Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Sen. John Kerry Blisters Republicans"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 11:54 AM
Original message
"Sen. John Kerry Blisters Republicans"
SEATTLE (AP) - Sen. John F. Kerry told state legislators Friday the Democratic Party doesn't need to undergo an extreme makeover, saying "the last thing America needs is a second Republican Party."

After blistering Republicans on everything from Iraq to health care, Kerry said Democrats have an opportunity to rebuild nationally by simply addressing the concerns that affect people's daily lives - energy, transportation, health care and security.

"We have to go out and fight for the real issues that make a difference in the lives of the American people and we don't need some great lurch to the right or lurch to the left or redefinition of the Democratic Party," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "The last thing America needs is a second Republican Party."

Kerry spoke to 750 Democratic state legislators who were attending the National Conference of State Legislatures. He announced plans to campaign and raise money for Democratic legislative candidates across America.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050820/D8C3A1300.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes!!
But let's start with IRAQ!!!

Get us out of Iraq, first!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
i miss america Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. Not blistering enough for my liking.
Unfortunately, he's still throwing softballs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. what do you want, foaming at the mouth and swear words?
EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Like his Rolling Stone interview?
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. ....
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. I loved the "Did I expect him to fuck it up this badly?" line, but...
...in retrospect, that whole asking himself questions and answering them was almost as annoying as Al Gore's, "Well I used to...in fact, when I was..."

Can't we find a guy who can talk without sounding like a complete jerk?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. dunno, nobody we put up sounds as jerky as bush though, and that seems
to work for somebody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Bush sounds folksy and lame. Kerry and Al Gore sounded condescending.
I just want someone that seems half normal. That's all I'm asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. if they seemed normal, they'd probably have a better job than politician!
but yeah I get your point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
i miss america Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Not necessary. Polite but persistent criticisms would certainly suffice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwantmycountryback Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
55. Obviously some can never be pleased
The intelligent design line was a damn good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. yes, that was a great line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
65. You didn't read his speech, you read a couple quotes in a newspaper report
and you judged accordingly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
71. He kind of blisters me too
He needs to hammer them day after day and not this half-baked stuff every 3 months.
B*sh is down now and the pile on needs to start.
I can appreciate that the Democrats don't need wholesale changes. We just need representatives who stand up for the people and not the corporations. We need answers for what happened on 9/11, why our elections have been screwed with the last 3 times and why we are killing and being killed in Iraq.
Sorry for the mini-rant.
:freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. I voted for him, but I simply must say....
Way too little... way to late, John..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. yet you will be right there to say dems dont speak out
kerry has consistantly spoken out since after election, above and beyond any senator. but...... doesnt matter. you dismiss it because......

i dont know, makes not a lick of sense. and i am a pragmatic kinda person. not all emotional
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. speakling out after an election is not as powerful
or effective as speaking out before.. when it could matter.

I would vote for a toasted cheese sandwich before I would vote for &*². but I sure as hell hope the next dem i can vote for, has more energy and outspokenness BEFORE the election:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. he did speak out..... before. often. so......
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 12:18 PM by seabeyond
he was running for office. remember. there is a lot of documentation on a lot of things he spoke out for. is it really necessary for me to go thru and document and state them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. just doesnt matter a bit what kerry does. accomplish. you will attack
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 12:19 PM by seabeyond
at least be honest. then we can dismiss you as emotional. not pragmatic and not take you seriously. we will support and say go dude to kerry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. see my reply #7
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 12:42 PM by emulatorloo
he said lots of stuff. . .they did not show it on tv

Why look, here's another:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/18/MNG3S9BISL1.DTL

Kerry warns of surprise on Social Security
Senator accuses Bush of plan to privatize retirement system
Jim VandeHei, Chris L. Jenkins, Washington Post
Monday, October 18, 2004


Columbus, Ohio -- Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush of a secret, second-term plan to privatize Social Security starting next January, telling a church audience Sunday that the idea is "a disaster for America's middle class."

<snip>

Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, repeated the charge during rallies in Florida, where the concerns of retirees can dominate elections and Social Security is always a top concern.

