"I will end this war, a war built on lies, immediately upon taking office

[ElementaryPenguin]

Kerry says that now - and aside from the electronic voting issue - he WINS - PERIOD!

Bush/Cheney could not respond to this move in any way other than to contend that their horrible, illegal, joke of a war is actually indeed a "catastrophic success!"

Perhaps, this is the finish that Kerry has in mind. If it isn't - then why the hell doesn't the DNC get it?

No more Americans complaining "I don't know what Kerry stands for." They'll know that HE STANDS FOR ENDING THIS FOOLISH, SENSELESS, COSTLY WAR IMMEDIATELY! Kerry can easily argue that the war was built on lies, there were no weapons of mass destruction - what we're doing there now is doing nothing but spreading terrorism - not stopping it! Who couldn't make that argument - being that it is all so obviously true? How can the Dems not accept this incredible political gift horse?

:shrug:

[Southsideirish]

1. Brilliant - if only he would have the courage to do it - he could win!

[ElementaryPenguin]

10. Of course he could! Medicare Schmedicare - THE issue is

this OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID, UNJUSTIFIED AND DISGUSTING WAR!!!!!

[noahmijo]

2. Hello my name is Karl Rove and I want Kerry to say just that

And I wish to God Kerry would say that. That way I could send my lemmings out on the airwaves to tell the American sheeple who still believe that Saddam and Bin laden are linked (which is still over 40% from what I understand) and how this is proof that Kerry is weak on defense and doesn't want to attack the enemy responsible for 9-11.

While I'm at it I will construct a new phony flip flop for Kerry and say that he voted to authorize the war and now he wants to end this phony war as he calls it.

So yes please Kerry tell the people how you will end this war immediately. Please do so ::rubbing hands together like Mr Burns:::

[Southsideirish]

6. You have fallen in the old Democratic trap (pre-Howard Dean)

of always worrying about what will THEY think or what will THEY do - that's why we are perceived as such wimps and wafflers.

Do the Republican strategists worry about how WE will react?

No, they don't have to because before we do anything we, first, have to take a bunch of polls, and have some focus groups and then talk to 2 dozen consultants and then Ted Kennedy's people and Bill Clinton's people and, then, worry about what Rove will think and do - and THEN we will squeak out a "middle-of-the-road" opinion.

[noahmijo]

11. I haven't fallen into any trap I just know how these bastards think

What Kerry has to do is point out the facts of this war as he is doing, he needs to stick to the truth not opinion styled statements such as "This War is Wrong" I agree that he should say "We're not killing any terrorists that attacked us on 9-11, this war has cost us needless lives and civilian deaths, ect" you know what to say.

So I think we need to take offense no doubt, we need to start hitting them where it hurts, but as I said we gotta use FACTS not just "This is wrong" so I digress, it would be good for him to make that statement BUT he's gotta launch fact after fact to back it up, then of course there's the fact that media would ONLY cover where he says "I will end this war" and then cut to some other bullshit news, which Rove would pick up on, and use to his advantage as I mentioned.

[ElementaryPenguin]

14. good points. I'm just tired of being subtle. Rove never is!

:dem:

[ElementaryPenguin]

16. I'm prescribing some very

Howard Dean-esque moves - and FAST!

[krkaufman]

44. It would be lovely...

... but also unrealistic.

Unilateral, immediate withdrawal of all troops would be foolish, and dangerous. Iraq was NOT a terrorist haven when Bush invaded, but it *is* now, and saying that he would simply withdraw our troops would be the end of Kerry's campaign.

Unfortunately, it may be the only option soon left, but announcing such an action prior to the election would be the end of Kerry. The media would destroy him, at the prodding of the right-wing.

[ElementaryPenguin]

48. The media couldn't possibly destroy him more than they are now -

And the people will support him - in a huge way - and I think most of us here sense that. The choices for Iraq are really a) pull out now, or b) pull out later

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. Rove is wrong - and far from a "genius" - he's a fucking idiot!

If he were any kind of genius his moves wouldn't be so transparent, and he would have pulled this coup of with a much easier candidate to sell that a complete, brain fried moron like Chimpy!

