An odd email from John Kerry seems to imply War should continue

[yurbud]

I voted for John Kerry and entertain a fantasy that somewhere inside him is that guy from 1971.

Then I get emails like this.

Of course he says some things that are good, but used to be considered simply common sense and decency for both parties: if you send our troops into combat, properly supply them and take care of the maimed when they return.

What is disturbing is he said we need a BIGGER military. My question, for what? If the "real" war we are in now is with non-state terrorists, at most that requires intel agents, special forces, and some predator drones. Why do we need a Cold War size military unless we face a foe of that size or plan more wars of aggression?

Also disturbing is that he leaves out Cindy Sheehan's most important question: what is the noble cause of the war?

John Kerry could take the lead in the Senate, throw down the gauntlet and lay out the real reasons for the war and challenge the Bushies to release the documents that would prove him wrong.

The war was about getting our hands on Iraq's oil and being in a position to intimidate and invade other oil producing countries.

terrorism, WMD, and spreading democracy is all a steaming pile of bullshit and Kerry knows it.

Every American deserves straight answers from the President -- and no one deserves them more than America's veterans and our military families.

When will the President get it right in Iraq?

When will he deliver to the nation and those sacrificing so much in Iraq a concrete plan for peace and victory?

Why, at this late date, is the Pentagon still struggling to get the right supplies and body armor to America's troops?

When will the President support a military large enough to face the challenges of today's world?

And when will the President stop short-changing America's veterans? When will he stop closing hospitals, cutting benefits, and making veterans wait weeks for a doctor's appointment?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[LynzM]

1. Had the same thoughts this morning.

Like, ok, cool, let's ask some questions...

*reads*

*reads more*

*is confused*

*reads more*

*wonders where the questions are that even resemble the ones I want answered!*

[ultraist]

8. Great description!

Your reaction was very similiar to the one I had, reading through Kerry's email.

I was like, ok, it seems he is demanding some answers, that's good...but, is he? Is he attempting to ride on the coattails of the current Sheehan call for accountability? Is he going to mention her?

And then, of course, he played it totally safe, and didn't mention her.

Where is the John Kerry that stood up as a young man and spoke out, forcefully, honestly and directly? Why does John Kerry think it's effective to speak out of both sides of his mouth?

I have a lot of respect for John Kerry, worked for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, but I'm really baffled by his communication style.

[i miss america]

39. Me too. The guy lost me after he threw in the towel without a fight

after the sham of an election last November.

[davidinalameda]

2. he could

but he won't

[arcane1]

3. I'm sick of hearing those idea from so-called "Democrats"

who seem to think that Bush's biggest blunder wasn't actually that he invaded Iraq, it was that he didn't completely "blitz" Iraq

[yurbud]

5. My letter to Kerry on this (just faxed)

August 22, 2005

Sen. John Kerry
US Senate
Washington, DC

Sen. Kerry,

I voted for you for president in 2004 because I wanted to believe that the man who protested the Vietnam War, investigated Iran-Contra and BCCI was still in you somewhere and would make a good president.

Sometimes I see glimmers of that, but your recent email made me wonder if you would be that much better than George W. Bush on the Iraq War and future issues of war and peace.

Of course you say some things that are good, but used to be considered simply common sense and decency for both parties: if you send our troops into combat, properly supply them and take care of the maimed when they return.

What is disturbing is you said we need a BIGGER military. My question, for what?

If the "real" war we are in now is with non-state terrorists, at most that requires intelligence agents, special forces, and some predator drones. Why do we need a Cold War size military unless we face a foe of that size or plan more wars of aggression?

Also disturbing is that you leave out Cindy Sheehan's most important question: what is the noble cause of the war?

As a veteran and someone who lived through the Cold War, you know that Saddam could never have been a meaningful threat to people in the United States.

Even if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, and even more improbably, the means to deliver them, why would he ever consider using them on the United States when it would invite not only his own certain death but the destruction of his entire country? Do people sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil often commit suicide?

During the Cold War we were not attacked by an enemy that thousands of nukes, not a handful. Every country that has these seem to use them as a deterrent to attack with the exception of our ally Pakistan who decided to make them one of their export products.

