Reduction of troops in Iraq necessary, says Kerry

[Rose Siding]

SCRANTON, Pa. - Sen. John Kerry declined to detail his exit strategy for Iraq Friday, but said he would have failed if he hadn't substantially reduced the number of U.S. troops there by the end of his first term.

"There are a number of different game plans, none of which I can put in play until I'm president," Kerry said in an interview with Knight Ridder aboard his campaign bus in Scranton, Pa. "I can't negotiate this publicly, and I'm not going to."
...
As a returning Vietnam veteran who became a prominent peace activist, Kerry posed a rhetorical question before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Asked Friday if he would face that question about the Iraq war as president, Kerry said: "I never said it was a mistake now. What I said is the way the president chose to go to war was a mistake."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9285624.htm

[shadu]

1. Well, it's a start.

[saigon68]

2. IT IS A MISTAKE

I think he is being Coy because of the election. If he's elected and continues the same course including a draft he will have to deal with some of US again .

with chants of

WE WON'T FIGHT YOUR FUCKING WAR





MIAMI BEACH ----- NIXON'S CONVENTION 1972

RON KOVIC IN CHAIR AT RIGHT.

[bemildred]

30. Tell it Saigon.

If he goes the way of LBJ and Nixon he can join them in the dustbin of history.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
But I think and hope you are right that his is playing electoral politics.

[aquart]

32. He is being coy because it is treason to undermine your government.

You don't sabotage your troops by telling the enemy that if they make the current guy look bad enough, say, by killing lots of our troops, they'll get what they want with the next administration.

You don't, if you give a damn about the troops. Which, you may have noticed, he does.

[saigon68]

66. I do give a damn about "THE TROOPS"

However at same time one questions??????????????

why someone TODAY wants to join up and be part of this cluster-fuck.

My only conclusion from my own experience

Is the new "Recruits" have serious emotional and maturity issues


DON'T EVER SAY "I" DON'T "SUPPORT THE TROOPS"

[Voltaire99]

49. Right on, Saigon

I'm discouraged to see that Kerry is in no haste to end the Iraq war. His priorities leave much to be desired.

[leesa]

3. Is this a reduction that factors in the additional 40000 troops he plans

to send?? He thinks the invasion was not a 'mistake'. THIS creature thinks the invasion of Iraq was right? By what possible yardstick is it right??

Meet the new boss same as the old?

[Connie_Corleone]

5. Kerry specifically said in his speech...

That the 40,000 additional troops would NOT go to Iraq.

[Gin]

6. think about this...if he has a plan that would work right now...the thugs

would steal the idea and use it before the election....they co-opt every idea the dems have... until they get in office... and then screw everyone and everything......he can't give out all of his plans....cut him some slack on this...I oppose the war...but he has got to win.

[Eurobabe]

77. EXACTLY

why give them the pages of your playbook. If Bu$hCo hasn't figured out a 'stratemategery' by now, they never will, so let them go down with the ship. And blame THEM for troop losses, they fvcked it up to begin with, concentrating on shock and awe. Just a damn pity that more people will suffer injuries and possibly death to serve this illegitimate master.

[jpgray]

7. Please inform yourself--the 40,000 aren't being sent to Iraq

Kerry wants more troops immediately because he wants to end the "backdoor draft" National Guard and Reservists home. The active personnel stretching is what those troops are meant to end.

[happynewyear]

46. no Kerry wants more troops for Iraq!

Just wait - he gets he 40,000 new volunteers and no draft and all of a sudden the MIDDLE EAST (remember that place) becomes a bigger and more chaotic mess then it is right now.

So, we need more troops ASAP. We do not have them now. Elect Kerry, and walla! We have an 'extra' 40,000 people to fight the ugly war without end at our immediate 'disposal' as to literally speak.

What is the REAL DEAL Mr. Kerry? I'm getting very sick of YOU very fast!

:dem: :kick:

NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL!!! BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. You misread.

You can believe whatever you want, but the reality is

"I never said it was a mistake now."