[lastliberalintexas]

13. Yes, because Kerry's

not getting those very kinds of attacks now, is he? :eyes:


When are Dems going to wake up and realize that it doesn't matter what we do, who our candidate is, and what reality is- we will all be called Weak on Defense-Soft on Terrorism-Unpatriotic liberal commies? Stop worrying about the repubs, stand up for what we believe in, and get OUR people out to vote, dammit.

[ElementaryPenguin]

15. Exactly! They'll attack the shit out of us anyway!

So let's go for it! The whole enchilada! Let's tell the TRUTH!

[demnan]

3. Two Words

George McGovern

[ElementaryPenguin]

5. Nope. Vietnam had much higher public support than this one.

And greater (cold war) justification - and that was a STUPID, UNJUST was also! But this one...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. God. For a moment, I thought Kerry had come to his senses.

Thought for a moment that he kicked out the DLC pablumites and was saying what needs to be said and done.

Iraq is the issue that can win him the election if he would get the balls to speak up.

[ElementaryPenguin]

8. Amen to that, B!

Spread the word. Maybe someone in the Kerry camp will be listening!

[onecitizen]

19. Yeah, me too :-( nt

nt

[IwoVet1945]

9. This Marine salutes you!

Semper Fi!

[ElementaryPenguin]

12. This civilian salutes you back.

:yourock:

[Character Assassin]

17. Super. Now tell us how.

Just stating, "I will end this war immediately" is about clear as mud.

[ElementaryPenguin]

18. By pulling the fuck out - and getting the UN to supply security - that's

How! Most UN members will be happy to support a Kerry Administration's efforts to undo Bushler's horrible mess!

[Character Assassin]

21. That seems rather more like wishful thinking

By pulling the fuck out - and getting the UN to supply security

Ah, I see. So Kerry just pulls the entire US armed forces currently in Iraq out, and somehow, magically, not only gets the UN to agree to now provide the security for a war it didn't agree to in the first place, but gets this from the one international body that (a) doesn't have any troops of its own and (b) has an ludicrously bad record in peace keeping, to say nothing of peace keeping it active combat theatres.

I don't think so.

[ElementaryPenguin]

23. I DO think so. We are going to pull out sooner or later (like Vietnam)

and sooner is a helluva lot better. The U.N. would love to have us out of there permanently. BushCo doesn't want to/won't leave.

[Character Assassin]

24. OK, but that doesn't address how or why the UN would provide security

It seems a remote possibility, at best, and if there were no replacement for the US armed forces, the utter chaos and mayhem that would result would not only be worse than it is now, but would have far-reaching international consequences and bigger messes to clean up.

[ElementaryPenguin]

26. The U.N. hates and fears the bloody mess our occupation is causing.

They would welcome the chance of ushering us out of there - and so would the Iraqis! WE are the problem there - don't forget.

[Character Assassin]

29. That's too simplistic at this stage.

The UN would welcome the chance to usher us out? What does that mean? Are they going to fill the gap when we go? Extremely unlikely, and any length of time under the current situation without either the US, the UN or some other hard-to-imagine 3rd party opens the door to civil war and the slaughter of possibly millions in the name of religion.

As fucked up as it is now, I wouldn't wish that on the Iraqis.

[ElementaryPenguin]

31. So we should remain there - bombing their neighborhoods?

That's better? NO! WE are the problem - WE must leave!

[Character Assassin]

32. So we pull out with no definite replacement and allow wholesale slaughter?

Yeah, it's a shitty choice to stay, but it would be a far, far worse one to simply pick up and leave.

[ElementaryPenguin]

36. See Trog's post #28! THAT'S the ticket!

:evilgrin:

[Character Assassin]

38. Sounds like empty, feel-good pablum to me

When ever someone starts 'addressing' something in 'a meaningful way', I check my watch.

[paulk]

20. do you have any information

(polling, etc.) that would lead you to believe that if Kerry makes this statement he would "win - period"?

And what does "ending the war" mean? How, exactly do you propose Kerry does this?

Just curious.

[ElementaryPenguin]

25. Ending the war means pulling out of Iraq - completely.

I haven't spoken to anyone recently who will defend this stupid, illegal fucking war - not anyone in California - nor any relatives or friends in either Florida (my home state) or Ohio (my wife's home state) - some of which are Repukes. I've been to many humongous anti-war rallies. I don't need a phony corporate poll to tell me that this war is VERY UNPOPULAR!!!