The Downing Street Minutes have proven that the Bush people knew their case was a lie. The part of the story that is left untold to the American people is the real reasons for the war: getting our hands on Iraq's oil and being in a position to intimidate and invade other oil producing countries as the Grover Norquist-written plan for the occupation outlines, and Jay Garner confirmed on film.

Since you do not publicly outline and attack the real reasons for the war, I can only assume that you agree with them.

We do not have a real democracy as long as our leaders talk to the public like retarded children with fairy tales about boogey men with “weapons of mass destruction” instead our insatiable appetite for oil and the companies that driving our foreign policy to profit from it.

Help us restore our democracy by telling the public the truth and stop talking to us like idiots.

[Zhade]

12. Yours is a great letter.

Kerry's, alas, is not.

[yurbud]

16. like a lot of Dems, he has divided loyalties: us and big business

I would prefer to be wrong about that and believe he's just playing a very strategic chess game with these assholes, but that's only slightly more realistic than believing that Saddam backed terrorists are will come and kill my family if we pulled out of Iraq.



Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[fedupinBushcountry]

38. he has divided loyalties: us and big business"

Do you have proof to that statement? Because if you do I would like to see it.

Also in your OP you choose only to highlight certain things, why is that?

Every American deserves straight answers from the President -- and no one deserves them more than America's veterans and our military families.

Why, at this late date, is the Pentagon still struggling to get the right supplies and body armor to America's troops?

And when will the President stop short-changing America's veterans? When will he stop closing hospitals, cutting benefits, and making veterans wait weeks for a doctor's appointment?

So you don't think every American needs straight answers from Chimpco?

You don't think the troops need supplies. I would like to remind you Kerry was the first to tell Rumsfeld he was full of shit and needed to resign back in 9/03.

How can you not highlight what Shrimpco is doing to the troops returning and those who have served throughout our history. Kerry started this fight when he got back from Vietnam.

in today's world, where do you see the word Iraq? Last time I heard Kerry on this subject he said NOT IN IRAQ

Kerry is backing the troops,not the chickenhawks. He wants to get them safely home as soon as possible.

[yurbud]

47. I agree with those questions but like asking a murderer why he hasn't

paid his parking tickets.

It's licking around the edges, which is wrong and weak political as well as short of being honest with us.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[fedupinBushcountry]

57. Glad to know you are so politically correct

When are you running for office, since you know it all ?

[yurbud]

59. "politically correct" to ask elected officials to tell the truth?

That's pretty sad.

Let the Bushies lie to us like children. I'd like at least somebody on the national stage to be honest.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[blm]

43. What a crock. You do know that Kerry never took any corporate pac money in

any of his Senate races, advocated for public financing of elections from the day he went into the Senate including drafting the Clean Elections bill with Wellstone to take all corporate money OUT of politics, and helped craft the Kyoto Protocol for TEN YEARS which almost all of big business was against. Not to mention how he shut down one of the world's largest financial institutions and exposed all the crooked financier friends of the Bush family.

Yep....Kerry has really racked up a record of loyalty to big business.

[yurbud]

46. thanks--I seriously WANT to be proven wrong on this

I just don't want to be too pollyanna in my reading of the tea leaves.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[blm]

62. Shouldn't write checks in your posts when facts prove they can't be cashed

It's the spreading of disinformation about Dem leaders like Kerry that strengthens the hand of the Republicans.

I'm amazed that so many STILL know so little about Kerry yet disparage him at every turn with trumped up allegations against him.

[arcane1]

18. great letter, and right-on

Kerry said all through the campaign, debates, etc, that he would've done the same damned thing, just do it bigger

fewer U.S. dead, twice as many Iraqi dead, I guess...

[radio4progressives]

44. This is so SPOT ON....

May I send it to a few friends?

[yurbud]

48. yes, just include my links

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Tinoire]

61. Terrific letter! They need to hear how insulting we find their attitude.

That was beautifully and much more kindly written than my letters- I lost what patience I had left last year.

Thanks for sharing.

On edit- just for the Kerry people- yes I voted for him, yes I gave him money and yes I drove little old ladies to the polls to vote for him but no I will never do that again.

[Lorien]

70. Love it. You hit every major point

I hope that you make regular contributions to your local paper's letters page!

