One more question

[politicasista]

Are there any ways to deal with the "too little, too late," "what took you so long" complaints? I know we all are tired of the negativity, but I was just wondering if there was anything we could do to debunk them (even though they will come up again):shrug:

On edit: I am glad I wasn't around here during the primaries. yikes. :hide:

[JI7]

1. most of them should be ignored

as these people are just looking to be jerks. if they didn't care then they could just ignore it but some just want to be assholes.

[TayTay]

2. No. Those are perrennials

They will just pop up from time to time. The questioners cannot get a satisfactory answer, as they seek to control all facets of the debate. It is not possible to please some people. No matter what you say, it will not be enough.

Some people are beyond reason and simple are a waste of your time.

[Dr Ron]

3. Are you speaking of Iraq?

Assuming you mean Iraq, there's plenty of evidence that Kerry was among the first Democrats to speak out against Bush's foreign policy--which is consistent with his opposition to Nixon on Vietnam and Reagan on Iran Contra.

I do have one article, I believe from the NY Times which outright states Kerry was among the first Democrats to speak out against Bush's foreign policy in general while other Democrats were afraid to speak out after 9/11. I don't have much time now, but will try to add links later. If you can't wait, check out the Kerry Reference Library, starting in this topic: http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=2 There's also a number of posts on this in at the Unofficial Kerry Blog and Democratic Daily. As there's a huge number of posts there on Kerry and Iraq, perhaps start by doing a search there for Kos. I believe that several of the posts there are in response to Kos attacks and this might be an easier way to find them.

Other key points would be Kerry's Senate Floor Statement on the IWR, his op-ed in the New York Times and Foreign Affairs at the same time, his Georgetown Speech in which he called on Bush not to rush to war, and his statement at the onset of the war calling for regime change in the United States in protest.

[TayTay]

4. That regime change comment was very controversial

even other, very prominent, Dems running for the Presidency in early '03 didn't like that one and wanted KErry to apologize for saying that. Sigh!

[ProSense]

8. I remember that one.

How visionary!

[Dr Ron]

5. Check out this post

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1156

It has a useful handful of quotes from Kerry on his early views on the war.

[Dr Ron]

7. And there's this one

Kerry Decries GOP as 'Crooked' and 'Lying'

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 11, 2004; Page A06

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) dueled with President Bush over taxes and the economy yesterday and then, in an offhand comment to factory workers in Chicago, called the Republicans "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," triggering an angry denunciation from Bush's campaign.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt, in a statement, said: "At every turn, John Kerry has claimed to be the victim of an imaginary smear machine. John Kerry has run a relentlessly negative campaign from the very beginning and this comment is completely consistent with that." Schmidt said Kerry "has based his entire campaign on a series of false and inaccurate attacks."

Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the Democratic candidate had no regrets about his characterizations of the opposition. "Not at all," she said. "There's been a pretty high level of Republican attack machine working for the last four years for the sole purpose of smearing the Democrats. We're trying to make this campaign about issues; Republicans are making it about attacks."

The uproar threatened to overshadow two other events yesterday, Kerry's first face-to-face meeting with former Vermont governor Howard Dean since effectively wrapping up the nomination and a flurry of speculation about whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) might entertain the idea of joining Kerry on the Democratic ticket.

Kerry and Dean, at times bitter rivals for the Democratic nomination, met for about 45 minutes at Kerry's headquarters in Washington, where they discussed a probable endorsement by the former governor.

Sources familiar with the discussion said Dean likely will endorse Kerry in the next few weeks, possibly around the time of a Democratic National Committee gala that will feature former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. But beyond the endorsement itself is the more important question of what role Dean will play in the Democratic Party's campaign to defeat Bush in November.

On March 18, Dean plans to announce more details of how he hopes to repackage his organization into a political force that will work on national, state and local issues and campaigns. Kerry in particular is anxious to tap the huge fundraising network Dean created during his campaign, a network that raised about $50 million, much of it through donations of less than $100.

Dean has said he intends to maintain control of his list of donors, but party officials hope he will actively encourage them to help Kerry raise the estimated $80 million he has set as a target over the next four months.

Dean issued a statement saying that while he and Kerry spent much of the past year focusing on their differences, they agreed on far more, starting on the need to change presidents. "I will work closely with John Kerry to make sure we beat George Bush in November and turn our country around," he said.

McCain stirred up a nest of speculation when, on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said he would consider an offer to become Kerry's vice presidential running mate. McCain said he doubted Kerry and the Democrats would accept a "pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk" on the ticket.

But when asked what would happen if Kerry asked him to think about it, he said: "John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We have been friends for years. Obviously, I would entertain it. But I see no scenario, no scenario, no scenario where -- I foresee no scenario where that would happen."

It took a statement from McCain's top adviser, Mark Salter, to pop the balloon. "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004," he said.

[Dr Ron]

6. Kerry Set Himself Apart in 2002 in attackign Bush per NY Times

By Attacking Bush, Kerry Sets Himself Apart
By James Dao
New York Times | Politics
Wednesday, 31 July, 2002

WASHINGTON, July 30 -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was cruising through a Senate hearing on arms control, charming his Democratic adversaries and deftly parrying their questions, when Senator John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, took the microphone.
In the aggressive style he honed as a prosecutor two decades ago, Mr. Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism against President Bush's nuclear arms treaty with Russia, saying it "neutered" previous pacts and included a "huge contradiction." Twice, he interrupted a clearly irritated Mr. Powell in midsentence.
For many Democrats, the war on terrorism has made that kind of frontal assault on Bush foreign policy seem risky, if not politically suicidal. But not for Mr. Kerry. A decorated Vietnam veteran and potential presidential candidate, he has lustily attacked the administration on policies like trans-Atlantic relations, Pentagon spending, Middle East negotiations and even Mr. Bush's greatest triumph, Afghanistan.
"I think there were serious errors," Mr. Kerry said in an interview, referring to the American ground campaign in Afghanistan that he contends probably allowed Osama bin Laden to slip into Pakistan. He made the point again on Monday as he joined other potential presidential candidates in speaking to centrist Democrats in New York.
"In some ways, Al Qaeda is more dangerous today because we didn't take advantage of initiative, which is critical in war," he added.
Mr. Kerry says he has felt compelled to criticize the administration in large part because of his Vietnam experience, first as a gunboat commander and then as an antiwar organizer. "I learned what happens when people in public office fail to ask questions," he said.
But Republican and some Democratic officials say they see another motivation: Mr. Kerry's desire to separate himself from the pack in the Democratic sweepstakes for president. Attacking the president on war-related issues is nearly risk-free for him, those officials say, because his Vietnam experience makes it difficult to impugn his patriotism.
In that sense, Mr. Kerry, 58, shares a bond with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who is also a decorated Vietnam veteran and a close friend of Mr. Kerry's. There has been talk of Mr. McCain's joining a Kerry Democratic ticket in 2004, fueled by Mr. Kerry's plans to spend a weekend this fall at Mr. McCain's cabin near Sedona, Ariz. Both men's offices denied the rumors.
Still, the war record of Mr. Kerry has not stopped the Republicans from likening him to the last Democratic presidential nominee from Massachusetts, Michael S. Dukakis.
"I think John Kerry is trying to grab the left wing of the Democratic Party," said Gov. Bill Owens of Colorado, vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association. "His nomination would allow us to correctly position him as another liberal from Massachusetts."
Mr. Kerry's strong words have also caused a stir within the Democratic Party, reflecting tensions over the politics of foreign policy in the post-9/11 world.
On one side of the debate are Democrats, including many in Congress, who contend that the party will win Congressional seats this fall by focusing on domestic issues like Social Security, prescription drugs and corporate ethics. When a plunging stock market and accounting scandals seem to have wounded the Republicans, these Democrats say, it is foolish to fight the president on his strongest ground, foreign affairs.
"We have a treasure trove of domestic issues," said David Axelrod, a strategist from Chicago who is advising a handful of Democratic candidates for Congress and governor. "Why should we muddy the waters by talking about issues that redound to Bush's political benefit?"
Many Democrats still point to the experience of the Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, whose patriotism was questioned by Republicans in February after he suggested that the administration articulate clearer goals for the war on terrorism.