[paulk]

50. "Defending the war" and an immediate pullout

are two seperate things. I also know no one who will defend this war - I also don't know anyone calling for an immediate pullout. Most Americans don't support an immediate pullout - although, according to a recent "phony corporate poll", a majority do now think that the invasion was a mistake.

You can't expect Kerry to tie his hands with any kind of a timetable - who knows what the situation will be in January when he takes office?

[DerekG]

22. He probably would win--remember Humphrey...

HHH was apprehensive about separating himself from Johnson, and he lagged behind Nixon as a result. But weeks before the election, he finally articulated a more resolute plan for withdrawing--and he jumped in the polls as a result. Nixon's victory was razor-thin--he BARELY beat Humphrey (and that was due to that secret-plan-for-ending-the-war BS).

[ElementaryPenguin]

30. Excellent point!

I think Gore beat Bushler by more than Nixon beat Humphrey.

[hughee99]

43. In the popular vote yes, but not in the EC

Nixon won by 812,465 popular votes, but the Electoral college was Nixon 301, Humphrey 191 (Wallace 46) with Humphrey only winning 14 states to Nixon's 31 1/2 states (He split NC with Wallace). There's a great site for this with all the presidential results at

http://www.presidentelect.org/

[nancyharris]

27. Kerry has not said that

because he doesn't believe it. He didn't say it during the primary and he won't say it now. If he actually believed it, he would have said it by now. Just accept the fact that the Democratic Party nominated someone who supports the war in Iraq.

We had the chance to choose someone who was anti-war but we decided not too. Why? - I have no idea!

[ElementaryPenguin]

33. I think he does believe it. He just thinks it might hurt him politically

but I have no doubt that it would, in fact, give him this election. The DNC is loaded with fools.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Why? Because it's "too liberal" to be against the war.

The bosses still buy into the DLC "triangulation" theory of politics. You know, to beat a republican you have to be a republican(D).

[ElementaryPenguin]

37. It's beyond frustrating, that!

:mad:

[nancyharris]

40. And the worst part about it, is that

It has had a silencing effect on the voice of Dean and Kucinich whose anti-war rhetoric is solid and heartfelt. They cannot campaign for Kerry on this topic with the effectiveness they are capable of.

[3 Tree Hill]

39. Because the DNC takes us for granted

The truly progressive that is. They know we have no one else to to vote for (that could actually win), and so they keep moving more and more to the center to appeal to right-wing schmuks.

Personal prediction: By 2008, there will be almost no discernable difference between the GOP and the DNC.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Not nearly as much as there should be now.

[TrogL]

28. "...and work with the international community to rebuild Iraq..."

"...and address terrorism in a workable and meaningful manner."

[ElementaryPenguin]

35. Perfect! That's what my simplistic little message was lacking!

That's what great about the DU - collective wisdom!

[screembloodymurder]

42. I think you're right, but

do they have the balls to tell the American people the truth?

[Disturbed]

45. Support the troops.

Bring them home.

The Dem Party shoved the Iraq Occupation aside thinking that they would have a better chance to win the election. Instead of going with what most of the Dems in their party felt they went with what they thought the moderate swing voters would vote for. Big mistake!

J. Kerry should stand up for what is best for America now. That is bringing the troops home. To Hell with what the reaction of the Neo Fascists would be!

[ElementaryPenguin]

47. What has kinda shocked me, is that evidently the American people

Don't give two shits about American soldiers!! Clearly - a great many people really don't!

:puke:

[David Zephyr]

46. I Hear You, EP.

:shrug:

[Disturbed]

51. Most Americans hate losers.

Winning is the only thing. It doesn't matter how the winning is done.

The Pres. and his Neo Fascists are painted as winners. They are winning the War On Terror. Iraq and Afghanistan are viewed as terrorist nations. America is defeating them. "The march of freedom" mantra appeals to the simpletons.

[LynnTheDem]

49. Unfortunately thanks to bush, the UN is as hated as we are by the Iraqis

And what nation in their right minds is going to be willing to send THEIR people into Iraq to be killed???

They said NO before the invasion; they said NO to occupation...they sure as hell aren't going to say yes now.

THERE IS NO GOOD SOLUTION NOW.

Because BUSH FUCKED UP. Like he always does with everything.