This post is for all of the Kerry bashers tonite

[jillan]

Apparently Kerry's remarks were not good enough today about the events in London. " Kerry has no substance, no balls, he's not framing that what happened today was in part * fault."

How quickly some of you have forgotten. As a fellow DUer, let me help you refresh your memory, because Kerry has been framing everything * is doing wrong for over one year. And he continues to do so.:spank:


Q: Why do you think that there have been no further terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11? If elected, what will you do to assure our safety?

A: The Bush administration has told you and all of us it's not a question of if, it's a question of when. Between the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 or so, and the next time was 5 or 7 years. They people wait. They'll plan. They plot. I agree with Bush that we have to go after them and get them wherever they are. I just think I can do that far more effectively, because the most important weapon in doing that is intelligence. You got to have the best intelligence in the world. In order to have the best intelligence in the world to know who the terrorists are and where they are and what they're plotting, you've got to have the best cooperation you've ever had in the world. We're not getting the best cooperation in the world today. We got a whole bunch of countries that pay a price for dealing with the US now. I'm going to change that.
Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO Oct 8, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY: 95% of our containers coming into this country are not inspected today. When you get on an airplane, your bag is x-rayed but the cargo hold isn't x-rayed. Bush chose a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans over getting that equipment out into the homeland as fast as possible. We have bridges and tunnels that aren't being secured. Chemical plants, nuclear plants that aren't secured. Hospitals that are overcrowded with their emergency rooms. If we had a disaster today, could they handle it?

BUSH: We've tripled the homeland security budget from $10 to $30 billion. We'll do everything we can to protect the homeland. We need good intelligence. Right after 1993 he voted to cut the intelligence budget by $7.5 billion.

KERRY: Pres. Bush just said to you that we've added money. The test is not if you've added money. The test is have you done everything possible to make America secure. He chose a tax cut for wealthy Americans over the things that I listed to you.
Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO Oct 8, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long before Bush and I get a tax cut - and that's who gets it - long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting COPS programs in America and we're fully staffed in our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants. The president also unfortunately gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure. And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That's a whole other subject, but I see we still have a little bit more time. Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union - former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL Sep 30, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Qaeda alone is known to operate in more than 60 countries. We need the cooperation of intelligence and law enforcement agencies around the world to cast a global net for terrorists, infiltrate their cells, learn their plans, cut off their funds, and stop them before they can attack. We will strengthen the effectiveness of intelligence and law enforcement efforts around the world by forging stronger international coalitions and enhancing cooperative relationships.
Source: Our Plan For America, p.225 Aug 10, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can more effectively prevent another terrorist attack by: restoring the credibility of our intelligence community by ensuring the basic integrity of the intelligence process. We will make certain that our intelligence agencies are protected from political pressures and operate in a culture of diversity of thought, dissent, and forceful challenging of assumptions; strengthening accountability & leadership by creating a true Director of National Intelligence with the authority to manage & direct all of the components of the intelligence community; maximizing coordination and integration by structuring around key threats like terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and hostile countries; transforming our intelligence services to ensure that they have sufficient personnel with the skills, languages, training, & orientation needed to meet today's threats. We will make sure that the FBI is fully prepared to perform counter-terrorism intelligence operations and strengthen our capabilities overseas.
Source: Our Plan For America, p. 13 Aug 10, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevent Afghanistan & others from becoming terrorist havens
Our drive to topple the Taliban regime convincingly demonstrated the courage and skill of our troops, the value of powerful new technologies, and the particular importance of Special Forces units in defeating unconventional enemies. Unfortunately, we have not followed with a plan or the commitment to win the peace. Bush has all but turned away from Afghanistan, allowing it to become a forgotten front in the war on terror and once again a potential breeding ground for terrorists.
Source: Our Plan For America, p. 15 Aug 10, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared. We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation - to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world. We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. THE FUTURE DOESN'T BELONG TO FEAR, IT BELONGS TO FREEDOM.
Source: Acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention Jul
29, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY: We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes from the FBI unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time. And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe? We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe.
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL Sep 30, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will immediately reform the intelligence system-so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to. I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night & they don't know what's coming around. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right when you're not sure that's true. I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent." This is the only justification for war.
Source: Acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention Jul 29, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The President and the administration need to get their story straight about what is happening in Iraq -- and how they are going to get our mission back on track.

From their 24th different rationale for war, to the Vice President and Secretary Rumsfeld telling us the insurgency is in its "final throes" while last night President Bush said it is more dangerous than ever, Americans just want to hear the truth.
Actions Speak Louder than Words
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:04:57 -0500
____________________________________________________________________

I could go on, and search for more, but the truth is Kerry has been fighting this administration every step of the way.

