The SENATE is back IN SESSION tomorrow

[fedupinBushcountry]

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[TayTay]

1. Yup, our long, long, long national nightmare is, ahm, better

No perfect, but much improved. No Santorum! No Allen! The IQ of the entire Senate just went up a collective 2 points with their departure.

Welcome back! Now, get to work, stuff needs doing.

[JI7]

2. did anyone see what is going on with the Cindy Sheehan stuff ?

i didn't watch tv today and will sadly miss it tomorrow live. there a bunch of threads in GD forums on this, but i was wondering about whether people here saw it and your thoughts .

[karynnj]

3. I saw a clip on TV

On Scarborough. One person said that it helps the Democratic leaders by making it clear that there are people to the left of them. I disagree.

The news conference was to be on the Democratic agenda. If the segment was representative, they were unable to speak - and handled it poorly. Iraq SHOULD have been in their agenda and they could have immediately switched to it - their position is not Sheean's but politely, responsively answering them would have likely made it a less divisive situation. As it was, it looked like the legislators could not get a message out over the noise of the base.

It also reminds me of 1968, when the protesters went after the Democrats more than the Republicans. (I know the Democrats had the Presidency, but Johnson resigned saying he was doing so to more aggressively try to get peace.)

[wisteria]

9. I think the same thing when I see these protesters.

1968, and IMO, it just doesn't work to get the peace message across this way. Emanuel seemed to think it was funny from the footage I saw.
I appeared obvious to me that some of our leadership are going to ignore the protesters good intentions and not address the Iraq War in the manner it should be addressed.
Shades of 1968 yep. Far out lefty protesters pitted against their own party. That is the way I saw this spun last night.

[babylonsister]

4. I cannot fault Cindy; if the reps had no intention of addressing the

war and the 'surge', one of the biggest 'elephants in the room', I think someone had to.
I know DU is torn over this, but I for one stand with Cindy. Someone had to get their attention.

[wisteria]

10. There may be other and more affective ways to get their attention

without the media being there to spin it. Lobbying, Congressional and Senate visits. Calling, e-mailing and letter writing. IMO, these types of protests do not help the good cause.

[Mass]

13. I think unfortunately, it is what it will take for some Democrats

to understand people care about this issue.

I was bothered by the NYTimes report today saying some Dems (Reid, Levin, Pryor) are ready to consider the "surge" under conditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/world/middleeast/04policy.html?ref=world

Of course, some of that may be more of this "political" language they like so much to show they do not oppose on principle, but this bothers me. It is now time for people to send a clear message: "NO SURGE", so I cannot blame Cindy Sheehan for that.

[beachmom]

5. Have you guys been watching KO this week?

First, that Wolfe reporter from Newsweek who covers the WH said matter of factly that the Democratic Congress would have no effect whatsoever on what Bush does in Iraq. They won't cut off funding and Bush will keep troops there through '09. He said the real power will be who's prez in '08. I didn't think that was true, until . . .

Second, I saw Barney Frank on and he said he would vote against the funding, but said even IF Congress voted down the funding, the Pentagon has plenty of cash from the last defense appropriations bill to do their troops surge. They could continue the war by simply reshuffling the Pentagon budget. And even if they passed a law specifiying how the money could and could not be spent, the president would veto it.

Third, John Dean (I think this was him saying this) was on and explained that the sacrifice is being beared moneywise by taxpayers, but really in terms of blood by a very small percentage of Americans. So it does not appear likely that a widespread rebellion, if you will, will appear from the American people. If there was a draft everything would blow up, but without it, it appears unlikely for there to be massive scenes to play on TV.

From my own thoughts, the only way to stop this war (maybe) is if military personnel and their familes launch a massive protest and civil disobedience. This would require Republicans to join in against their president. I think at this time it is unlikely.

So, what is to be done? If the media thinks only the next president will effect change, perhaps all the '08 talk is, in fact, not as silly as I thought.

John Kerry 2008!!!! He's the only one who WILL do it and the only one with the integrity and diplomatic skills TO do it.

[ProSense]

7. It will be interesting

when the troops who signed the withdrawal petition deliver it to Congress.