[second edition]

4. Actually , IMO he is stating Bush needs to get it right now that

Bush has gotten us into this mess and then he should get us out quickly. Bush owes this to the soldiers and to the American people. Kerry is also challenging Bush to provide real answers about this war to the soldiers and the American. I think it is possible to be against this war and still want to see it end quickly with some sort of positive outcome for the Iraq people.

[Zhade]

20. If he thinks BUSH is the guy to do ANYTHING right, he's a fucking idiot.

Remember, Kerry allegedly fell for the WMD lie (dozens of other Dems in Congress didn't, but whatever), and he's stupid enough to trust b*s* to fix the mess he's created?

I don't think Kerry's nearly that stupid.

[second edition]

25. No, the public has got to made aware of this being Bush's

war and Bush's mess. Will he be able to get it right, who knows, maybe if he actually reaches out for help and admits he made a mistake. Kerry is trying to corner him.

[blm]

6. It's because Bush is at the VFW today, and these questions are shaped

so that even those veterans at the VFW convention who support the war GENERALLY, should still see that Bush can't answer pertinent questions regarding his execution of the war.

This email is timed for that particular audience. While these men are meeting the next few days, even these supporters can begin to ask relevant questions.

Those familiar with Kerry's history know he always puts out releases relevant to those attending the VFW and American Legion conventions.

[blm]

45. Proof positive that people don't like reality based answers.

.

[yurbud]

60. ?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[blm]

64. Post #6 has a reality based answer to your original posting, yet

it appears that comprehending Kerry's reason for his release is not the goal.

But, complaining about it WITHOUT bothering to understand it is the popular tact.

[wtmusic]

7. The myth of "getting it right" in Iraq

shouldn't be furthered by anyone who calls himself a Democrat. The goal should be "getting right out" of Iraq.

[yurbud]

10. exactly--Kerry's position is creepily similar to Nixon 68

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[second edition]

22. Excuse me, but I don't share your opinion of getting right out!

To much has been invested over there now. We need to be pressuring Bush for an exit strategy that provide some sort of a positive outcome. Oh, I consider myself a Democrat.

[Jacobin]

28. Hmm

What sort of a 'positive outcome' do you envision?

How many more deaths would you tolerate to obtain some sort of 'positive outcome'?

Do you think the Iraqis believe the occupation of Iraq by American forces is a positive thing?

Which country should we invade next to 'spread democracy'?

Just askin

[wtmusic]

31. There is no positive outcome to staying there

The only possible way to stabilize Iraq is to throw another 500,000 troops in and lock the country down. Completely. That's not going to happen, because we don't have the manpower and we don't have the money.

The notion that money we've spent on Iraq has been "invested" is nonsense. Even saying it's been wasted would be a stretch--it's gone a long way toward making enemies out of nearly every nation on earth. Which is exactly what staying there will continue to do.

[yurbud]

49. GRAPHIC: all Iraqi polls said leave after election at latest

that was seven months ago now.

The polls were taken in Spring 2004, one right before the Abu Ghraib torture was revealed, and one right after:

Gallup:




The Coalition Provisional Authority's own poll:

One of the guys we keep flogging over there, Shi'ite leader Moqtada Sadr, started a petition drive to get a million signatures to ask us to leave, and got 400,000 in short order.

http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/3726/Iraq_Shiites_in_Campaign_for_Foreign_Troop_Pullout

It seems to me that the best way to get out while leaving the least lasting hatred of the US is honor the wishes of the people in the country we wrongly invaded.

If we pretend it's an issue of training cops and police, we'll never leave. That excuse was used in Vietnam as well. Before we were there, Iraq had cops and an army. Bush fired them. Find out who committed human rights abuses, bar them, and hire the rest back.

People want to be free to run their own society and make their own mistakes. It is a lie to say we are staying there to help the Iraqis. You could almost have made an argument for that right after the invasion, but once it became clear to Iraqis that Bush was there to steal not just liberate, we could no longer be part of the solution.

I know you DLC guys want the big oil bucks, but Jesus Christ, do you want your grandchildren to ask you why you are war criminals? Do you want to be remembered like Westmoreland and McNamara? Or does the money trump all that, no matter how much blood of Iraqi children and our troops is dripping from it?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Mass]

37. Well, we have to get rid of the full Democratic side of the Senate,

[Zhade]

9. "get it right in Iraq" - what does this mean, exactly?