Oh - but he voted for this war????

what I voted for was to hold Saddam accountable but to do it right. This president has done it wrong every step of the way. He has a fraudulent coalition. He promised he would go through the UN and honor the inspections process. He did not. He promised he would go to war as a last resort, words that mean something to me as a veteran. He did not.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003

[Patchuli]

1. He fights the good fight

and I still love him.

[knowbody0]

2. me too Patchuli

[FreedomAngel82]

3. Me too

:loveya:

[DisassemblingHisLies]

5. Me, too.

Wish he were president.

[kerrygoddess]

21. Ditto!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

59. me 5....Kerry is a GOOD SOUL and my champion

[DisassemblingHisLies]

4. Thanks, pirhana!

KERRY: 95% of our containers coming into this country are not inspected today. When you get on an airplane, your bag is x-rayed but the cargo hold isn't x-rayed. Bush chose a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans over getting that equipment out into the homeland as fast as possible. We have bridges and tunnels that aren't being secured. Chemical plants, nuclear plants that aren't secured. Hospitals that are overcrowded with their emergency rooms. If we had a disaster today, could they handle it?

And as much as this administration wraps itself around terrorism, why is it that they haven't addressed these critical areas?! We hear there's a "war on terror" 24/7. We need to know why this administration isn't more concerned about protecting the most vulnerable areas with the most potential for catastrophe.

Could it be that this administration believes (or knows) there's not really any need for protecting these areas?

[politicasista]

6. Kick!

:kick:

[wisteria]

7. I'm not a Kerry basher, but I had to tell you I appreciate your post!

I going to save all the information you have gathered and use it for future reference. Thank you again!

[LittleClarkie]

8. I did too

but more because it's sort of a calling out thread, and I'm afraid it will go poof soon. So I saved the info.

But I do appreciate the info.

And I still love the big lug as well.

[elshiva]

9. Great!

:toast:

[longship]

10. I supported Kerry and I'd support him again.

But he lost an election he should have swept into office on. Yes, there was skullduggery, but with a minimally larger majority Bush wouldn't have had enough.

But the one, the only issue where he could have made a substantive difference than CuckooBananas was the Iraq War. On that issue, arguably the most important one of the election, he didn't stand up and say what everybody was begging him to say, that his vote on the war was wrong because Bush had lied us into war. He couldn't cross that line and it cost him votes. Instead, he waffled and wavered, saying that he would have voted the same even knowing what he knew then. He gave Bush a pass on the most important issue of the whole campaign. Did he get some bad advice? Or was it his decision?

Within 24 hours of saying he wouldn't let us down and with controversy all around the Ohio vote, Kerry surprised everybody by shutting every thing down. I couldn't believe he would break his word like that.

Please don't call people with principled positions Kerry bashers. I am not bashing Kerry. I just can't support him for the Presidential nomination. If he gains that nomination again, I will be standing with you and hopefully all Democrats to see him into the White House.

[jillan]

11. Points well taken

I agree that he did waffle on Iraq, but I understand why he did it.
IMO he was protecting himself from getting bashed by the people in the middle that saw the Iraq war - at that time, maybe not now - as a necessary step in the 'war against terror'. But by doing that, he left his base scratching their heads! I confess, I was one of them. I watched him stand there at the Grand Canyon when he was asked "Knowing what you know now, would you still have gone to war in Iraq?", and when he answered YES, my heart sunk and I thought - Kerry you shouldn't have said that. But he did explain over and over why he voted for the war.
See my last quote in the original post. But it was the scene at the Grand Canyon that got the most air time.

About the election, I just assume he had good reasons. That is one quote that is missing...the one that explains why he conceded when he did. I wonder if he had any clue at that time how extensive the problems were? I'm still finding out about things that happened in my red state!

[LittleClarkie]

12. So you supported him before you didn't support him? ;)

That's a riff on a Kerry bash, btw.

If you have a principled position you are able to articulate, you are not a basher.

But both bashers and non-bashers need to learn the distinction.

"Where's Kerry?" "He doesn't give a shit. He's probably windsurfing somewhere, the elitist coward."

That's a bash.

"Kerry shouldn't have conceded and here's why I feel that way."

That's criticism.

Now if I come along and say to the criticism "I disagree! And here's why..."

I'd appreciate it if folks wouldn't call me an apologist.

So, you're not a basher, and I'm not an apologist.

But if you say something I think is not right, I will have a rebuttal.