[beachmom]

8. Do you have numbers on that? Thing is, we live in a bad media

environment. When the VVAW launched their protest and John Kerry testified before the SFRC in 1971, the media was receptive to their message and gave him 5 minutes of network news time. But they were only about 1,000, right?

These days, such a protest will be ignored. The ONLY way it will get play is if you get big numbers that include some Bush voters and Republicans to join in in the protest. It is common knowledge that the military skews conservative. Now we DO have that new poll out, but what does it mean in terms of action? Obviously, they're against the troop surge and think the war was a mistake. But of that bunch, how many are willing to risk their career and even their freedom to take action to stop the war?

Even then, Bush will ignore them, but it may turn the media and many Republicans in Congress completely against the war and president.

We need a Republican John Kerry now. A traditional conservative but not a radical right winger who will speak up for the troops. Maybe a conservative Democrat would work, too, but obviously, not a lefty type. Remember when that one soldier asked Rumsfeld that question about the armor? He was a Republican and a Bush voter. We need someone like him.

[Inuca]

11. Hagel? nt

[ProSense]

18. Here is an article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3018006&mesg_id=3018006

[wisteria]

12. Exactly! Kerry 2008. Unfortunately, nothing will change until then.

Bush has already said, he will not pull out of Iraq. That will be for the next president to decide on. You know Hillary,McCain and even Obama and Edwards may just bring more of the same in regards to Iraq.

[Mass]

14. I would not put them on the same plan.

McCain is more of the same or even worse.

Hillary is "do not rock the boat".

Edwards is proposing some withdrawal now and then we will see, but at least postulate that there is no military solutions. (No, I am not falling in the Edwards' bandwagon, just stating what he said).

Obama is proposing the standard Democratic plan: Let's wait for 4 months, then start to withdraw.

So, while I do not agree that these plans are enough to solve the problem, they are not all the same.

[wisteria]

15. Agree, Kerry's is the most comprehensive and clear IMO.

I feel he means what he says, I question the others honesty regarding this issue. You know, say enough of what they want to hear to get elected than do as you want.

[TayTay]

16. There is a much worse scenario to consider here

One that posits that Iraq is really all about Iraq and not about what is going on in the American political scene. This is a nightmare scenario and it well could happen.

President Bush, according to a lot of long-time observers, including Larry Johnson and others from the Intel community, wants to go after Iran. He has never disavowed this. There were reports last summer that he and others in the Pentagon even wanted to put the use of limited nuclear weapons on the table, for possible use against Iran. (No country would allow this. This would be an international crime against humanity that could well make the US a pariah nation. The use of nuclear weapons is a war crime. Bush wants them on the table.)

There are a lot of very smart people who believe that the surge or escalation of troops is a cover and excuse for the US to go very negative in Iraq and 'clear out' insurgents from areas like Baghdad. So far, Iraq has simply waited out these periodic high troop deployments to certain areas. The US will go in with increased numbers of troops, pacify an area and then leave in order to pacify another area. The insurgents re-enter the area once the US has gone and it's as if we were never there. Bush and his neocon planners know this. Remember what they did to Fallujah in Nov of 04. They 'pacified' the place by destroying 20,000 homes and countless municipal buildings and mosques. They destroyed Fallujah in order to save it, in other words.

This surge points to a desire on the part of the Bush Admin to 'take out' Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. This is beyond stupid, but this is what the troop surge is there to do. There is no sane scenario that says that this is a good idea or thing to do. In fact, it is suicidal. But Bush wants to 'deal with' Baghdad before he can get back to his main objective of getting to Iran. Do the math here.

If Bush takes on the Mahdi Army, then he takes on Shia Iraq. We will have 170,000 US troops in with about 19 million Shia in Iraq. Our supply lines for those troops run through Shia territory. We cannot sustain an Army without supplies, ammunition, fuel, etc. That could well be cut off. We would be looking at a disaster of epic proportions and a catastrophic loss of US life among our troops if Shia Iraq decides that it will no longer tolerate a US presence. (Remember, according to the last survey in Iraq, 70% of Iraqis think it's perfectly okay to kill Americans. If Bush declares war on Al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army, it will go up to about 95% or more who think it's okay to kill US troops.)