Does not mean:

"the invasion was not a mistake"

[Whoa_Nelly]

38. Kerry Speech re: 40,000 troops

<snip>
We will add 40,000 active duty troops – not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives – and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.


See entire text of speech here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0729.html

[emulatorloo]

56. He said 40000 troops NOT for Iraq - read or listen to Kerry's speech

and/or stop misquoting Kerry to make your points

THNKS!!!!! :hi:

[candy331]

69. Yes, I too though I heard him say he would send 40,000 more

troops to Iraq. I hope he remembers he said this and it is in media archives to be quickly brought up by the opposing side.

[Whoa_Nelly]

70. Read post # 38

and also go to the link to read the entire text of the speech. Kerry did NOT say he would be sending 40,000 troops to Iraq.

[PsychoDad]

4. So... He's saying...

Under his administration, we will be there for at least four more years of americans dying.

This is starting to sound like viet-nam

[jpgray]

8. Where does he say that?

He says that if there wasn't a significant reduction, he'd have failed in his first term.

[Connie_Corleone]

11. Also, Kerry might have several plans.

Kerry might have several plans on how to get our troops out of Iraq, but he won't have a definite plan until he's president. It depends on what kind of situation Iraq is in by then.

Whatever Kerry's plan will be has to be better than what Bush has done so far. Bush's so-called coalition is falling apart everyday with other countries pulling out their support.

[PsychoDad]

15. He may...

But as being someone opposed to this war from before the start, what I would like to hear isn't reduction in 4 years... I would like to hear withdrawal within 4 years.

[PsychoDad]

13. Right here...

"Sen. John Kerry declined to detail his exit strategy for Iraq Friday, but said he would have failed if he hadn't substantially reduced the number of U.S. troops there by the end of his first term."

A significant reduction is not a withdrawl of ALL troops, it's some, maybe most, but not all. ergo: we will still be there in his apperant estimation in 4 years.

It would be great if there were a full withdrawal within 4 years, but that's not what he's saying.

"said he would have failed if he hadn't substantially reduced the number "

Sounds like his goal is to "reduce" the numbers, not withdraw all.

And that's after adding the 40,000 he is calling for to enhance our forces there now.

[jpgray]

14. So reducing the number to '0' wouldn't be a substantial reduction?

You're not making much sense. And again, ignorance is showing--the 40,000 mentioned are not intended to go to Iraq, but to free up more enlisted troops so that the National Guard and Reservists can be sent home.

[PsychoDad]

17. Semantics....

A substantial reduction would be in the eyes of the beholder, in this case Kerry, as no numbers have been mentioned.

Lets bring home 40,000 troops instaed of finding 40,000 more to replace the troops we have over there.

[jpgray]

18. So in your view Kerry should say 'We leave immediately'?

If not, you believe we should continue to keep a disproportionate number of reservists and National Guard troops in Iraq? If they are to be removed and we are to stay for even a brief period, they need to be replaced.

In my view, it's not at all clear what Kerry is going to do in Iraq, but I think it's irresponsible to automatically assume from the quotes above that we are remaining for four years without a doubt.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. I did n't hear him say PUT 40,000 more forces there..he said

we NEED 40,000 more to make up for Bush's back door draft.

[happynewyear]

47. shuffle the troops around, add more and get ready

because, prosperity ain't right around the corner! America is in a hell of a damn mess and sending more of our citizens to war is wrong!

WRONG MR. KERRY! W R O N G !!!

:nuke:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. So .... You're saying...

you support Bush's war.

[Rose Siding]

21. How does disagreeing with Kerry's position on the war

indicate support for Bush's position?

Do you imagine that the current Democratic 'unity' has anything to do with Kerry's position on Iraq?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. If it was OK for the poster to put words in Kerry's mouth

that he didn't say, why can't I do the same to the poster?

[Rose Siding]

25. What words did I 'put in Kerry's mouth'?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Everything in the post: 'So, he's saying'

are words that he didn't say, that were put in his mouth.

[Rose Siding]

31. That's not me

I remarked on your response to another poster because it made no sense.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. While I recognize that you claim you didn't understand it.

That doesn't mean it didn't make sense.