Okay?

[longship]

14. I agree whole heartedly with your descriptions

The windsurfing argument is lame. The elitist crap is a straight ad hominem. People stoop to ad hominems when they have nothing substantive to say. It's like saying you are an apologist. What the hell does that mean? When you think about it, it means the other guy's run out of steam.

I really like Kerry. He can be a real fire brand. When he gets his shorts in a bunch about something he is one of the most articulate persons I've ever heard. Our goal if he gets the nomination again is to keep his shorts in a bunch all the time so he can kick his opponent's ass. Good idea?

BTW, I would be honored to be rebutted by you.
;-)

[LittleClarkie]

20. Thanks

Indeed, I agree, as evidenced by my icon, which is an itty bitty Kerry Hulk. The man is a wonder to be hold when his undies are in a bundle. If he gets the nomination again, we will definitely have to keep him perpetually pissed off.

[rockymountaindem]

13. I understand that you aren't a "basher"

and I appreciate your viewpoint. However, I have to disagree with you that he "should have swept into office". I think that I have more contact with the right wing than most on DU, because I live in Colorado Springs. While we may think that Kerry was obviously better than Bush, it wasn't as obvious to many. I always like to subdivide the Republicans into their component parts. There are many of them, and I believe that if we want to win against the Republicans, we have to wage a campaign against all these groups' arguments at once.

Now, in for these purposes I'll subdivide them into two groups. The "rue believers" and the "casual fans". The true believers believe that Bush is a man of God, divinely inspired, never wrong etc. I don't know if there are many such people where you live, but where I live and in similar places there are many. These people are, I believe, the primary reason why Kerry lost.

The "casual fans" don't care to have a deep understanding of the issues. They vote Republican based on branding, the idea that Republicans are just the right people to vote for. There are a lot of these too, but not quite as many. I believe these are the people who can be most easily reached.

So, back to what I'm really trying to say... In Jan. 2004 I thought the Dem. nominee, whoever it was, never had a chance. Now, I got inspired and for awhile there I really thought we could pull it off. But now that I look back, I think that we were really fighting an uphill climb. I don't blame Kerry.

[longship]

16. Points well taken.

I think the ones who think Bush is annointed by God are immovable. There's nothing we can say or do to sway their votes.

I live in SoCal, east of LA. There are many, many Bush supporters around here. In my area, it's about 50/50. Still, they don't stand a chance with LA and NoCal which is very heavily Dem.

BTW, I thought that the evangelical Repugs were about 30%-35%. Isn't that about right?

I was hoping that Kerry would have won. I really thought he had a chance. If Blackwell hadn't been the Secy of State in OH he might have won. (We'll never get to the bottom of that mess, either.)

Nice, well thought out response.

[sendero]

28. I couldn't have said it better..

.... but I could have said it more vehemently. :)

I respect Kerry as a man and as a senator, but he's not presidential material, he is SIMPLY TOO CAUTIOUSLY POLITICAL.

[Griffy]

49. KERRY WON the election silly.. dont tell me you buy the lie?

They cant prove who won because of the machines.. I hope you know by now the rigged nature of these machines.. if you need info read Conyers report, or go top the election reform forum and learn.

So.. I ask you this.. WHY do you think bush won? I mean you didnt count the votes personally, so who told you bush won.. and how did they get those numbers?.. I know its hard to accept, but we have been robbed again...
AND we will never get a verifiable voting system till we admit its broke!

[Broken_Hero]

15. The sad thing

Is that most of the Bush supporters i know didn't even watch the debates. How can people make or choose a president based on your gut feeling, or emotions. Most of the bush supporters i talked to told me the reasons why they voted for GWB is because they think he is a good man, cause he seems down to earth, because their pastor told them so. How can you make people listen, or make an informed decision when they are somewhat off base of reality. Kerry fought a good fight, he could have fought better, and if people actually listened to him, honestly listened to him, i doubt GWB would be in the WH....

[kerrygoddess]

23. no one was listening?

[Patchuli]

35. Any church or pastor

who tells their congregation how to vote or backs candidates, ought to pay taxes. I left a church I had belonged to for 3 years for that very same reason. I don't mix my God with politics.

My sister didn't watch the debates and has always voted Republican just because our dad did. I have since convinced her that Dad wasn't always right and he would detest * if he were around to see the mess the GOP has become! I just had to explain to my sister who Karl Rove is! YIKES!

[ginnyinWI]

70. it is very sad.

People in this country vote the same way they root for a sports team--it's our guy, right or wrong. I guess they're getting what they deserve--but unfortunately they are dragging all the rest of us along with them.