The little debates about funding and who is tougher on national security and so forth will be swept away. Bush is legally the Commander in Chief. He is in the last stages of removing the Generals who opposed him and wanted to see a withdrawal of US troops begin. (Casey and Abazaid.) He is putting his pieces on the board to have a 'clearing out' of Iraq, what he sees as a way of stabilizing Iraq at the point of a gun, so that he can then have a clear shot at Iran. This is insane. This is what we are looking at. The debates about funding and so forth will look really small if this happens.

Bush is insane. His policies in Iraq, as Sen. Kerry pointed out, are insane. Yet, legally, there are very few options that can stop him. If even some of this comes about though, the American people will stop him. The US does not tolerate a loser and this scenario is a losing one.

There are some services that are rendered to country that are above and beyond running for public office and/or playing politics. Stopping a catastrophic war that could have a devastating loss of life and that could destabilize a region of the globe for decades to come is one of them. This scenario could soon obliterate talk of '08. We need to make it through the first 6 months of this year first and we will need all hands on deck to derail the insanity of the Bush Admin. That might just mean that some people won't be able to run for President. In the greater scheme of things, the greater service being rendered to country is higher in stopping this scenario from happening. (Not talking about JK in particular here. I am talking about everyone.)

[rox63]

17. Dems MUST oppose the "surge"

They must clearly put themselves in opposition to Bush's insanity. Even if it looks like they'll lose the final vote. Even if they think their vote might be used against them in a future campaign. Even if there's nothing about their vote that can stop * from doing whatever he wants. The Dems were given control of Congress by the voters because of widespread public opposition to the war. They MUST represent the people on this issue, and oppose *.

There are some things that you just can't compromise on. Torture is one of those things. This is another.

[TayTay]

19. The press is, once again, failing the American people

by not discussing this. That is deeply, deeply tragic. We need an open discussion of something besides the horse-race of '08. We have a lot of people who do care about the troops and about what the US is doing in Iraq and in the Greater Middle East.

This is no unlikely Doomsday Scenario. The Bush Administration was deeply angry at Israel this summer because they did not attack Syria and bring them out in the war against Lebanon.

OMINOUS SIGNS:

A Very Dangerous New Year
by ROBERT PARRY
12/21/06
Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel

The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to “double-down” his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.

President Bush’s goal would be to transcend the bloody quagmire bogging down U.S. forces in Iraq by achieving “regime change” in Syria and by destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, two blows intended to weaken Islamic militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The Israeli army and air force would carry the brunt of any new fighting albeit with the support of beefed-up U.S. ground and naval forces in the Middle East, the sources said. Bush is now considering a “surge” in U.S. troop levels in Iraq from about 140,000 to as many as 170,000. He also has dispatched a second aircraft carrier group to the coast of Iran.

So far, however, Bush has confronted stiff opposition from the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to the plan for raising troop levels in Iraq, partly because the generals don’t think it makes sense to commit more troops without a specific military mission.

But it’s unclear how much the generals know about the expanded-war option which has been discussed sometimes in one-on-one meetings among the principals – Bush, Olmert and Blair – according to intelligence sources.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/122106Parry.html

This is what Larry Johnson and others have been talking about. Bush wants more war, he wants a bigger and wider war that will 'settle' the Middle East and make it a democracy. We have been told this over and over and over and yet some people still think Bush can be talked to or reasoned with. He can't.

This is insane. We are walking into a blood-bath. Bush must be stopped. However, we also need a functioning media that understands what is on the table here. Instead we get babble about '08. The media in America has failed in their First Amendment duties to inform the public about what the government is up to.

BTW, why did Sens. Kerry, Dodd and Specter's trip to Syria so unhinge the Bush Admin. Why did they trot out the old and discredited gambit about Senators violating the Logan Act and being rogue agents when these Senators traveled to Syria? Why did this trip, and not the one in Jan of '05, so piss off the Bushies?

[whometense]

20. The scenario you describe is

all too plausible.

So the question is, how does he get stopped?

Did you see this story? http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9513.html#more-9513

Anyone who thinks he can be reasoned with is as delusional as he is. He is out of control craxy.

[TayTay]

21. Bush has been using the media and the silly season

to hide what he wants to do. He knows Congress was basically out of town in Nov and Dec. He knew he would have the stage to himself. The Iraq Study Group got it's moment in the sun, then was shelved. There was no Congressional presence in Dec to push the sanity option.