But on the other side is a virtual shadow government of former diplomats, Pentagon officials and National Security Council aides from the Clinton administration who are encouraging Democrats like Mr. Kerry, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and others to challenge Mr. Bush's foreign policies.
These experts, seeking to articulate a worldview rooted in the internationalist traditions of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, have accused Mr. Bush of isolationism and of wasting opportunities to reduce tensions in the Mideast.
"This administration's tendency to act unilaterally weakens us in the world," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic group, articulating the emerging critique.
Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the party's leading candidates for 2004 should speak forcefully on military and foreign policy to avoid repeating what he considers a major error by Al Gore in the 2000 campaign. Mr. Gore did not talk about foreign policy "unless Bush brought it up, because his pollsters told him Americans didn't want to hear about it," Mr. O'Hanlon said, which "helped give credibility to Bush."
Few Democrats have answered that call, led by senators positioning themselves to run for president in 2004. Mr. Lieberman says the administration has not done enough to support Iraqi opposition groups. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina has criticized the administration for not helping expand an international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.
But Mr. Kerry has been the harshest critic. In an interview addressing a range of issues, he called the Bush Mideast policies "confused," saying Mr. Bush could not expect to achieve peace without maintaining at least low-level contacts with Yasir Arafat. On Iraq, he said Mr. Bush had allowed "his rhetoric to get way ahead of his thinking," talking tough without preparing the country for a potentially bloody conflict. In 1991, Mr. Kerry joined most other Democrats in voting against letting Mr. Bush's father use force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
He has been most scathing, however, on Afghanistan, arguing that the Pentagon's decision to rely on Afghan troops instead of American soldiers in the battle of Tora Bora in March probably allowed Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants to escape.
Asked who should be held accountable for the Tora Bora strategy, Mr. Kerry points to the president. "If you are the skipper of the ship, and the ship runs aground while you are asleep in your stateroom, you are relieved of duty, no excuse," he said.
After graduating from Yale, Mr. Kerry volunteered for the Navy and became commander of a patrol boat. He was awarded Silver and Bronze Stars, but he returned from Vietnam disillusioned. In the early 1970's, he helped organize Vietnam Veterans Against the War and captured national attention by throwing away some of his war ribbons -- but not his medals -- in an antiwar demonstration outside the Capitol.
The Vietnam experience also taught Mr. Kerry the dangers of instigating large military actions without public support, clear goals or a victory strategy, concerns he says he also has about the war on terrorism.
He said he "learned what happens when America pursues a military expedition without the support of the American people" and "what happens to soldiers in the military when you are not determined to win."
In one sign of how central the war experience is to Mr. Kerry's political persona, a model of his gunboat is displayed in the anteroom to his Capitol Hill suite, along with photographs of his crew.
His advisers say that if Mr. Kerry runs for president, he will not hesitate to highlight his war experience. Vietnam will not only give him credibility on military affairs but also insulate him from accusations that he is too liberal on issues like abortion or the environment, they say.
Mr. Kerry, acknowledging that many Democrats are more comfortable with domestic issues than foreign or military affairs, offered a solution: linking the two.
"I think there is no such thing anymore as foreign policy," he said. "It's all Main Street American policy. People are concerned about their economic security and they are concerned about their physical and national security. They are all linked together: interest rates, trade, international boundaries with respect to crime and terror, the movement of disease, the trafficking in people, immigration."
"It's an American policy," he added, "not a Democratic Party policy."
---------------------------------------
link:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.01E.kerry.bush.htm

[karynnj]

10. There are so many things in this article that

are really interesting - some sad to read - his service should have protected him on the lack of patriotism charge. This may be the earliest instance of the McCain as VP story - 2 years before Kerry had to choose.

[ProSense]

9. "Too little too late"

is what people say when they have nothing else constructive to say (not that some of them ever did).

Every day that advances a push to get out of Iraq is positive. As others have pointed out there is plenty of information posted here and on other blogs. Finding it is not that hard. They just rather complain that become familiar with the facts.

Jerks!