"This might be a good surprise for the wealthy and well-connected, but it's a disaster for the middle class," Kerry told the congregation at Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio. "The president's privatization plan for Social Security is another way of saying to our seniors that the promise of security is going to be broken."

In recent weeks, Kerry, who has complained about Bush lodging negative and unsubstantiated attacks, has made several cutting accusations about the president based on shaky evidence.

After talking to a congressional Democrat who relayed private concerns about a secret Bush plan to call up more troops right after the election, Kerry interrupted a speech in New Mexico last month to say the president was trying to "hide" his intentions to send reservists and National Guard troops to Iraq in November.

Friday, he told the Des Moines Register there is a "great probability" of a draft if Bush is re-elected, after hearing from the same member of Congress who warned of the secret call-up, from some Pentagon officials in private and from voters who expressed concerns about a draft. Saturday, Kerry blamed Bush for this year's shortage of flu vaccine. The Bush campaign denied each allegation.

Campaigning in Pembroke Pines, Fla., later in the day, Kerry again accused Bush of failing to head off the shortage of flu vaccine. He said Bush's failure to maintain adequate flu vaccine supplies calls into question the president's ability to protect the nation from bioterrorism, which could require the mass distribution of vaccines.

Edwards visited three Florida cities Sunday, where he criticized Bush on Social Security and the flu vaccine and warned voters of possible dirty tricks by Republicans.

In comments to a black church in Daytona Beach, Edwards said social justice begins with the right to vote. "We have to make sure that our voices are heard," Edwards said.

Later he added sharper comments: "The truth is, the more people that vote, the more likely John Kerry will be president, and the Republicans know that," Edwards told a Jacksonville television station in an interview from Gainesville, where he addressed a rally at the University of Florida. "Which is why they would like to keep (voting) sites to a minimum and people participating to a minimum."

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwantmycountryback Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
58. While that may be true
Does that mean he shouldn't be doing it now? I don't see what the hell he did during the election has to do with what he's saying now. The election's over. Bush won tragically, but it's what happened. So some of us have to get into the now, and NOW Kerry is doing a fantastic job speaking out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. Hollow words from a guy who never opposed Iraq until Dean came along.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. you are purposely misrepresenting kerry's role in iraq. why?
agenda? give me a break. not even going to waste my time. i have to assume you all are educated enough on 2004 election you know better. you just dont like kerry, ergo attack, in a made up story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. Both of my Senators voted against the Iraq War resolution.
Kerry did not. That can not be obfuscated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. i am not asking it be "obfuscated". i am saying i understand
kerry's position on voting for that whatever presented to congress and the vote.

cool you have people that voted against. i also do not have the same view as you, obviously, on the people that voted for it. i dont think it was a call for war. i think it was an option, as said in the document, the last option. kerry is not the one that did not honor it. bush is the one the did not honor it. so, i dont place kerry as responsible for bush dishonesty, i give it to bush. we dont see eye to eye here. that is all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. That is disingenuous at best. It was obvious to anyone with ears and a
brain that * was going to invade the moment he got the power, and Kerry and the others went along with it. Why? I didn't know then and still don't know now. Oh well, that's history now. Unfortunately I can't follow that up with the usual "in a hundred years what difference will it make?", because in a hundred years this clusterfuk will still be causing problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. talk about disingenuous....( i love that word)
go back to prior to mid term election, oct 2002. a lot was going on at that time, we are totally ignoring. a totally different world. and a lot lot lot of stuff all of us didnt know that we know now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. not sure which stuff you're think of, but I've been screaming about this
country's direction since '92 (well, that's when I started screaming really loud). I'm grateful for the company now, but I'm pretty sure it's too late now. Most of what we're so pissed about today are just big distractions from what they've really done to fuck up America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
54. Kerry did not vocally oppose the war until Dean did.
He went along with the Resolution (which in itself is not an indictment), but then never really spoke out against the rush to war until Dean did it.