Congress must use it's oversight authority and it's power of subpoena in order to compel witnesses from this Admin to testify to what is actually going on. We must have strong people of character in these hearings who have the good of the country in mind, not the '08 election. (There is no more important job than this right now. Nothing, but nothing, justifies taking the eye off of Iraq. Again, working to stop this is the highest possible form of service to country. Nothing is more important to this nation, nothing.)

Sen. Warner of Virginia has provided an opening. Congress should revisit that IWR and consider rescinding the permission it gave for Presidential action. (Yes, I know this doesn't sound like much. But it is the power Congress actually has. It should use it.)

We need all elected officials to come out and state what the plans are and how Bush intends to go into a wider war in the Middle East. We must have people of courage who put country ahead of ambition. (I know a few who will do this. They are patriots in the truest sense of the word.)

Screaming at the top of their lungs that we are heading into madness is a start. If it was your kid who was about to die for a lunatic's plan, what would you do?

[whometense]

23. You don't want to know,

and I'd better not say.

I agree - I just don't know that screaming at the top of our lungs will actually accomplish anything. I'm trying not to be cynical, but Bush listens to no one. No one. According to him, he gets his instructions direct from God.

I honestly believe that nothing short of removing him from office will have any effect.

[TayTay]

26. The Republican Party needs to step up to the plate

and the Democratic Party needs to unite behind an effort to stop this. (God, the fact that Lieberman won hurts now. He is enabling Bush and the greater war.)

There is some hope that this will happen. Republicans want to actually *have* a political party in the future. This war plan threatens to blow up the Repubs for a generation or two to come.

[whometense]

30. That would be a wonderful thing to see.

I kept waiting for that to happen all through 2004, to no avail.

If they're ready to put country (and world) over party now - I say better late than never. Not holding my breath, though.

[wisteria]

34. One way or another. n/t

[ProSense]

27. That's a neat idea:

rescinding the IWR. But what in rescinding the IWR will stop Bush, as his signing statement indicates, from claiming his executive privilege under the War Powers Resolution? It was the WPR and all the lies that he used to violate the IWR. The man must be stopped, but he will not be by simply pretending the IWR has anything to do with is previous actions; thereby assuming its revocation will serve any purpose. Throwing this out there because I've seen rescinding the IWR mentioned before.

Cutting funding and impeachment (the trial, that is to say I'm not implying that he is removed and Cheney takes over) are likely to be more effective.

[wisteria]

35. He can get the funding from what still remains from the last request for funds

and from shuffling things around at the Pentagon according to Frank and others.

[ProSense]

37. He has made that clear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2888926&mesg_id=2888926">Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007

Maybe then impeachment!

[wisteria]

39. That would require the Repubs going along also. That would take

a lot of persuading on the Democrats side. Then of course, we have our own Dem's to contend with who will not be willing to address the real threat to the ME and our own country. I just don't see any legal recourse.The alternatives I don't even want to discuss. Bush is the "decider".

[Blaukraut]

42. That might be the only way to stop him

Impeachment proceedings should clearly be back on the table now. Nothing else can put a stop to Bush's plans.

[wisteria]

33. Sorry to be pessimistic, but the media will make a mockery out of anyone

who suggests that Bush is on a course of madness. Then we have to deal with the media not allowing the real objectives of Bush to be known. Then, will the people really listen? Will they understand? Will they react?

[ProSense]

22. Interesting

You should post this in GD.

[whometense]

24. The signing statement post?

Sure. It's all of a piece, isn't it? For anyone who is a student of human behavior he appears to be a textbook sociopath.

[ProSense]

28. Has the

Carpetbagger item been posted?

[whometense]

38. I just did

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3040484

Hope it hasn't been covered to death.

[ProSense]

40. This is good

because it's a more recent and damning example of Bush's overreaching. Thanks.

[TayTay]

25. There are a lot of people on DU who have posted this

There are a lot of people who don't want to hear it. They think it is posturing for '08. They refuse to see that we are in trouble now and sift everything through the poisonous filter of '08. It is not time for '08. The real issues that will shape '08 are not even there yet.