[Rose Siding]

50. Why did you edit 2 of your posts to change the meaning?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. Why are you making this false claim about my edit?

I edited my post to remove any confusion about who was talking to whom. No meaning was changed.


The other poster put words in Kerry's mouth, and I responded by putting word's in the other poster's mouth.



That's what happened, and I don't believe you when you claim you didn't understand it.

[Rose Siding]

57. So...you're saying

I could have made a lot of money if I'd invested in white-out.

[PsychoDad]

44. Sure you can

But why don't you quote me when you do and then come to a conclusion based upon what I did indeed say.

Such as I am about to do here:

Kerry stated that he would feel that he had failed if he had not acheaved significant troop reduction by the end of his first term. (I am quoteing from memory here)

I read that as meaning that Kerry's goals are for a REDUCTION of troops, as he himself stated, not a complete withdrawal. Without a complete withdrawal we will still have troops in Iraq. If we still have troops in Iraq, it is safe to assume, given the current sutuation, that they will still be killed by the Iraqi resistance.

Therefore, I did not put any words in his mouth. I used his own words to come to a conclusion about the probable meaning and outcome.

Now, if you can show me with his words where he states that his goal is a complete withdrawl by the end of his first term, I would be most grateful.

Otherwise, if you support the killing of our troops in Iraq for 4 more years, it is you, not I who support Bush's war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. Since I must assume you are not being intentional deceptive

(because of DU rules)

The only remaining alternative is that you simply don't understand the difference between truth and falsehood.

For instance, you made this statement:

I read that as meaning that Kerry's goals are for a REDUCTION of troops, as he himself stated,


When in fact, Kerry made absolutely no such statement as to what his goal was. He made a statement as to what he would consider a failure, but he did not make a statement as to what his goal was.

I'll repeat that: Kerry did not state what his goal was.


Therefore to say otherwise, if the intent were to decieve, would be a lie. Since I have no way of knowing what your intent was, I have no way of knowing whether you are lying, but I do know that what you are saying is not true.

[PsychoDad]

80. And there lies the problem.

As you stated, Kerry made absolutely no statement as to what exactally his goal is. He did state what he would consider failure.

I took him to mean in his statement that reduction was the goal, without stating just how much of a reduction he would consider significant.

Nor will he now state if he now thinks the war was a mistake.

It would be nice to have firm statements from Kerry as to exactally what his position and goals are toward the Iraq Occupation. As you seem to feel I am quite wrong in my assumption, perhaps you have a better insight into Kerry's mind on the issue.

Because from what we have been given, I'm not sure anyone but Kerry has any real Idea.

[PsychoDad]

36. Probably less so...

Than Kerry has.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. So... you're saying

Iraqi lives aren't worth as much as American lives.

[PsychoDad]

45. Nope...

I'm saying that as long as we are there, lives on all sides are going to be lost.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. Well that's like saying

"while the sun is in the sky, it's daytime"


not exactly insightful.

[leftchick]

12. What about those 14 Permanent US Military bases....

and the World's Largest Embassy Haliburton is constructing? Why is this never mentioned?

[saigon68]

16. THAT'S A KICK OFF TO INVADE IRAN

The Neocons are going to at some point HI-Jack the election.

Book mark this thread people.

[tlcandie]

23. Honestly, I think you are right, but what do I know?!

Maybe all this talk and hope is wasted and there is no option...it is only an illusion. :cry:

Just got off a horrible call with my dad who baited and goaded me regarding Kerry...calling his wife a sandn****. THAT put me over the top!

I'm not sure most people understand what we are truly up against. It's not logic...not reasoning of well-informed people...it's prejudice, fear and hate.

I'm not sure how you combat those things or IF you can with all the progaganda and misleading info out there 24/7 through major news sources. MOST people will not search the web for news nor do they care to. Believe me, my family is the average joe blow...narrow minded, small town Texan through and through!

Unfortunately, I think the odds are on the side of this evil regime and not with us. If we are to even have half a fighting chance we have to move past all this bickering and nay saying about Kerry and just fight for even a small voice to be heard in the future! At least if Kerry is elected we will still be able to speak out and have the option to change things....not so if * is re-elected to another term.

