was to be some stabilization and training of security troops first. But Bush hasn't put enough warm bodies out there to accomplish this goal effectively. He just keeps recycling the same people, taxing them to the breaking point. Especially the reservists and National Guard, who are apparently seen as second-class soldiers, though they risk the same.

Kerry is proposing to bring the troop levels up to where they should be. I don't think we really understand how hollow the military is right now, though I've heard.

Kerry is also proposing taking care of these folks once they're home, something that is near and dear to his heart, and something he's been railing against since his 1971 testimony, the plight of the soldier returning home.

I'm glad he also made clear that by "support the troops" he doesn't mean more troops in Iraq, or that supporting the troops means supporting the president who's putting our troops in harms way unneccesarily. Supporting the troops nowadays often means opposing what the president and his administration are doing.

But the chickenhawks have come close to fucking up our military but good. Kerry's just trying to make it better. I don't see why that's a bad thing, unless of course you would rather we didn't actually have a military.

[Malva Zebrina]

74. It would be fine if he did not vote for the IWR

He is still in the postion of defending his vote/ position, but imo, there is no defense at all to that vote, and he is forced to still defend that postion now that he has backed himself, as in the campaign, to that position. It is a big reason why he lost. People saw no difference.

Unless of course, he really did want to invade Iraq and thought it a splendid idea and that the wool could be pulled over the eyes of the American people in order to justify an illegal, immoral and despicable invasion that killed so many, many innocent people while claiming that Bush lied to the congress and the congress was "duped" and it was not what they expected. And the war, that kills more, day by day. Useless loss of life and we have someone coming in to claim they have the solution to ending it all? None.

What solution? That is what I want to know. There is none presented in that piece at all except that which we must "guess" at is an honorable way to get out, while we build a huge conglomeration of military bases all over Iraq.

[cestpaspossible]

76. That's why you want to kick widows out of military housing?

Because Kerry voted for the IWR? That's why you oppose this measure?

[LittleClarkie]

78. His solution was exactly what he said in the campaign

training, getting the American face off the war with more help from allies, and then withdrawl hopefully in 4 years.

No, he didn't want to invade Iraq unless it was a last resort. He wanted to hold them accountable for the game-playing Hussein had been doing with the inspectors for more than a decade. He wanted the inspectors back in there.

Have you ever read his Senate speech, the one that explains his IWR vote.

If not, then here:
http://kerrycrat.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Research&action=display&num=1104648362

Here's another source for good info, clearly explained
www.kerryoniraqwar.com

Of course, perhaps you really didn't want anything explained to you or to have anything made more clear. In which case, nevermind.

[Malva Zebrina]

79. that all sounds good

but the fact remains he voted for it and that has been the albatross around his neck and, imo, the reason he lost. He cannot redeem that vote by ignoring it or not mentioning it forever, and we cannot go on ignoring it by supporting every thing he puts out as a solution to that horror which he voted for in the first place. It does not compute for a lot of people and it is time to call a spade a spade as far as Kerry is concerned.

[cestpaspossible]

81. I understand that you hate Kerry because of his vote in 2003

and I can see that nothing else matters to you.

Kerry was wrong on the IWR vote, but that doesn't mean that everything else he does is wrong.

You don't seem to be concerned with the merits of the bill being discussed, rather, it seems to be an opportunity for your to vent your hatred.

I hope it was therapeutic.

[karynnj]

89. Did it and does it help when the LW takes the RW position

That voting for the resolution is equal to voting to go to war. Even though both Bush and Powell argued when asking for support for the resolution that IT DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL NECESSARILY go to war. Kerry and other Democrats were boxed in.

The build up to Iraq began in summer of 2002, money was illegally diverted from the Afghan/terror funding. Bush claimed they could use the 2001 resolution backing Bush in responding to 911 to attack terror anywhere. Kerry and other Democrats fought this against a President polling in the high 60s - low 70s.

Kerry wrote a September 2002 NYT op-ed that argued that Bush did not have the right to unilaterally attack Iraq and that he should go to the UN to get the inspectors back in and he argued that Bush should bring the issue to congress. Saddam had been found to have many weapons after his defeat in 1991 and the inspectors had not been in Iraq for 4 years since they were pulled out (before Clinton bombed in 1998). There was international concern, especially in the Arab states, about the effects of the sanctions on Iraq. Clearly Kerry, among many Democrats were trying to stop Bush from attacking Iraq. Bush as CIC could have started a war on his own - WWII was the last war declared by Congress.

Also at that time, Kerry and others were given false intelligence on Iraq. So faced with a potentially dangerous dictator and sanctions that were likely to be dropped, the question was whether to support Bush going to the UN (which had always been Kerry's position) and insisting on getting inspectors in to find any WMD. Lugar/Biden, which Kerry preferred was a better bill in that it asked Bush to come back for a declaration of war, but it lost. Kerry backed a show of force to get the inspectors in.

The problem is in the early part of 2003, when the inspectors in Iraq were actually destroying missiles, Bush started talking more about regime change. (Kerry,in fact, got into some trouble making saying something about needing Regime change in this country in 2004)
Kerry had this time did argue for patience and letting the inspecters do their work. The sad thing is that Bush could have taken credit for the inspectors' work and declared after the inspectors completed their work, that he had made Iraq less of a danger and avoided war.

What action did Kerry take or not take that could have prevented the war? He could not stop the war in 2003, any more than he could end it in 1971. Blame Bush and Nixon. What do you accomplish by spreading the quilt?

[woosh]

82. don't go away mad

just go away

[wisteria]

84. Good for John Kerry!

He understands that it is important that we respect and take care of our veterans and their families. Soldiers are not only needed in times of war, but they are also needed to keep the "Peace".

[marcologico]

85. Kerry ahead of the curve as usual. These vets are getting messed up BAD.

But we don't get to find out what's really going on until Kerry's in the WH.

[Q]

87. Wishful thinking on your part...

...but that's your right.

If I were going to vote for someone that 'rightfully' deserves the WH...it would be Gore...not Kerry.

Kerry can't depend on the ABB voters in 2008. And he pissed off millions of Dems when he conceded and then disappeared for too long after the last election. Right or wrongly perceived...many believe that he ran away when he had the chance to take a stand against Bush corruption and cheating.

He may be a great Senator...but he's just not presidential material because his leadership skills simply suck. He should stay where he's at and do good work for Vets and other causes.

[cestpaspossible]

91. LOL

You don't like Kerry because 'his leadership skills simply suck'.

OK, that was persuasive.

[marcologico]

93. Vets from THIS WAR are dying of rectal cancer because they sit on depleted

uranium all day in their armored vehicles. All I'm saying it's nice that somebody at least doesn't see them as cannon fodder.