This has been posted many times. People see what they want to see. Some see any action that has the name of a 'Kerry person' on it as having to do with Kerry, not our country. This is beyond sad.

I do believe that if Sen. Kerry thought he could help prevent this greater war by renouncing any bid to the Presdency in order to concentrate on diverting America from this path to madness that he would do it in a heartbeat. Not everyone believes that. Mores the pity.

[whometense]

29. I believe he would as well.

But then, I'm a Kerrybot, so what do I know?

[wisteria]

41. It was said somewhere recently, that many realize Kerry is right, but

do not want to acknowledge this because of the 08 elections. So, if he says he isn't going to run will he be given more credibility? I think not, personally.He may just get no attention at all.
Or,it has also been suggested that his speaking out, makes it more difficult to deal with Bush and draws attention away from the real issue and focuses it on Kerry/Bush and a get even match. In other words, he should keep his opinions to himself. I do not agree with this suggestion at all,especially since Kerry feels an obligation to speak the truth and he has been correct on much of what has transpired in Iraq. I am just saying there are few paths we can follow, and all of them have pitfalls.

[ProSense]

32. Speaking of Specter

See how easily impressed Steve Clemons can be:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/the-independent-_b_37427.html

Fun comments.

[wisteria]

36. I injoyed the comments. Most are very true. n/t

[whometense]

44. Ouch.

Steve Clemons is living a bit in the past, I think. I'm not sure a return to civility and bipartisanship is imminent, though it would suit the inclinations of people like Specter and Warner if it were so.

The republicans as they are now constituted will not give an inch; it makes little sense to be kind and forgiving if, as they currently indicate, they would just go back to doing exactly what they were doing if given the chance. And presumably the "moderates" would just fall in line again, no matter how much they complained as they did.

It hit me this morning as I watched c-span in the kitchen. They were interviewing freshman congresspeople, and the calls were hopeful and moderate, and then all of a sudden there was a snarling repuke on the line sputtering about how the dems stood for only taxing and spending, etc etc. You've heard it all before. What struck me, though, was the venom in his voice. Nothing's happened yet - congress isn't even sworn in, and he's already furious about what he thinks is going to happen. THAT is who they are - we forget at our peril.

[beachmom]

45. You almost have to distinguish between the various Republicans, though

Plenty of people voted for Bush in '04 who are not like that at all. There were plenty of Republicans who were opposed to the Iraq War because it went against their realist, traditional principles, yet they voted the way they did because that's how they always voted. Then there is the virulent right wing. They are nasty people, and I'm not just talking about their politics. I think I've told you guys about the local conservative blogger right in my area who posted abusive comments to me and the other Virginia Beach blogger; so he disagreed -- that happens. But he had to get personal and go after our character. My friend here finally banned him, and got hit hard by other Virginia bloggers. But really -- why would you spend so much time blogging (and she concentrates on local issues, so it's very valuable info) when you're verbally abused constantly?

These right wingers, who are most comfortable when they are hating someone or advocating killing someone are as certifiable as their president. They are not "the other side". They're just thugs and sociopaths, and I hope the traditional conservatives start to work on marginalizing and purging this crowd, the sooner the better.

I also wonder if right wing radio is bad for the culture and foments the hatred, or even creates the hatred out of whole cloth.

[whometense]

46. I do see your point,

and mostly agree.

But the inaction of all those "moderate" republicans has hardened me a lot. At this point, I assume that any republican who does not stand up and take action against the Bush policies is as bad as any right wing nutjob. It's cowardly to say you disagree and then go along anyway. Though I think Lincoln Chafee is a genuinely good guy, I think he still deserved to lose his senate seat for that very reason.

[beachmom]

48. Absolutely. Even some Dems, too, who I know, who don't want

to be bothered with what's going on. It goes back to the idea (can't remember who said this): "It's not enough to be good. You must ACT against evil." Most Americans, regardless of their party affiliation have fallen asleep on their civic job. And they look at US, who are more in the know, like we're insane and too obsessive. But here's the question for them: has ANYTHING gone well under this administration. Has not EVERYTHING gotten worse? So an escalation of the Iraq War and an attack on Iran is not ridiculous to contemplate. The former -- well, I NEVER thought Bush would do that, and yet here he is, doing it. So the next domino is Iran.