We Americans take so much for granted. In other countries people are much more aware of what's going on and know much more about the politics of their countries. Kids grow up talking about the news and politics with their parents across the dinner table. My kids have had friends from other countries and any of them can talk very knowledgeably about history, current events or politics. They put Americans to shame.

If Kerry and * had been citizens of and running in Canada, England or France, Kerry would have been the winner for sure, because the people would have listened and asked questions and thought about it before they decided.

[Carla in Ca]

17. I fully support Kerry's remarks

Timing is everything. A lot of people wanted him to really go after the WH in his remarks. Today is not the day for that.

[the_spectator]

18. "To the King Over the Water"

Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing,
Onward! the sailors cry;
Carry the lad that's born to be king
Over the sea to Skye

Loud the winds howl, loud the waves roar,
Thunder will rend the air;
Baffled, our foes stand by the shore,
Follow they will not dare

Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing,
Onward! the sailors cry;
Carry the lad that's born to be king
Over the sea to Skye

Many's the lad fought on that day,
Well the claymore could yield,
When the night came, silently lay
Dead on Culloden's field

Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing,
Onward! the sailors cry;
Carry the lad that's born to be king
Over the sea to Skye.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[kerrygoddess]

22. Thank you for sharing...

[Califooyah Operative]

25. interesting...

he came closer to beating a war time president then anyone in history and got more votes then any democrat in history

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[blm]

45. I doubt Nixon, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 would agree with you.

Vietnam war lies, IranContra and BCCI were exposed by Kerry.

The only difference for Bush2 was that he has 90% of the media covering up for him today.

[dad]

24. incredibly weak candidate

He didn't have the balls to call out Bush regarding Osama - remember Bush's comments re him not being concerned about Osama? Doncha think MAYBE Kerry couldve made a goddam commercial out of that one? Oh yes, and JFK's non-response to the swift boat liars lying lies was simply incredible. What was up with him doing photo ops duck-hunting and going to church right before the election? He didn't have a clue. He didn't speak truth to power. He voted the wrong way on the Iraq war, then stated he'd do it again "KNOWING WHAT HE KNEW NOW". Gimme a fu__ing break, stop bringing up that loser........

[emulatorloo]

27. Then why were Tommy Franks and the right wing Blogs so upset w Kerry?

Of course Kerry called Bush out regarding Osama - specifically accusing Bush admin of outsourcing the hunt for him to Afghan war lords. Charges that were true.

Google "kerry outsource osama" and you will see the full flying monkey brigade plus General Tommy Franks in Kerry attack mode.

PS KERRY CALLED BUSH OUT IN THE DEBATES about Bush not being concerned about Osama. . .Kerry brought it up. . .sorry you missed it.

PSS there was a commericial re "not being concerned" put out by DNC.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Good candidate who was poorly managed

Shrum and Cahill told him to save his money and not respond to the swift boat attacks. If Carville had been running the campaign he would've just told Kerry to do what was necessary: call Bush out on being the draft-dodging chickenhawk that he was.

[jillan]

76. That's why I made the original post.

Two of the things that you claimed Kerry didn't campaign on are in my original post.
He always talked about OBL! How Bush outsourced the job of capturing him. How Bush took his eyes off the real reason for the war on terror, and went to Iraq instead. I don't know how you missed that.
Yes, the duck hunting was a mistake, a campaign mistake. And the waiting to reply to the swifties was from Marybeth Cahill.
But going to church? Kerry always said/says that he is a Christian. So what, he went to church!

And about the war - read the original post.
Kerry said over and over and over that Bush told him that he would go to war as a last result, after the inspectors were finished, after Bush met with the UN. Kerry, like everyone in this country was told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Kerry's only mistake was believing the pResident.

[CWebster]

26. More of his usual standard of :

I-can-do-it-better.

Events do not occur in a void--Thr ME has issues--legitimate issues that politicians who bow and scrape for AIPAC can't possibly address with integrity. And if those issues remain a swirling vortex--NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE.

[slor]

29. Thanks for posting n/t

[dalloway]

30. bravo for your post!

[magnolia]

31. I continue to respect and support John Kerry...

...as much today as I did a year ago. I smile every time I see a Kerry-Edwards bumpersticker.

One day we may find out that the election was definitely stolen but that there was no way to prevent it at the time, or to discover it right after the election. I hope that all Kerry-bashers will then have the balls to apologize to him. And to Gore for that matter. For blaming them and their lousy campaigns...and all of the shoulda, woulda, couldas!

Until then... I ask all Kerry-bashers to consider the possibility that you might just be wrong. And before releasing your negativity, ask yourself how it is helping the situation now.

Discussion is important. We need discussion and opposing opinion. We also need to discuss mistakes made in the past. But in relation to the last two presidential elections...how can we discuss mistakes, when we don't know that our candidates made any, beyond human error????? Maybe both Gore and Kerry had great campaigns. Maybe with all the fraud, biased media and extreme right-wing attacks, it's a miracle that either of them got as many votes as they did. Some things just need time and patience before it all becomes clear.

Mistakes were made, for one, allowing touch-screen voting without paper trails. All of us, not just John Kerry, can take responsibility for that. Put your energy into having it investigated, proven and changed. Over-turning the election would be nice, but changing it for the next election may be all we can hope for. I would like to see a law that makes vote counting the same as balancing your check book. You get the machine count, then add up the paper count...and they have to balance. Then and only then, you have the election results. Or you can put your energy into real campaign finance reform. There are many things you can do that are productive. Bashing Kerry every chance you get is not!

On edit...great post pirhana!! Thank you!

[ken-in-seattle]

32. Ok .. I'm in.

Kerry is just so ..... French looking.

ok? What do I win?

oh wait. I have the nose of Charles DeGaulle and my family name is Bordeaux.

hmm back to the drawing board.

[LittleClarkie]

60. And I'm descended from Huguenots

Greeting, cousin.

[CWebster]

34. Here's one to add to the collection

But, when Kerry was asked by Costas, ''Is Bush getting an unfair shake?" Kerry answered: ''To some degree, I think that's true. And I've said that publicly. We've made progress." Kerry also rejected Senator Edward M. Kennedy's labeling of Iraq as ''an intractable quagmire." Said Kerry: ''No, I don't believe it is that today. But it could become that if we don't make the right choices."

In interviews given after Bush's speech, Biden criticized the president for his references to the 9/11 attacks and for a lack of candor about how long the United States will remain in Iraq. Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also acknowledged progress in Iraq. " We cannot afford to lose," said Biden.

If you listen carefully, you realize Democrats like Kerry and Biden are saying that this war is being fought the wrong way, not that this is the wrong war. They have bought into the Karl Rove argument that might makes right. And they are also accepting Rove's analysis that real men don't question war, only wimpy liberals do. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York endorses the same Rovian analysis.



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/30/democrats_buy_into_bushs_war/

[second edition]

36. You miss the point- we are in this war like it or not!

There is a right way and a wrong way to handle it, conclude it, save face and get out with some dignity. If you are trying to claim Kerry fully supports Bush's efforts and his handling of these efforts you are absolutely wrong. You've been around here a while and your smart enough to grasp exactly what Kerry voted for-it's been explained so may times- you just chose to ignore it and attack Kerry. May I suggest you go after the actually person responsible for this war- President Bush. John Kerry is only offering his observations and recommendations to ending this conflict as efficiently and quickly as possible.

[CWebster]

39. lol

How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake, Senator?

[second edition]

61. Do you wish the soldiers fighting this war to be as dishonored

as they were in Vietnam? Were you so certain from the very beginning that this war was wrong? Did you ever feel there was a need to protect ourselves from being attacked again? Were you aware of what Bush had in mind before the war?

[NYCGirl]

62. You're defending the war in Iraq??? NT

[MoonRiver]

63. "Were you aware of what Bush had in mind before the war?"

Speaking for myself, not CWebster: YES! As were most on DU and other internet blogs, message boards, etc.
:wtf:

[Totally Committed]

65. If you were paying attention, yes, you knew what Bush had in mind...

the minute he stole the 2000 election, and chose a bunch of PNAC-ers for his cabinet.

Everlasting war and world domination are what those people believe in. This war is/was/remains wrong on so many levels. Please do not use it to defend Kerry or anyone. Kerry should have disavowed his IWR vote and the war it allowed, a long time ago. It would honor the poor soldiers sent there to die for that lie, not dishonor them.

TC

[CWebster]

64. Dishonored, huh?

You think sending sons and daughters, husbands and wives to slaughter and be slaughtered for lies is some kind of honor? That is the way we honor humans?
They have to paint this picture of honor and noble sacrifice as the illusion otherwise they couldn't provide the necessary cannon fodder. Of course they, and their sons and daughters, aren't a party to that propaganda--but Kerry spouts it now, though in his finer moments(which he know disavows)he condemned it.

But let's be real here- you think that a US imperial aggression to enrich a few US corporate interests at the expense of thousands of Iraqi lives, the destruction of their history and culture:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=4710

the poisoning of their environment, the loss of US moral standing and the hidden death of soldiers is about honor?


I must say your post offends me--and the suggestion that you admire Kerry for his war-mongering just adds more fuel.

[ProudDad]

68. There was nothing dishonerable

about finally being withdrawn from that dirty little war!

There would be nothing dishonerable about fulfilling the wishes of the majority of troops who are in Iraq now to get their asses out of there.

[ProudDad]

67. I'm not in this war!!!

I was never "in this war". In fact, f*ck this war and all imperial wars.

Kerry is just like the rest (except Dennis K) in that he wasn't ready to say, "It was a mistake built on lies and should be ended!".

All the rest of this "anti-terrorism" sh*t is closing the barn door after the horse has left. The real problem is the way the West screws the rest of the world. The rest of this crap is just the symptoms of that disease.

[Totally Committed]

37. Deleted for repositioning.

Sorry.

TC

[CWebster]

43. I never restrain myself---what would be the purpose

Kerry is supposed to, or at least entertains fantasies that he is some kind of leader of the opposition--confronting the worst, most criminal presidency in, at least, my lifetime. And I was around for Reagan and Nixon. You can't imagine the level of contempt I have for him thinking he fills those shoes when he offers us NO REPRESENTATION or any kind of bulwark against this junta.

Part of the ABB pledge was that we would hold their feet to the fire---so don't apologize for your outrage. Where is the damn outrage?

Kerry is USELESS!

[Totally Committed]

44. I hear you, CWebster...

And, I agree (obviously). It's just that it becomes counter-productive to repeat the same charges and counter-charges and keep taking this baby around the block when there are other things we need to be doing for 2006, 2008, and beyond.

And, I felt compelled to write that post because the charge I made in a post yesterday was referenced in the opener to this thread. I felt I wanted to defend myself a bit, while trying to stay on an even keel. Because, only Kerry can make me go so absolutely crazy that I need to go lie down after I flip my nut about him. LOL!

Thanks for the post. I agree.

TC

[CWebster]

46. What we get

"Now, here's a dose of truth for the insulated Democratic establishment in Washington - an establishment that continues to lose elections, yet, incredibly, refuses to change: if you continue to pathetically cower in the face of all of this; if you continue to ignore the courageous lawmakers in your ranks who know the party needs to stand up; if you continue to defend the Iraq War in light of public opposition to it, in light of proof that the Bush administration lied about it and in light of proof it made America less safe; and if you continue to have positively no courage of any convictions and positively no ability to give voice to the concerns of the majority of Americans, then you will unfortunately continue losing elections far into the future."




http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=F7236F64-91A6-D28C-7144D97169925563

[Totally Committed]

47. I agree with you, and have posted nearly the same

sentiment, emphatically, several dozen times here.

I could not agree with you more.

TC

[Totally Committed]

40. I feel the word "basher" is inaccurate...

I feel I am a Kerry critic, and not a basher. By labelling me "basher", you imply that I take cheap shots, and I do not. I have deep feelings about him, but, that's beside the point for this post.

Normally, I try to avoid the word "hate" about anything or anybody. I try very hard to control the part of me that can feel such a thing, as I don't enjoy the feeling, and I feel it is mostly negative and counter-productive. But, I'm human. I don't always succeed in controlling it, feeling it, and then acting on it, try as hard as I do not to. Human beings are funny creatures. The best of us are not perfect, and those of us who strive for perfection often fail. The most honest of us will admit that, and get up and try another day. I fully acknowledge the part of me that fails some of the time to let these Kerry threads go by without comment. But, with the sheer volume of them, day in and day out... over and over... grinding and grinding away at my last good nerve, I think it is fair to say, the number that go by without so much as a comment from me is a miracle. If you are fair, you will see that and agree.

I support a candidate who, on the best days, has a few detractors of his own here at DU. There is a contingent in this Party and here at DU that, I daresay, will never accept him under any circumstances. Those of us who support him, wholeheartedly, cannot understand them either. So, in that way, you are not alone. I understand where you are coming from in that respect. No, I don't understand why, and no, I never will, but this is a huge Party of varying belief systems and opinions. That fact is what makes this Party not only great, but the losing Party over and over again. I don't know what the answer to that is, but that's for another day.

Right now, here's what I want to say: There are those of us here at DU who feel a righteous anger with Kerry, his broken promise to fight to the last vote -- only to concede mere hours after the last vote was cast -- taking all the media coverage that could have borne witness to the very fraud he vowed to fight for us. There are those of us who feel that his use of the money he collected from us for that fight as an '08 War Chest, or to better his chances for '08, to be (at best ) cynical and dishonest, and (at worst) highly unethical. There are those of us who feel both you and he are delusional to think he stands a chance in '08 at all, quite frankly. There are those of us who are still angered and disappointed with his IWR vote, and the fact that not only has he not denounced it, but seems to back Bush on the war regularly; There are those of us who feel we are living under Bushie rule, and now having to watch The Right Wing Extremists appoint a couple or several Supreme Court justices, who will echo that rule for at least another generation because Kerry ran a piss-poor campaign, and then just left as soon as he could, leaving us -- the little guys -- the ones he vowed to fight for -- to fend for ourselves against this Constitution-gobbling, Anti-American regime. Honest... some of us feel that way. (We could be wrong, you could be wrong... I guess only time will tell.)

What you may have to do (as we who support my candidate have had to do, to a certain extent) is one of several things: You can get "real" about the limits of Kerry's support, and realize that not every stinking thread you put out there is not going to meet with the support you so loyally give him; or, you can realize that the sheer volume of these threads greatly ups the chances that one or more of those who do not share your views of Kerry will snap and go off like a Roman Candle. It's Democratic nature that we can only endure so much before we rise up and speak our minds, so keep in mind that when we see thread after adoring thread, nearly beatifying a man who we feel (at best) shafted by, you're gonna get some "anti" replies, and you'll have to learn to live with it; or you can alter your approach. How you do that, and if you do that, is definitely up to you.

What I ask you to consider, and you'll be far more apt to understand if you keep in mind how you feel about that Bushie Boot you feel on your throat day after day, is -- no one enjoys the arrogant assumption that a person or candidate deserves immediate and total respect just because their supporters think so, and to feel otherwise about him/her is tantamount to heresy. I've had to come to that conclusion about my own candidate, and I feel he's amazing, so I ask you consider the same where Kerry is concerned. Not everyone is going to be thrilled with Kerry, so try to expect there will be resistance to some of the things you post about him. The best you can do is to meet this resistance with information that is given as good-naturedly as possible, and not this superscillious arrogance that it is met with most of the time. I can only speak for myself, but this love-him-or-you're-an-asshole attitude is a huge turnoff.

I hope I have offended as few of you as possible. I have tried to be as honest, and as controlled as I could manage. I may not respect (or like) Kerry, but I respect all of you and your support for him. Try to remember that if (okay, when...) I fail to control the part of me that he just makes go absolutely crazy, it is not you, but Kerry and the genuine issues I still have with him that I am repsonding to.

TC

[Totally Committed]

41. Deleted because this posted twice...

Sorry.

TC

[DrGonzoLives]

42. mmmmmmmmmm flamebait

:popcorn:

[Mass]

48. This was a nice try, but there is little to do

Some people here will react each time you write the word Kerry, without taking the time to even bother reading whatever else you wrote. These people are in my Ignore list because they rarely contribute in any interesting discussion but spend their time bashing "impure" Democrats (I am not that sure who they are themselves- sometimes I wonder if anonimity is not a bad things on these blogs).

The other people, who are ready to discuss issues but do not like Kerry for whatever reason (they are free to do so, we are free to disagree with them on that and that should not prevent a civil discussion on other subjects), are just irritated to see another time the name of Kerry here (as I am when I see the 100 th post saying the same thing on somebody I disagree with, or even sometimes with somebody I agree).

Two solutions, either you start bashing those dems you do not like, or may be you take a pause off GDP. There are a few other blogs that have a much better climate than DU and where you can discuss issues and even politics with respect for other bloggers.

Basically, for the Kerry, Dean, Clark, Warner, ... bashers, this is what it comes to. You just have no respect for those other bloggers who like them.

And I do not confuse constructive criticism and kerry bashing, I know how to do the difference. So do not start answering that you do constructive criticism. If you feel attacked by the post, you probably are bashing.

[Totally Committed]

50. I am going to assume this is in reply to my post...

and not to the original post like it says.

I'm sorry you cannot appreciate what it took for me to write that post. I went out of my way to express that though I didn't agree with those who support Kerry, I supported their right to do so. And, feeling as I do about him, that took some doing and some thought.

What I feel about Kerry is so gut-level, that, you're right... mostly it is not constructive criticism. I will admit that. But, if you knew what it took to come here day after day, in the face of hundreds of these posts, and not respond to the largest number of them, maybe you wouldn't call what I do exactly "bashing" either.

To say I "bash" Kerry is to imply what I feel about him is unfair, untrue and I am just mean-spirited about him. I don't think that is correct, but I defer to your judgement.