[aquart]

33. With whose support?

Who is going to carry water for these great and all powerful wizards?

THEY ARE IDIOTS. RICH, TOO RICH IDIOTS.

Every bloody thing they've done has screwed up. WHY? Because they're idiots. They're fascists. Fascists makes messes for the rest of us to clean up.

But what they are not is all powerful. Or were you planning a trip to the thousand-year reich anytime soon?

[Junkdrawer]

43. Agreed. Said so yesterday...

Kerry vs Bush??? I think the answer may lie in Iran....

The nation has not been more polarized since the Vietnam War.

Our reputation abroad has NEVER been lower.

John Kerry is running on a platform of fiscal conservatism, defense increases and social moderation. It would normally make sense that the-powers-that-be would opt for such a moderate Democrat to heal the divisions of the last four years of extremism. You know, consolidate their gains. Normally.

But there's a wild card: Iran.

Iran is ruled by Islamic fundamentalists.

Iran sits on a huge amount of oil.

Iran and China have increasingly friendly relations.

and

Iran may be looking to join the Nuclear Club.

And so we are beginning to hear the distant drumbeats. And to my ears, those drums sound an awful lot like the early drumbeats on Iraq.

Now, I truly doubt Kerry would invade Iran. But Bush would. So the question is: How bad do the-powers-that-be want to invade Iran. And, given the size of the undertaking, would they dare?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2119462&mesg_id=2119462

[aquart]

71. We won't rape Iran if it's dating China. Trust me.

BushCo only attacks the weak. Besides, China could call in our debt.

[saigon68]

81. I see your point !!!!

I don't think the NeoCons especially the Fundies are that smart.

They certanly don't have the analytical skills you have.

They will go after Iran on general principles.

Plus they really and I mean-- REALLY-- hated the Ayatollah.

[demoman123]

58. I don't think the US will invade Iran.

I think the US (under Kerry or Bush) will seek to foment a
revolutionary coup in Iran, in the tradition of the overthrow of Mossadegh.

[jpgray]

19. If Kerry doesn't abandon that scheme, he will not get my vote in 2008

I will not countenance anything but an attempt to stabilize and then leave.

[tlcandie]

26. I hope jpgray that in 2008 that we have more choice than this election

year and that jebbie isn't pulled out of the hat as the GOP's '08 choice or even Gropenator if they FIX the citizenship requirements!

If jebbie is pulled out as option, we may be ABB again!

[aquart]

34. Oh, dear.

You've already bought the idea that the American invaders can stabilize a nation that's willing to kill itself to get rid of us.

Yeah, that'll work.

You do understand that "stabilize" means Negroponte's death squads?

[tlcandie]

37. Reminds me of a festering sore on one's body that has a foreign

object lodged inside. It festers, swells, etc. until it dislodges the foreign object.

[jpgray]

64. Iraq can stabilize itself

But we can help or we can hurt that. Right now, guess which we have chosen? Incidentally, take care not to argue with yourself or an imagined opponent--my comments should be clear enough not to require exotic interpretations.

[Eurobabe]

78. that's to defend US from all those black

market WMDs Cheney, et al sold to M.E. and Asia.

[tlcandie]

20. I'm not for this invasion, but I'm giving Kerry a break. on this one..

I'm sure a lot will flame me, but this is how I see it. I think that he has to keep his cards close to his chest on this one. Frankly, I want him to keep them close as well. I don't think at this point he is willing or can say it was/is wrong. And if he did what would it change other than giving the retards flame bait? Once he's in office and we are past this nightmare invasion and troops are home, THEN I think he can state that it was wrong IF he so chooses. I think there are many ways to say something is wrong without it being black and white.

I'm going with his speech in 1971 and the fact that he said the 40k plus in military was NOT for Iraq. I'm putting my trust with him, his wife and Edwards and I'm going to trust that he will do the right thing to the best of his ability with what is left financially and policy wise from this evil regime ONCE HE IS ELECTED!