[whometense]

49. Interesting, and somewhat more optimistic take

here: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=153798

..Personally, I'm not convinced that Bush could get away with it politically. Not only is the public dead-set against escalating the war, but there are hints that Congress might not stand for it, and the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces is opposed.

Over the past few days, a swarm of Republican senators has come out against the surge, including at least three Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 in states that make them vulnerable: Gordon Smith of Oregon, whose remarkable speech calling the war "criminal" went far beyond the normal bland rhetoric of discourse in the U.S. capital, along with John Sununu of New Hampshire and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In addition, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, less vulnerable but still facing voters in 2008, has questioned the surge idea. And a host of Republican moderates -- Chuck Hagel (NE), Dick Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME) -- have lambasted it. (Hagel told Robert Novak: "It's Alice in Wonderland. I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.") Even Sam Brownback, one of the Senate godfathers of the neocon-backed Iraqi National Congress, has expressed skepticism, saying: "We can't impose a military solution." According to Novak, only 12 of the 49 Republican senators are now willing to back Sen. John McCain's blood-curdling cries for sending in more troops.

Meanwhile, says Novak, the Democrats would not only criticize the idea of a surge but, led by Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, might use their crucial power over the purse. "Biden," writes Novak, "will lead the rest of the Democrats not only to oppose a surge but to block it." Reports the Financial Times of London: "Democrats have hinted that they could use their control over the budget process to make life difficult for the Bush administration if it chooses to step up the military presence in Iraq." A Kagan-style surge would require a vast new commitment of funds, and with their ability to scrutinize, put conditions on, and even strike out entire line items in the military budget and the Pentagon's supplemental requests, the Democrats could find ways to stall or halt the "surge," if not the war itself.

Indeed, if President Bush opts to Kaganize the war, he will throw down the gauntlet to the Democrats. Unwilling until now to say that they would even consider blocking appropriations for the Iraq War, the Democrats would have little choice but to up the ante if Bush flouts the electoral mandate in such a full-frontal manner. By escalating the war in the face of near-universal opposition from the public, the military, and the political class, the president would force the Democrats to escalate their own -- until now fairly mild-mannered -- opposition to the war...

[Blaukraut]

50. precisely!

I've long decided not to underestimate Bush's capability to do all the things we always thought not even HE would dare. He does dare, every time.

[wisteria]

31. I see very little the Dem's can do to stop Bush, legally.

If cutting off funding and amendments don't work, I don't see how much else Democrats can do. It seems to me Bush will not listen to anyone- other politicians or the people of the United States.
What is everyone to be "all hands on deck" for?

[beachmom]

43. OMG, Tay Tay. Please let him not do THAT.

I must say, however, that based on my connections here, they're certainly gearing up to take on Iran. But, to me, until he pulls the trigger, that CAN mean nothing.

I agree with you that there are some things more important than running for president. In fact, that is why, in general, despite my above post, I have been more quiet about Kerry's '08 prospects. He is a leader NOW, in my view, and he was a leader in 1971, and he didn't even hold public office back then. The president has a lot of power, but often times, it has been other Americans who actually changed this country. I hope that is his feeling, too -- that the real question is WHY does one want to become president, and can those goals be reached in other ways if that position cannot be attained. Clinton has lamented how his work in Africa is small compared to what he could have done as president; I disagree. I think the work of Bono, Bill Gates, and Bill Clinton have literally SAVED LIVES in Africa and may save more lives than any president could. Same with stopping this war.

Yes, we can go on and on how this nightmare scenario wouldn't be upon us, had John Kerry been elected in '04. But I am in no mood for 20/20 hindsight, and look to him to try to save this country from making such a big mistake. How, I do not know, but we all must try through our power as citizens.

[wisteria]

47. I still feel he can accomplish more by being President in the long term than

than by just abandoning the idea to concentrate exclusively on the immediate mess. Of course it is extremely important, but even with Dem majorities in both houses, there is still a limited amount they can do or in some cases willing to do. I agree that the ME and the Iraq mess should transcend politics, but realistically, I don't see how the politics can be successfully removed from the various approaches being considered.

[ProSense]

6. Yay!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: