Reply #170: I Do Not Support Your Definition of "Strongly Object ". [View All]

[DistressedAmerican]

He says that he would not have gone to war. He called for Rummy to resign (over Abu Ghraib not the war itself). The one thing he has done recently that really impressed me was the DSM letter. I was very angry that only 5 or 6 dems signed it. My two reps did not.

To me a strong objection of the war is a direct call for an end to the war. Lots of us are calling for this NOW. Kerry not so much. He says it was a mistake and then debates whether we can meet fictitious goals set up by Bushco.

The war was based on WMD lies. Kerry's DSM letter made it clear that he believes it was based on lies. There was no WMD. We went there to disarm Saddam. They did not vote to liberate the Iraqi people (an unrealistic goal in my opinion). It was about WMD. If Kerry chooses to embrace Bush's latest rationale for the war (Iraqi Freedom) he is being openly dishonest. Unless that is he comes out and tells America that he did not vote based on WMD but, liberation instead.

In reality, this war was clearly about oil. Kerry knows it as does most of the country. Even most freeps understand that at this point. They do not object but, they know. For example, there was a thread yesterday about a freep bumper sticker someone had seen that said "Nuke Their Ass And Take Their Gas".

I agree that we can not snap our fingers and be out in a day. However long it will take, it must begin now. We have been there for years. In that time it has become clear that the justification for the war was false. I do not see that continuing to debate the goals of the war does anything but delay the pullout. Lives are being lost daily and more than two years later we are still going around and around on this?

I do not see that serves us or the people that are getting killed for this OIL WAR to keep going back and forth about the freedom of Iraq. That debate has played out over more than two years, 125,000 Iraqi deaths, and more than 1900 US deaths. How many more do you suggest we take while we have this false debate on Bush's excuse for stealing Iraqi oil?

There is no rational argument to be made for our continued occupation to steal oil under the false reasons of WMD or Iraqi liberation. Both excuses are just that, excuses for stealing the oil and making the oil barons even richer.

Let's please move to discussion of withdrawal and a timetable. Not more discussion of whether or not we can meet goals that were only posited to cover for the theft of resources. If we do not stand up and demand withdrawal, we just stay.

Now, if you can tell me that he has called for a withdrawal of US troops I'll shut up.