Let's be cautious by all means. Let's trust him. Let's keep his feet to the fire. Let's carry him to the win in November! Let's keep his feet to the fire AFTER he gets into office, but let's at least give him a chance to get into office and see what if he has the right stuff!

I just got off the phone with my dad who laughed at me and heckled me for voting for Kerry saying he's a liar and a crook. He's voting for * and said that all in north central Texas feel the same way! He hates Heinz...but then he hates all women and especially smart ones. He called her a sandn*... Kerry's going to raise your taxes!!!! OMG! There will be a LOT of people just like my dad, mom, and son, and wife who WILL be voting for * come November.. a LOT!

Let's not waste our energy on something we can't change or fix at this moment in time. We MUST defeat *! Let's NOT loose focus, please! Yes, I'm pleading... begging.. because it is tearing me apart to see us divided when it will take EVERY last one of us to pull this win off! It will take every bit of energy and strength we can muster to defeat him and even then I'm not sure they won't pull some dirty trick out of their bag to steal this election as well!

Please, let's all unite and put all of our doubts on the shelf until we can get him into office and THEN HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW!

[Rose Siding]

22. I don't have to give him a break to still vote for him

I'm just wondering how he'll restore int'l trust without admitting failure.

[tlcandie]

28. Don't know party_line, but I know he was very capable in the '71

speech. If anyone can state our failure in Iraq, I believe Kerry has that ability. Whether he will or not remains to be seen.

Maybe rather than words, maybe his actions will be the restorative quality for int'l relationships. :shrug:

[happynewyear]

39. Stop the damn doublespeak Kerry - you are cooking your ass with this!

<< Asked Friday if he would face that question about the Iraq war as president, Kerry said: "I never said it was a mistake now. What I said is the way the president chose to go to war was a mistake." >>

Mr. Kerry, question: DO YOU APPROVE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ? If not, SAY SO DAMN IT! If you LIKE IT, SAY SO DAMN IT!

Speak your mind Mr. Kerry would you? Let the WORLD know what you think and what you plan to do! Is this not America's plan as well hopefully! :wtf:

I'm sick of this shit!

:dem: :kick:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. Kerry will never be the ineffective, unelectable politician you want

him to be. Sorry.

[happynewyear]

42. he is rapidly becoming ineffective

with all of his doublspeak. We should chain him to Alan Greenspan! Birds of a feather flock together!

:dem: :kick:

[MichiganVote]

48. Well here's the problem as I see it

Bush is like a bad surgeon who started an operation without considering all the facts or ignored those facts he did not like. My opinion is that he was combining objectives that concerned his buddies the Saudi's, business interests, and reelection. Now, altho' he has botched the job, he says he wants to finish it and tells others that he has a plan to do so. For some people its enough to just say he has a plan. For others like me, I want the details of the plan and they are not forthcoming. If I can't get the guy who IS in office to tell me wtf he is going to do, what hope have I to expect it from the guy who just wants the job?

Just because people here are focused on Kerry and working for his election does not mean that you or I cannot continue to press Bush for an answer about what he is going to do. Bush is skating away from this.

Kerry is the surgeon who may be called into service to finish the surgery. If he does not know the extent of the damage or of the strengths that may be available yet, how can he provide an adequate solution?

I will say, I have never heard Kerry, like Byrd and some others, say what I believe, and that this war was a mistake and that it should not have happened. Maybe some of you have.

[happynewyear]

55. I'm with you!

:thumbsup:

U.S. OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL!

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!!!!

:dem: :kick:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Your statement is not consistent with the facts.

While I can readily believe that YOU are upset at Kerry, your assertions about the state of the Presidential race are nonsensical.

Simply saying something doesn't make it so, and that is true for anybody, not just Bush.

[happynewyear]

60. facts?

what facts? Are there any REAL facts?

What a pile of shit!

[Voltaire99]

62. But it's not doublespeak: it's naked imperialism

I'm as disappointed and upset as you are, but unlike you, I'm not waiting upon Kerry to say anything. His disingenuous arguments about Iraq speak volumes. There are no allies waiting to replace Americans, to gladly stand in as targets; the UN twice rejected coming along for that foolish ride and the intervening history has proven the naysayers correct. Kerry's claim to a hidden internationalist solution is fantasy.

Remember: as a New Democrat, Kerry is the exact opposite of an antiwar candidate. Like New Labour in Britain, the New Dems have hitched their wagons to military spending and the woeful policies that inevitably follow. They are fond of what they portray as enlightened imperialism--bringing the light of democracy to the dark corners of the world (not the darkest, though: Florida is safe). It's a worldview little different to what the NeoCons say and do, the chief difference being that the New Dems pay lip service to the UN as a desirable fig leaf for their actions. It's still America Uber Alles.

For this folly the price, of course, is that more Americans and Iraqis shall die as long as the unwinnable war is permitted to drag on. And remaining in Iraq another four years, as Kerry apparently plans to do, will require much more cannon fodder. If he wins, the saluting Vietnam "hero" may well have a very unpleasant surprise for all of those kids yelling "Send me!" at the convention. Beware: you may just get what you asked for.

[happynewyear]

65. yes I am upset

and I'll be voting for Mr. Kerry with my a clothespin on my nose. Sorry folks, but that is how I see it and that is actually HOW IT REALLY IS!

HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE?

HOW MANY MORE AMERICANS MUST SUFFER?

WHERE DOES THIS 'HELP IS ON THE WAY' COME FROM EXACTLY?

Answer: THERE IS NONE!

Salute to never ending war without end! Sacrifice your children! God save us!

:dem: :kick:

[demoman123]

68. "New Democrats"?

Is this the mouthpiece of the "New Democrats" you are referring to?

http://www.newdem.org/?src=overture

Item #2 on the "New Democrat Network" agenda:

Assert Responsible Global Leadership: Win the war on terrorism and end international conflicts that threaten our interests and values; foster security and democracy in Iraq; ensure that America's military is the strongest, most agile, and best equipped in the world; combat AIDS and other pandemics that threaten global stability; and work together with our allies and international organizations to advance democracy, human rights, liberty, free markets, opportunities for women, and rising standards of living across the world.

[demoman123]

59. See? He's got a 'secret plan for peace'

Or rather, "a number of different game plans, none of which I can put in play until I'm president."

Nixon had a "secret plan for peace," too, which turned out to be bombing the hell out of the place.

[tlcandie]

61. Okay, you are ALL right.. let's just NOT vote for Kerry because

at least with * we know what we will get! Four more years!!! Come on everyone with me say it!

BUSH/CHENEY 4 more years!!! Forget Kerry the flip flopper who isn't being straight forward and who won't give us what we want NOW!!!!!

CHENEY KERRY!!!!!

Feel better now?

[Voltaire99]

63. We're not moved by your hysterics

This is an argument about morality, security and foreign policy. We're arguing that Kerry is on the wrong side of the most important issue of our day, and that his wrongheadedness will harm the nation.

You, on the other hand, are just playing cheerleader and waving the Bush voodoo doll around. Guess what? We know Bush is bad. Replacing bad policies with more bad policies make work for you, but we're looking for something better.

[tlcandie]

67. LoL OK Voltaire99!!!!

You win! :shrug:

I'm looking for something better, too, in case you have never read any of my other posts. Sorry you can't appreciate sarcasm. No, I didn't type /sarcasm off because I ASSuMEd (:P) that it was obvious and would LoL, but I guess some are too emotional to see humor now days.

So, since I'm just playing cheerleader, do tell, who is there other than Kerry or Bush to put into office?

Have you truly listened to his wife and her insightfulness? Have you truly listened to the heart/soul of John Kerry in his 1971 speech? Have you read John Edward's book and gotten to the heart/soul of him?

Maybe if we could bypass our minds for one second and try to look into the inner workings of people instead of just the words they are spouting (politics) then maybe we could all rest a bit easier until we can see some action on statements made at this time. Until then, all we are doing is spouting what-ifs and I guess we have a lot of spare time to do just that until November 2!

Kerry is not nor was my man... Kucinich was/is, BUT I've removed my disappointment enough to be able to try and move past that and see what he is really all about. No one person will ever fulfill our wishes and desires 100%, but I am wiling to trust Kerry, his wife, and John Edward's to take us to the next level and we will see from there where we need to go.

EDIT: What else is there? THAT truly is my point or the point I was trying to make in the original post which you reacted so negatively towards.

[goforit]

72. His peace activism is out the window!!

[uhhuh]

73. Obviously

The people who are looking at Kerry as a sellout don't have much faith in those who ran against him like Kucinich and Dean and Carol Mosely Braun, and Wesley Clark, and Al Sharpton, and John Edwards and Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham, who decided that Kerry is worth supporting.

Did they all sell out too? Did these candidates, who gave glowing speeches about John Kerry,even when they may have disagreed during the primaries, refuse to support him regarding this issue?

Are people like Kucinich and Dean untrustworthy party hacks?

I voted for Dean. I trust him and Kucinich and the rest of the candidates who ran this year ( except Lieberman).

If they say John Kerry is good for the future of this country, then I will give him my vote.

To do otherwise is to say that these fine people are unprincipled liars, and that they have no convictions and principles. They all stood behind John Kerry. They all gave speeches in support of John Kerry. I didn't see any guns to their heads. If they felt unease about his nomination, they had every opportunity to use their time to stand up for their principles and speak out agianst him during their speeches. Not one did.

If they didn't believe in his candidacy, they are either ALL sellouts, or they believe that Kerry will do a good job.

I'll base my vote on the opinions of people I believe in. I'll trust their judgement, and not assume they have ALL sold out.

I'll watch Kerry closely AFTER the election, but for now, I have respect for the opinions of those who ran against him that are now with him and who may have a strong voice the the next administration, which could bring about a lot of the positive changes I have been looking for for many years.

[rawstory]

74. Isn't this a flip-flop?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the gentleman who was saying we needed MORE troops in Iraq?

[Disturbed]

75. Confusing.

I don't understand Kerry's plans regarding Iraq. He does not back down from the stand that the Iraq invasion was necessary, just that the Bush Regime should have had the traditional Allies on board. He believes that Iraq will require US Troops on the ground there indefinetly. Right now this is still the Bush Regime's war but if Kerry wins it will be his war, as will Afghanistan be his. I definetly do not see that he has any plans for pulling out of either country. The next six months will be telling the story. I don't see how he can make detailed plans about either country not knowing what may happen. It seems that Afghanistan is imploding and that it will bwe so unstable that no elections will take place there soon, if ever. Iraq may implode, also. I don't see either country ever opting for a secular Representative Republic. They both seem to be heading toward Islamic Theocracy. I believe that both countries are a huge loss and will bring down any US Admin. that tries to keep them under a yoke.

Kerry/Edwards are a much preferred ticket as regards US domestic policies, the economy and the environment but their foreign policies do not seem to be different than the Bush Regime's with the slight difference that they want their policies to be more inclusive of trad. Allies. I suspect that a Kerry/Edwards Regime will be a real troubled one.

[Bo]

76. AFIRAQNAM...its over bring them home

tell Kerry to stop dreaming as well

[Crachet2004]

79. Kerry will never be able to keep troops in th middle east on the scale...

Bush has. Once he is elected, the GOP will turn on him wholesale to bring them home, and so will we.

Historically, the GOP is non interventionist, like Pat Buchanan, and believe mainly in a balanced budget. This type of Republican will regain their voice, once a Democrat is in charge. Fear of Bush is keeping them in line now.

This is not England, and if 80% of the American People want to bring them home, we are going to bring them home...and we are headed straight for that 80% number. Should get there by early next spring.

And as to what we owe the Iraqi's, their fondest wish is to see us gone as well.

What happens after that, in Iraq, is just something we are going to have to live with. There is going to be sectarian violence, and possibly massacres.

We followed Bush, as a nation, into one of the biggest messes in history, because he lied to us, and there will be no 'fixing' it.

All we can do is leave, and provide what aid the Iraqi's ask for.

If John Kerry does not get our people out of harms way in a hurry, we will take another ass-kicking in the off-year elections, and he himself will also be a one-termer.