What does one do to "get right" an illegal war?

"Victory". This from the guy who came back from Viet Nam and did the right thing by pointing out how wrong that war was.

My question to Kerry would be, who or what killed your 1971 self?

[yurbud]

11. he must be thinking of the end of Apocolypse Now

when Martin Sheen called in the air strike to kill them all.

"Get it right" is code for stay until we suck out all the oil.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Jacobin]

14. Yes. How does one 'properly' conduct an illegal

conquest of a nation to steal its oil?

The mind fucking boggles.

[ultraist]

15. exactly!

And wasn't Kerry stating during the campaign, that he would begin to pull troops out of Iraq? Has he changed his mind about that? It's no wonder, the flip flopper label stuck.

[emulatorloo]

33. Get it right - repair the infrastructure, get the hell out

normalize people's lives - security, water, electricity, sewer

In other words, repair the shit Bush blew up.

Then get the hell out.

(this is my interp, so don't shoot me)

[yurbud]

52. let Iraqis fix infrastructure and we'll pick up the tab

they need the jobs.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Jacobin]

13. He's still operating under the delusion:

That somehow there is a 'right' way to invade, conquer and occupy a country that has not attacked you and does not constitute a threat to you.

That if this illegal invasion had somehow been done 'properly' that we would prevail.

I'm tired of delusional politicians.

I want a realist.

[Kerry fan]

17. He said that long ago. Don't remember all details.

But here is a little bout it. I get that he doesn't mean expanding combat troops. Sounds like he means getting back to something like Clinton did on terrorism. I remember once he gave a little more detail, but I haven't found it.

Debate Over Size, Shape of Army
Monday, August 30, 2004
By Peter Brownfeld


Those are some of the same questions the presidential candidates are debating. For months, Kerry has said that he would permanently expand the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops, including doubling the Special Forces (search). The fiscal year 2004 authorized strength of the Army is 482,400.

National Guard and Reserve "units are being pushed to the limit," Kerry said on August 18 at the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual convention, explaining why he would grow the active duty force.

Kerry says he would cover the expense, estimated at $3 to $4 billion, by cutting back on funds for a national missile defense (search) system, which he called "the wrong priority" at a time when America faces different threats. Kerry's expansion proposal would be accompanied by continuing transformation plans that include increasing technology investment and improving counterproliferation capabilities.

Kerry is not the only one calling for a larger Army. Last November, a bipartisan group of 128 members of the House of Representatives, including 54 of the 61 members on the House Armed Services Committee asked the Bush administration to propose funding in the fiscal year 2005 budget request for two additional divisions, which would amount to 30,000 or more additional soldiers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130541,00.html

[yurbud]

19. more troops FOR WHAT?

What is the enemy besides stateless terrorists?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Kerry fan]

24. National Guard and Reserve "units are being pushed to the limit,"

National Guard and Reserve "units are being pushed to the limit," Kerry said on August 18 at the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual convention, explaining why he would grow the active duty force.

[Kerry fan]

30. In his convention speech

And I will build a stronger military. 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 terrorist operations -- anti-terrorist operations. And 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 the National Guard and reservists.

[emulatorloo]

34. To stop extremists from murdering Bagdad Barbers for shaving men

at their barber shops. to get some security in place to rebuild the infrastructure that Bush Boy blew up and can't rebuild because he is too busy rewarding Halliburton and letting stateless terrorists in

(This is my interpretation so do not shoot me)

[yurbud]

50. if you were an Iraqi, would you trust us to do that?

If they don't like the barber butchers, they will figure out how to stop them.



Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[LittleClarkie]

42. More troops just to get out in one piece

More troops so that the stopgap people can come home and get off the rotation merry-go-round.

[blm]

71. The troop strength is what the UN and NATO want and require before

they step in.

It's odd that so many still have no clue how close Kerry and Kofi Annan are. Or Kerry's relationship with other world leaders.

Kerry has discussed this extensively with them, and he knows the only way the UN and our allies will come in to keep Iraq from dissolving into civil war is if the US strengthens its force NOW to bring about some measure of stability.

You can denigrate it all you want, but, it's unlikely that there is any other way out of Iraq that would be as wise, in the long run.

[Vinca]

21. I'm getting kind of tired of these emails.

If an elected Democrat thinks they want to do something, STAND UP AND DO IT!!!!!! Follow Cindy's lead. You don't need petitions, you don't need polls, there's no need to schmooze. JUST SPEAK UP! Your followers are here. There's feedback up the wazoo. No mysteries about how we feel . . . although there are definite mysteries in the email. Sheesh! Oh yeah, and I'm not sending money because you left 14 mil in the bank.

[MidnightWind]

23. I delete them without ever reading them

I have no interest in whatever it is that Kerry is trying to sell (himself more than likely). Yes, I gave him money in 2004. Yes I voted for him in 2004. I will NOT make that mistake again.

[LittleClarkie]

58. I believe there is an unsubscribe button

Have you tried it?

[flordehinojos]

26. i stoped believing in john kerry the second he turned over the elections

to bush......which is what he did ... he rolled over and said, here you have it.

allegiance to skull and bonesand the war machine? perhaps.

lots of water under the bridge between 1971 and now.

[blm]

40. I'll bet you didn't stand behind him for the 5yrs he spent uncovering BCCI

and before that IranContra. Did you write ONE letter or join one protest then? Probably not, since most all of DC and its entire powerstructure was aligned AGAINST Kerry on BCCI.

Did you stand behind him when he was advocating for gays to serve openly in the military and was fighting most of DC on that issue?

Throwing out S&B at the man who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history is absurd.

[yurbud]

53. I hope the BCCI fighting Kerry is at work now--and we just can't see how

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

56. i was like 11 when most of that shit went down

but i suppose we are supposed to keep slurping on John's knob because of who he was in '71 and '89?

naaah. i delete these emails when I get them. of course, part of that is because I don't think I'll ever get over November, and that mood i got in i don't think I'll ever shake off. . . and I blame that partially on how he folded. it's mostly my problem, I know. But talking about '71 and '89 is cold comfort for me, in judging his willingness to fight. Shit Mohammed Ali could fight once too, now he just murmurs to himself incoherently.

[blm]

63. And you were with him when he wrote the Hate Crimes bill? When he wrote

the New War, the book that ALERTED This country to the funding of terrorism back in 1996 when Al Qaeda was just forming around Bin Laden?

Or when he wrote the Clean Elections bill with Wellstone in 97?

The Violence Against Women Act?

Advocating for gays to serve openly in the military?

Normalizing relations with Vietnam?

Yeah, Kerry should have just shut up after 89, cuz all you REAL patriots think he's useless.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

65. i never called myself a patriot

i don't consider myself one. and i never said he's useless.

i basically said that I delete the emails, and that it is because it's mostly my problem I haven't gotten over the sinking feeling of November.

sorry if i came across as calling him useless. If you'll excuse me, I'm now going out to celebrate his writing of the Clean Elections bill in 1997, which has been a resounding fucking success.

[blm]

66. Actually, 3 states have adapted that Clean Elections bill for their own

elections.

Too bad not enough people got active to push that bill through in the Senate, but, the media would only allow focus on McCain-Feingold while ignoring the alternative bill written by Wellstone and Kerry.

[mondo joe]

27. I regret every dollar I contributed to his campaign and the DNC

during the election.

[AlGore-08.com]

29. "I entertain a fantasy that somewhere inside him is that guy from 1971"

No offense, but that's the problem right there.

Kerry voted to authorize the war, and he's consistently said that the war is being bungled - - to my knowledge, he's never said anything remotely like the war was wrong and/or it never should have happened. The idea that Kerry would repudiate the war was as much of a fantasy as thinking he'd divorce Teresa Heinz Kerry so he could propose marriage to Brittany Spears live on national TV. ;)

IMNSHO this is a huge problem in the country as a whole - - way too many folks project their own opinions, priorities and agendas on politicians, ignoring things that the pol has done and said - - and get all bent out of shape when the pol does something completely expected. (This is why Aahnold has gone from the most popular pol in the US to an extremely lame duck in an extremely short amount of time.)

It's linked up to another problem in my mind - - when do we hold pols accountable? If a pol who voted for the war came out and said "I made a mistake voting for the war", is it okay to reward that pol for changing their stance? Or should we still refuse to vote for them, because voting for the war showed they were not ready for prime time?

[liberalpragmatist]

68. He DID Say the War Was a Mistake - Repeatedly During the Campaign

Now, that's not exactly the same thing as saying we need to get out, which happens to be what I believe and I hope he's moving towards that view. I think that the Iraq operation may have been salvageable last fall had their been new leadership, but it has long since become something unwinnable.

That said, saying that Kerry never called the war a mistake is completely wrong:

From his 9/21/04 NYU Speech on Iraq (from page 3)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35515-2004Sep20.html

After the events of September 11th, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in a legitimate struggle against terrorists. On September 12th, headlines and newspapers abroad declared that, We are all Americans now.

But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and, rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

(APPLAUSE)

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and posed no imminent threat to our security.

The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and our resources away from other more serious threats to America, threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more right now under this president's watch; the emerging nuclear danger of Iran; the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia; and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all-time high and the Al Qaida leadership still plots and plans, not only there, but in 60 other nations.

Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on warlords, who one week earlier had been fighting on the other side, to go up in the mountains to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered. He slipped away.

We then diverted our focus and our forces from the hunt for those who were responsible for September 11th in order to invade Iraq.

We know now that Iraq played no part. We knew then on September 11th. And it had no operational ties to Al Qaida.

The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem that he said he was trying to prevent.

Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before their war; now it is, and they are operating against our troops.

Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who could someday hit the United States of America.

And we know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into freefall.

Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries, like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

<snip>

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation, If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.

Instead, the president rushed to war, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went purposefully, by choice, without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted by choice, without making sure that our troops even had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead by choice, without understanding or preparing for the consequences of postwar. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way.

How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying to America that if we know there was no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq?

My answer: resoundingly, no, because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

AND he said it many other times, including at the debate:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2004/09/04-09-30_debate1.shtml

BUSH:

My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."

As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.

Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.

LEHRER:

Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

KERRY:

Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

[MattSWin]

32. it's hard to say just getting out of Iraq will benefit us...

When the second biggest threat to our national security next to Bin Laden is Zarqawi who is using Iraq now as a base of operation to launch terrorist attacks.

What do we do about him?

[charlie]

35. "Our second biggest threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY"

"...is Zarqawi"

Holy cow. Turn off the cable teevee. Watch cartoons or something.

If Tim McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the Beltway Sniper had escaped to parts unknown, would you be squalling about the threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY? Using it as an excuse not to evacuate a whole other country we invaded in our misguided rampage for payback?

[yurbud]

51. you think Zarqawi is real? Most Iraqis scratch their head when we mention

him.

I didn't quite get your point. If you were being sarcastic, I agree.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

55. you're kidding right? You want to spend hundreds of billions fighting

a transparent propaganda boogeyman, who seems to only pop up when the Bushies get in a jam on some other issue?

Grow up. Or go collect your check from the PR agency, you did Neocon post for the day.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Mass]

36. The Senate is a complete disappointment on this issue

The guy who goes the farther talks of a targetted date for withdrawal in 16 months and to stay the course in between to succeed (Feingold). He even talks about moving this date later if necessary.

At least, these guys say that something is going wrong and that we must not stay the course the president is tracing. I am more worried about those who think the course is right, as Lieberman, Clinton, and the nearly full Republican Senate.

[LittleClarkie]

41. I would imagine he's talking about the original military estimates

of what it would take in Iraq. The ones that Bush ignored. I'm trying to remember what happened to the general who made that assessment. Fired? Smeared? Resigned? Something not good.

FYI: Dean talks the same way, re: finishing a job we should never have been doing in the first place.

Given enough time, I'm sure I could dig out the quotes you don't think Kerry ever made. Either me or blm I reckon. He's alittle faster on the draw and knows where to find those speeches.

But if memory serves, they're out there. Didn't get covered like they should have. But they're out there.

[mmonk]

54. I get them

and thought about emailing back and asking, "get what right?"

[lynne]

67. Not sure why anyone would find it odd as -

- to the best of my recollection, Kerry has never supported us just pulling out of Iraq.

Did I miss something somewhere?

[liberalpragmatist]

69. He is proposing increasing the size of the military...

...given that we are overstretched. Now, you can certainly disagree with that, and I would argue that what we need to stop being overstretched is to pull out of Iraq.

But he isn't proposing adding more troops TO Iraq, he's proposing adding more troops to the military as a whole.