He was playing "follow the polls" and you know it. Not once did I hear him call Iraq a mistake until Dean surged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. well, i dont know. seeing how much wasnt shared of the things kerry
said and thought and believed while he was actually running for president, i cant hardly say what he did or didnot say prior to him running fro president. i know that wasnt on the news anywhere. are you sure..... are syou sure that kerry didnt say anythign. that he supported bush going into war without doing any of the things he said he would do. cause i dont know. and i wouldnt pin a conclusion on someone without knowing for fact
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #54
63. You weren't paying attention.
First of all, Dean was FOR the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR, which wasn't SIGNIFICANTLY different from the IWR that passed.

Kerry spoke CONSISTENTLY about Bush adhering to the IWR's guidelines and not rushing to war from the beginning. He never wavered on that point, at all, and Kerry heavily criticized Bush's politicization of the IWR and war policy while working for other Dem candidates in 2002.

Dean didn't start asserting an antiwar stance till the beginning of 2003 and no media noted that Dean had supported the Biden-Lugar version of IWR, and instead labeled him the antiwar candidate which Trippi emphasized to move Dean to the left for the primaries when he had a an 11 year record as a centrist governor.

So, where did you get information that shows otherwise? Sounds to me like maybe YOU only started paying more attention when Dean did, so you indict from your OWN perspective, which is not in step with the actual facts and their timeline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
i miss america Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. My sentiments exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
76. Missed all those speeches and rallies the media didn't show?
Edited on Wed Aug-24-05 10:38 AM by blm
He made very powerful statements consistently but the media refused to discuss them.

Kerry's speeches on Iraq during the campaign were VERY TOUGH on Bush.

This is just ONE of those speeches that most media ignored:

Following is the text of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's speech delivered in New York.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS) KERRY: I am really honored to be here at New York University, at NYU Wagner, one of the great urban universities in America. Not just in New York, but in the world. You've set a high standard, you always set a high standard for global dialogue, as Ellen (ph) mentioned a moment ago. And I intend to live up to that tradition here today. This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America, at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

(APPLAUSE)

Only a few blocks from here, three years ago, the events of September 11th remind every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism.

With us today is a remarkable group of women who lost loved ones on September 11th, and whose support I am honored to have. Not only did they suffer unbearable loss, but they helped us as a nation to learn the lessons of that terrible time by insisting on the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

(APPLAUSE)

I ask them to stand, and I thank them on behalf of our country, and I pledge to them, and to you, that I will implement the 9/11 recommendations. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

In fighting the war on terrorism my principles are straightforward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies.

But billions of people around the world, yearning for a better life, are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.

(APPLAUSE)

To win, America must be strong and America must be smart.

The greatest threat that we face is the possibility of Al Qaida or other terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. To prevent that from happening we have to call on the totality of America's strength: strong alliances to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands; a powerful military, transformed to meet the threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction; and all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, our appeal to the values, the values of Americans, and to connect them to the values of other people around the world -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and to preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made, and the choices I would make and have made, to fight and win the war on terror.

That means that we must have a great and honest debate on Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and from our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.

Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains overwhelmingly an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops and nearly 90 percent of the casualties are American.

Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery and skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. I visited with some of them in the hospitals and I am stunned by their commitment, by their sense of duty, their patriotism. When I speak to them, when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: We owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.

(APPLAUSE)

Would you all join me? My wife Teresa has made it through the traffic, and I'm delighted that she is here. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

In June, the president declared, The Iraqi people have their country back. And just last week he told us, This country is headed toward democracy; freedom is on the march. But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people and so do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating for us and for the Iraqis. Forty-two Americans died in Iraq in June, the month before the handover. But 54 died in July, 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August; more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever-widening war zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times; a 400 percent increase.

Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra and parts of Iraq are now no-go zones, breeding grounds for terrorists, who are free to plot and to launch attacks against our soldiers.

The radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in suburbs of Baghdad than the prime minister.

Violence against Iraqis, from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation, is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Yes, there has been some progress. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq, schools, shops and hospitals have been opened in certain places. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to be able to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence, instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth, the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and to the American people.

Now, I will say to you, it is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it is essential if you want to correct the course and do what's right for those troops, instead of repeating the same old mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma firsthand. I saw firsthand what happens when pride or arrogance take over from rational decision-making. And after serving in a war, I returned home to offer my own personal views of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. And we still do.

(APPLAUSE)

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in Hell. But that was not -- that was not, in and of itself, a reason to go to war.

(APPLAUSE)

The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the president has said that he miscalculated in Iraq, and that it was a catastrophic success. MORE

(APPLAUSE)

The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war, and he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

(APPLAUSE)

His two main rationales, weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaida-September 11th connection, have both been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission.

And just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged those facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the Earth is flat.

(APPLAUSE)

The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a genuine, broad, strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

In the dark days of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos as proof. De Gaulle waved him away, saying, The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.

How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president today? This president's failure to tell the truth to us and to the world before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The president now admits to miscalculations in Iraq. Miscalculations: This is one of the greatest underestimates in recent American history.

(APPLAUSE)

His miscalculations were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment, and judgment is what we look for a president.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is all the more stunning, because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight, we're not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bipartisan congressional hearings, major outside studies and even some in his own administration, predicted virtually every problem that we face in Iraq today.

The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible and real consequences.

The administration told us we would be greeted as liberators; they were wrong. They told us not to worry about the looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure; they were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots; they were tragically wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy; they were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country, and a police force and an army to secure it; they were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently overpromised and underperformed. And this policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, by an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence.

(APPLAUSE)

And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials -- the only officials who've lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said it would cost as much as $200 billion. Pretty good calculation. He was fired.

After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the U.N., and he rejected it, stiff-armed them, decided to go it alone. He even prohibited nations from participating in reconstruction efforts because they weren't part of the original coalition, pushing reluctant countries even further away. And as we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision really was.

Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes America stronger in the war on terrorism?

AUDIENCE: No!

KERRY: By any measure, by any measure, the answer is no.

Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all-time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were and where we are.

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.

(APPLAUSE)

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president, would have needed that threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

(APPLAUSE)

The power entrusted to the president purposefully gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple: We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, disarm or be disarmed.

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.

(APPLAUSE)

Now the president is looking for a reason, a new reason to hang his hat on -- it's the capability to acquire weapons.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, that was not the reason given to the nation, that was not the reason the Congress voted on. That is not a reason today; it is an excuse.

KERRY: Thirty-five to 40 countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade all of them?

I would have personally concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing Osama bin Laden.

(APPLAUSE)

I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or to America.

The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new, smarter direction with John Kerry that makes our troops and America safer. That's the choice.

(APPLAUSE)

It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot just throw up our hands, we cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.

All across this country, people ask me and others, what we should do now every stop of the way. From the first time I spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out a specific set of recommendations from day one, from the first debate until this moment. I have set out specific steps of how we should not and how we should proceed.

But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq, harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago, a year and a half ago.

It's time to recognize what is and what is not happening in Iraq today and we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said that, We're in deep trouble in Iraq. It doesn't add up to a pretty picture, he said, and we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy.

Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone.

Last spring, after too many months of delay, after reluctance to take the advice of so many of us, the president finally went back to the U.N., and it passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do, but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, and more financial assistance and real debt relief.

But guess what? Three months later, not a single country has answered that call, and the president acts as if it doesn't matter.

And of the 13 billion that was previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and of Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly, and he should insist that they make good on the U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific but critical roles in training Iraqi security personnel and in securing Iraqi borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, is this more difficult today? You bet it is. It's more difficult today because the president hasn't been doing it from the beginning. And I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning.

Delay has only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and the confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq.

But I'll tell you, we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to be successful in the end.

(APPLAUSE) Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that -- claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. This is the public statement to America.

Well, guess what, America? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth.

For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one -- not one has completed a 24-week field training program.

Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces' training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries.

And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers and start behaving like we really are at war.

(APPLAUSE)

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people, all of which, may I say, should have been in the plan and immediately launched with such a ferocity that there was no doubt about America's commitment or capacity in the very first moments afterwards. But they didn't plan.

He ignored his own State Department's plan, he discarded it.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise the spending priorities in Iraq. It took them 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

(APPLAUSE)

One year ago, this administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we have to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability, and now we're paying the price for not doing that.