I did try to do the right thing here, and even that is spat upon. So be it. I tried, and it was the best I could do. Never again.

TC

[Mass]

52. Actually it was an answer to the original OP, not particularly yours

I consider you in the second category of people I described, and I have often enjoyed reading your posts, when it does not come to Kerry.

I know I have a fundemental difference of judgement with you when it comes to our Junior Senator, but it is not such a big deal. I try to avoid your posts concerning Kerry and will continue to read the other ones.

[Totally Committed]

53. Thanks...

I just read the OP and mine and assumed...

I am very sorry to have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I apologize. Thank you for what you said.

I feel foolish, but in a good way.

Again, my apologies...

TC

[MoonRiver]

51. Odd that you invite more "bashing" with this thread

when the "bashing" clearly irritates you! But, whatever, here's my take on the "bashing". Actually Totally Committed stated a position that closely mirrors my own. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1913378#1914131.

I would just like to add that I do not hate Kerry, and have stated this many times. I just do not want him to get the nomination in 2008. I'm not very worried about that possibility though. Kerry is a good man, but was a total disappointment as a presidential candidate. Even if the black box tries to eat our votes, again, I hope we have such a strong candidate next time that we sweep into office with a Diebold proof majority. Kerry is NOT the person to pull that kind of victory off, imho.

That's all. "Bash" over.

[politicasista]

54. She is not starting a flamewar

She and other Kerry supporters are just tired of the constant slamming, bashing and eating of our own. Something about the word "Kerry" brings out the Rovian talking points in some.

Every time Kerry does something or says something good, people get afraid that it will only enhance him if he runs again. You may not want him to be nominated again, but it's time to stop attack good dems rather it's Kerry, Dean, or Clark. We need to support them all.

[Mass]

55. Actually, it should not stop to Kerry

We are tired of threads thrashing other Democrats because they are not their choice for 2008.

Personnally, I am as tired to read these types of threads for Dean, Clark, or anybody else.

2008 is far. We have 2006 to worry before that.

[politicasista]

57. That's what I meant to say

I didn't know how to reply. Thanks Mass. :hi:

[Q]

66. Who are YOU to tell other Democrats what they can say...

...or whom they can criticize? It's just plain arrogance to suggest that Kerry or any other Democrat is above reproach.

It's sickening the way some want to follow in the footsteps of the GOPers...that dare not criticize their leadership or question their policies and politics.

Don't like threads critical of Kerry or Dean or Clark? You're going to be very disappointed because this is a political discussion board and you can't stop other DUers with valid opinions.

It's telling that you seem to think that people criticize Kerry because he's not 'their choice for 2008'. Have you considered that there may be other reasons for the criticism?

[Mass]

71. Dont worry

I will avoid you from now on ...

BTW, I am not telling you anything of the sort. I am giving my opinion, which is probably what a discussion board should be about, not simply for you but for others. And I said very clearly what I was speaking about: people who are criticizing others in a sort of pre-primary. I never thought you were one of them, but I apparently am wrong, since you decided you were targeted by my post.

BTW, your arrogance telling us what we can say and not say is amazing as well and makes your own post particularly amusing.

[MoonRiver]

56. The OP invited Kerry critics to respond, and I did so.

The OP was addressed to all the Kerry "bashers" out there. If that's not an invitation to flame, I don't know what is. I see a remarkable level of restraint on this thread, considering the original message.

[ProudDad]

69. My problem with Kerry

is that I DON'T hear him saying much.

Maybe he's just not getting through the filter...

Of course, he is among the super-rich who do have a vested interest in the statis-quo.

[jillan]

75. If your not hearing Kerry, you're not paying attention

Kerry has been dynamite in the senate.
Fighting this administration every step of the way.
Search around c-span.org or go to his senate web page if you
want to hear Kerry. No, he's not in the msm very much, but other than Dean, what dem has gotten alot of press?

[txindy]

58. I'm impressed

Thank you for reminding me of those many statements. A refresher is very helpful once in a while, particularly in these times.

I think the statements make Senator Kerry's position perfectly clear. They're worded for people who think. Imagine.

[blm]

74. You nailed it. They are worded for people who think. Never seems to

satisfy those looking for a vituperative 10 second soundbite to applaud.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. President Kerry's veto pen would be so useful right now

Real ID Act, ANWR, a federal budget that screws over the poor, children, and veterans, bankruptcy bill, not to mention the stem cell research bill and the supreme court appointments.

[kerrygoddess]

77. Yes it would!

:bounce: