Please read this

[ProSense]

rant and share any thoughts! Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2824772&mesg_id=2824772

[ProSense]

1. More distortions

from the Greens!

This is from the same site criticizing Wellstone:

I had worked for John Kerry in 2004. Not anything special, just like many people did--I volunteered in a local office, but I also got asked to go out and speak a few times to local Democratic groups.

I was so disillusioned with Kerry turning his back on the election and turning his back on people who thought he was going to be the peace candidate. In January 2005, he was still saying he would escalate the war, after the election was lost.

I decided that there was no difference between George Bush and John Kerry--and further than that, there’s no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. I started referring to the system in this country as a one-party Republocrat system.

So I was looking for something else, and a friend of mine, who founded a peace movement where I used to live, in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said that the Green Party was pretty good. I looked into it, and when I moved to Delaware, I registered Green. And I subsequently became a member of the party, and subsequently was approached and agreed to run.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/601/601_04_MichealBerg.shtml

Hmmm, PA Green Party!

Republocrat! Defeatocrat! See the connection!

Fact is, during the January 2005 election, Kerry was even more critical of Bush and the war, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726">calling for diplomacy and discussing withdrawal!

[TayTay]

2. They were inclined to see this before 2004

This guy was misinformed in 2004 and then, instead of blaming himself, blamed others.

I saw people like this in 2004, they had unrealistic views of who Kerry was and they had unrealistic views of who he was after 2004. He will probably be much happier in the party of perpetual losers.

[MH1]

3. Well, this is a guy I'll cut as much slack as I will anyone

He's Nick Berg's father. He has an emotional burden that I doubt any of us can imagine. It takes incredible strength and probably some strong support by trusted friends to see truth through such an emotional veil.

It doesn't make him right. But, it gives him more "right" to be wrong, in my view.

[whometense]

4. I actually feel the exact same way

about Cindy Sheehan. She's been guilty lately of making some truly reprehensible statements about Kerry, but also about others. I can't really come down hard on her, even though I wish to hell she'd think before saying this stuff, because she is operating from a grief so profound that I think it borders on madness.

I don't think either one of them is very credible, but in this case you really have to consider the source. I can't imagine what I would be saying and/or thinking if I had suffered the same loss they have.

[ProSense]

5. I agree that he has every right to be upset,

but he doesn't have the right to be wrong! Nick Berg was tragically killed in May 2004, six months before the election. He says he worked for Kerry, but became "disillusioned with Kerry turning his back on the election and turning his back on people who thought he was going to be the peace candidate."

This is an intentional distortion. He spent the six months after his son's death believing Kerry was the "peace candidate," but changed his mind because the electon didn't go his way?

Also, Michael Berg's involvement with the Green Party evidently began long before January 2005.