He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

(APPLAUSE)

In fact, he should stop paying companies under fraud investigation or corruption investigation. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon who are responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

(APPLAUSE)

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee that the promised election can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly that could write a constitution and yields a viable power-sharing agreement.

Because Iraqis have no experience in holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role, yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. secretary general and administration officials say elections are in grave doubt, because the security situation is so bad, and because not a single country has yet offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission.

The president needs to tell the truth. The president needs to deal with reality, and he should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force.

Now, this is not going to be easy. I understand that.

Again, I repeat, every month that's gone by, every offer of help spurned, every alternative not taken for these past months has made this more difficult and those were this president's choices. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq ought to still be prepared to help the United Nations hold an election.

We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S. forces will end up bearing that burden alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

That can achieved.

(APPLAUSE)

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do if I were president today. But we can't afford to wait until January and I can't tell you what I will find in Iraq on January 20th.

President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear. We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should have always been bearing the burden.

That's the right way to get the job done. It always was the right way to get the job done to minimize the risk to American troops and the cost to American taxpayers. And it is the right way to get our troops home.

On May 1st of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now- infamous banner that read Mission accomplished. He declared to the American people that, In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come.

The president misled, miscalculated and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government -- far harder to achieve than it ever should have been.

(APPLAUSE)

In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment, presidential judgment, of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice.

I have a plan to make America stronger.

The president often says that in a post-9/11 world we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting.

(APPLAUSE)

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do and I have all along.

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war on terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror that actually makes America safer.

Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans; just ask anyone who travels.

If you share my conviction that we cannot go on as we are, that we can make America stronger and safer than it is, then November 2nd is your chance to speak and to be heard.

It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

(APPLAUSE)

I am convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start, move more effectively to accomplish our goals.

Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, for America's sake, we have to get this right. We have to do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. But...but...none of our spineless leaders ever speak out!!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miss_kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. He should have felt this way during the election
and acted on it.:evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. he said lots of stuff like this -- just didnt get reported on TV
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 12:10 PM by emulatorloo
Here is a blast from the past:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/kerry/index.html

Kerry alleges 'fear and smear' tactics
Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Posted: 1:10 AM EDT (0510 GMT)

<snip>

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday accused the Bush campaign of adopting "the tactics of fear and smear" because its record is a failed one, saying November's election comes down to a choice between right and wrong.

"The Bush campaign and its allies have turned to the tactics of fear and smear because they can't talk about jobs, health care, energy independence and rebuilding our alliances," Kerry told students at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York, near the site of next week's Republican National Convention.

"The world will listen to what the Republicans say when they come here, but words, slogans and personal attacks cannot disguise what they have done and left undone," said Kerry, who presented himself as the candidate with a plan to resolve the health-care crisis and re-energize the economy.

Kerry predicted the Republicans will contend during their convention that the nation's economy is the strongest it has been in decades.

"They've obviously decided that some people will believe anything, no matter how fictional or how far-fetched, if they just repeat it often enough. That's how they've run their administration, that's how they're running their campaign and that's how they're going to run their convention."

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miss_kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. sure
whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. and Kerry was all like, bush is bad and I was all like sure, whatever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. like..... lol lol lol n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miss_kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. um-I was posting polilitical articles out of left wing news sources
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 12:54 PM by miss_kitty
on another website daily for over a year leading up to the election. I did't come to DU until August of 2004. I don't get my news from TV. I get it from sources like Counterpunch, the Nation and sources through CommonDreams, TomPaine, CJR, E & P, Capital Hill Blues, BBC, Media Matters, Demomocracy Now! and the like. On Edit: I rarley found CNN to be a credible source for much, being MSM.

I know what Kerry was up to, and I never depended upon 'TV' to give me any kind of truthfulness or accuracy in reporting.

If you wanna, like, mock someone, who uses the word 'whatever,'I suggest you take it to someone who won't 'get' it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. then post a real reply, not some valleygirl ignorespeak
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 01:00 PM by emulatorloo
Counterpunch and Commondreams don't seem to like Democrats much at all -- Like the coroporate media, they went out of their way to denigrate Kerry and Dems during the '04 campaign to the point of practically working against a Dem victory. So I am not sure you got a very accurate picture there either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miss_kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. You are the one who went all Valley girl, friend
It's very easy to wind you up and watch you go.

If you want to consider Counterpunch and Commondreams unfriendly to Dems that is certainly your choice, as is your manner of reply. I just happen to disagree with you. You don't need to tell me how to respond to you. If you have a problem with it, alert the mods.

Since I used many many sources, other than the two you cited, (many of which I listed, however not limited to those I listed above-your two choices BTW, were probably LEAST used by me), I think I have a fairly well-rounded, yet left leaning view of the crap that went on in the 2004 Election.

I've only seen you put stock in CNN. Not a credible source for much more than reporting updates on missing white girls and Michael Jackson. They certainly aren't a place I'd look to as a SERIOUS link to politically oriented news. They are just too corporately controlled and oriented. JMHHO. though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I'm sure we could be friends
but I am not a big fan of CNN or their more liberal cousin Fox -- CNN just happened to come up first in the google of the Kerry speech (one of many with strong words against Republicans and Bush during the campaign) I wanted to cite that you still choose to ignore.

and I am solar-powered, not wind-up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miss_kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. .
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
62. pffft
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
51. He also said a lot of stuff that was contrary to that.
And I regret every $ I gave to his campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. he did. but much better to pretend he said and did nothing
for what reason?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miss_kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. sure
whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. He did. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miss_kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. If you want to believe that he did that
and backed up his words with action, you go right ahead! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
53. I've been round and round with Kerry bashers too many times to
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 03:11 PM by smartvoter
invest the energy again. (And I'm not even a big Kerry fan...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. For some it is more fun to bash good Dems than to bash Bush Admin
EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miss_kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #53
75. And I've been round and round with Kerry apologists too many times to
invest the energy again myself. I'll join you in dropping this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
30. self-deleted dupe
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 12:37 PM by smartvoter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Synnical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. Kerry zings Bush
From the article

In an arch comment about the president's recent statement in favor of teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution, Kerry said, "I think we ought to be getting some intelligent design in our policy in Iraq."


HA!

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Nice one.
Sadly he's about a year late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
18. "the last thing America needs is a second Republican Party."
Hot damn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
22. The two Republican parties
Kerry is one of the best Democrats out there right now and he makes a good point.

I think the two Republican parties consist of:
A: The wackos who want to murder everyone who disagrees with them.
B: Those who are sucked in by the Repugs' philosophy of 'bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.'

It just occurred to me that B is a major strategy they are using lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
38. Gore and Kerry need to help the next nominee
Locate thier balls or ovaries and fucking use them.

Democrats are the minority party, if ever there was a time to shake things up and be aggressive it is now.

We need a candidate who uses the national spotlight to beat the crap out of the Republican party. We can box them into a corner and keep them guessing and on the defensive.

It's time to draw blood. Leave no political jab behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #38
70. And the media would define that person as an angry, fringe lunatic.
Didn't Kerry win all 3 debates by being tough, calm, wise and well-spoken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
41. Not tough enough
Shit Kerry you need to be tougher than that, kick them all in the ass. Then say we: (1) WE NEED TO GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW.
(2) WHY DID YOU LIE TO AMERICA ABOUT IRAQ BUSH
(3) WE ARE GOING TO HOLD BUSH ACCOUNTABLE
(4) WE NEED TO QUIT OUTSOURCING
(5) AND ON AND ON









:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. he HAS said two thru five n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prisoner_Number_Six Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
45. ...while he's preparing to withdraw from the Ohio lawsuit.....
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. on one of three law suits. tell it all. and there is more to that story
also. but dont give a full picture. only enough to make your point.

i havent been following this so closely. maybe you can give the actual and full facts on it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
49. Wel well John

More dodging the issue and trying to appease both sides.

"We don't need a lurch to the left" ---

and we "don't need a lurch to the right" ...

then later he says we don't need two Republican Parties. Dude makes no sense to me with this quote and is why he didn't blow away Dimson in the election. Too many people couldn't figure out what the hell he means.

He is definatley not a straight shooter and that's why Howard Dean has gained such a favor. I voted for Kerry and was proud to do so, but we now see why "Flip Flopper" had some legs, because even in that statement he seems to be contradicting himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
50. Is he going to ride his motorcycle on the Jay Leno set again?
That'll really blister 'em! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. PAOJKAOGDDNIM
Petty Attacks on John Kerry and Other Good Democrats Do Not Impress Me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #61
72. Were you more impressed by his campaign?
Or have we ventured into the GOP mindset and criticism is now "petty attacks"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
57. will the REAL John Kerry please stand up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #57
64. You call that a comprehensive analysis of that email? Are you JOKING?
Did you even NOTICE the TIMING on that email?

He was setting up questions for the press and the VETERANS who would be meeting with Bush that day.

The questions are set up so that even a veteran who supported the war effort IN GENERAL would still see the need for these questions to be answered by the president.

I am always amazed at the failure of so many to see context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. John Kerrys email said this:
"When will the President support a military large enough to face the challenges of today's world?"

Now wouldnt the republicans just love a huge military. As if it wasnt large enough already. And lets not forget who are enemy is - a gang of criminals hiding in caves.

Im sorry, but when Kerry calls for a LARGER military, I really have to question his judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Larger NUMBERS. He's against building bigger bombs and tactical nukes.
He's against growing the military budget for defense industry profit. He has always believed that the military money should go to supporting the TROOPS and their needs and their training so that they can do their job.

Do you not know anything about Kerry's work in those areas for the last 20 years?

He thinks if the money is spent on the troops and their families and their needs and comforts were met and their missions were chosen responsibly, the military would grow naturally.

Big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #69
73. you bring up some good points
Im probably just reacting negatively to anything military thanks to how much the Military industrial complex abuses our dollars. I blame most of our current debt on abusive military spending and I see future threats of a small terror nature and no full scale wars in the future.

I agree with you on Kerry being against new nukes and such.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. It's trhe media's fault. Many don't know what Kerry's record shows because
Edited on Wed Aug-24-05 09:56 AM by blm
the media only regurgitates votes as if they represent that a person is FOR or AGAINST the military in general.

Many are surprised to learn that Kerry is against extended air campaigns and carpet bombing because they result in excessive civilian killings. He things any air bombings should be on fixed military targets only.

He thinks that if any combat is warranted that it should be fought on the ground with welltrained forces and superior ground equipment in overwhelming numbers who go head to head with enemy.

He believes this reduces civilian casualties while gaining control in a more decisive manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
59. WHY
did you get 58 responses and I only got 12 for posting the same thing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=148685

Is it that "newbie thing"??????????

:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-05 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #59
67. why. your thread wasnt full of kerry attacks
Edited on Tue Aug-23-05 08:34 PM by seabeyond
i could have said cool and that would have been the end of it, but i posted a good 5, 6, 7, 8 correcting bullshit comments from people whos only agenda is to attack kerry from their emotional perspectives.

not a newbie thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
77. "knowing what you know now, would you still have voted to give
authorization to the president, for the use of force in Iraq?"

"Yes."

That day, when he said that. I knew we had lost the election. I knew instantly after he uttered "yes", that the election was over.

For him to say the last thing America needs is a 2nd Republican party is LAUGHABLE.

He just ran on a Republican-Lite ticket!

Flame away if you must. But we lost the last election because Kerry was Repub-Lite. It takes opposition to win...

And don't give me any bullshit about a stolen election. Edwards didn't even carry his own home state. The election was given away. It was given away when Kerry said he would still have gone to war with Iraq, and it was definately over when Kerry refused to challenge the Ohio votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Because dumb people blame the IWR instead of Bush's FAILURE to implement
IWR honestly.

Why did media change the direction of the blame? Because it served Rove's purpose. If people thought IWR gave Bush all the power he needed and no restrictions, then Bush could escape scrutiny and blame when he didn't follow the guidelines or restrictions set forth in the IWR.

IWR was not the reason Bush invaded Iraq. It should have been the reason that Bush DIDN'T invade Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. I remember watching The Daily Show that night...
Jon Stewart showed the clip, his eyes grew wide, he frowned and held his head in his hands, put his head down on the desk for a moment, then looked up at the camera and yelled, "Are you TRYING TO LOSE this election?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC