USofA defeat in Iraq, and bloody retreat this summer will take down

[junker]

USofA defeat in Iraq, and bloody retreat this summer will take down Kerry as well as BushCo. Who will want to vote for someone (Kerry) who is already expousing the BushCo party (WTO) line by saying we 'must stay the course in Iraq'? This he will keep stating (?) during the July/August Dunkirk style retreat as our poor-besetupon troops have to fight their way back to Kuwait.

Now don't get me wrong. I actually like(d) Kerry's stance on Nam, and regret deeply that he was so dumb as to get suckered into voting for Bush's Iraq Adventure in Stupidity. I, as a long time, non-registed Independent voter, have a real hard time voting for yet another liar/stupid politician inspite of previous 'good works' and as of now, am seriously thinking of 'fluck it' and not vote at all...yet another bonesman and all that....

BUT the real deal has yet to happen. What will occur to the USofA political process when Bushie's Grand Army Adventure goes down in bloody defeat before fall? And Kerry *supported* this sham? Give me Dean I guess....or maybe, if we are lucky, Kuncich will prevail???

Always hope.

However, be advised that the USofA is about to suffer its biggest, most public military defeat since a million Chinese 'laundrymen' pushed McArthur's army back from the Yalu river all the way to South Korea.

This will not go over well, and will mean that Bush is in deep deep kim-chee, but what will it do to the Bush-supporting, hardly-any-damn-difference, looks-worse-everytime-I-see him, on-the-wrong-side-of-Iraq, skull-and-bonesman-cousin-of-bush, Kerry?

Hmmmm. Things will certainly be interesting this summer, the conventions, and into election, even though, at this point, fluck'em both, just encourages the bastards so likely I won't vote a'tall.

[HFishbine]

1. Would you feel diferently

if Kerry nominates a staunch anti-war VP?

[seabeyond]

2. junker you really have to hear what kerry said on the floor

when he voted for the war. and it wasnt a voting for the war, it was giving bush the ability if all else had been explored. someone posted it yesterday and what kerry said was reasonable and right. i would like whomever has it to print again. i am going to copy and save, so when you all say this i can give it to you, so you read with your eyes, and then maybe can be more receptive to what was up then,. firstly

now, we are in there, and kerry says we gotta go the course, k, many feel we cant cut and run for many reasons, yet in a mere month things have shifted so. kerry can do nothing for 8 months, a lot is going to happen in that time, kerry didnt create this mess, it wasnt his choices and decision that made this mess. i am not giving him the blaim

i am willing to wait for kerry to have some power before i judge his preformance on the iraq situation

[HFishbine]

3. That's true

and in great contrast to John Edwards' floor remarks where he talked about all those dangerous WMD as the reason for war.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Even if they were the same on Iraq (which they're not)

There is a HUGE difference in who they would appoint to the Supreme Court,
and who they'd have as Attorney General
and everywhere else in their administration.

Kerry would not be looking for more countries to invade either.
Bush has a list, and he's only part way through it.

[Terran]

4. Ok, um...

first off, we WON'T be 'fighting our way back to Kuwait'. Get a grip, man.