Exclusive preview of Kerry's Iraq speech: We were "misled into war."

[Presstitutes]

"The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not."

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=e7854e06-2248-4071-8dbc-246cb87f6323

EDITED TO ADD: Kerry offers a detailed plan for withdrawal, starting with this: ""At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays. The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals."

[texpatriot2004]

1. Thank you Sen Kerry. n.t

[reality based]

2. What say you, Senator Clinton?

[ultraist]

3. "Lead us into a quagmire?" We are already in a quagmire!

"To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase “we will stay as long as it takes,” who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire. The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks."

[reality based]

4. This is the responsible position to take but I am concerned that

it may be too late. Chaos seems inevitable.

[ultraist]

5. Iraq is already in a state of chaos

I don't know if it is the most responsible approach. That would depend on what the benchmarks are. For instance, setting a benchmark of three years before we begin to withdraw is NOT responsible.

But of course, Kerry doesn't offer any benchmarks or an exit strategy. He leaves it wide open so not to upset anyone on either side. Kerry should take a stand on this and forget about trying to please everyody all of the time.

We need to cut our losses and get out!

[reality based]

11. It can get worse

[ultraist]

28. Sure it can get worse

But let's not deny the fact it's already a quagmire! It has NOT gotten better over there, despite what the pResident says. It's a fucking mess, absolute chaos.

[Breeze54]

104. RIGHT ON!!

Shit or get off the pot!!
:dilemma:

I'm so sick of this BS!!

TAKE A STAND KERRY!!!!

[seabeyond]

18. it will be too late in that he doesnt have the ability or power to do it

he was not put into office. bush is the decider. we do have a bunch of adults in congress. they are smart and responsible and able. tis administration is not. the kerrys and sheys can know what to do , and not be able to do anything about it.

yes, this is the responsible position.

[Freedomfried]

6. The UN needs to come in as the US is leaving ASAP

[Dr.Phool]

7. Flamebait! Kerry is lying when he says

"as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq."

I was working on your campaign! You had me talking to myself! You said a year ago, when asked "If you knew then, what you know now, would you have still voted for the war?" And you said fucking yes!!!

I was ready to pull my hair out!

Now ducking from firestorm, but that's what he said.

On edit: I think this last quote, the one in the original post is a misquote, because I don't think Senator Kerry is dishonest enough to try to pull that one off.

[Mass]

10. He also said again and again he would NOT have gone to war.

That is what he said. Sorry if you mussed it.

[seabeyond]

34. he did. and he has been consistent on his dislike for this war

and bush handling. he worked hard to show he would do different. media though had a story line. ignore what he said on war, cause was boring and the people didn't want to listen. instead denigrate his military ability and experience. a lot of dems fell for it and most all repugs. sad sad

[FreedomAngel82]

112. Yes

During the campaign he did say that Bush lied. I also remember him explaining his IWR vote. He said, "We gave him the permission to load the gun, not shoot himself in the foot."

[ultraist]

19. Kerry did say he stands by his vote a year ago

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040818.html

Kerry Stands by His Iraq War Vote
And Stands, With Bush, Against Constitutional Principles
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004

Responding to a challenge from President Bush, last week Senator Kerry stated that even if he had known then what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in October 2002.

He also said this later in the campaign,all the way up to and beyond election day.

[seabeyond]

37. i dont know why people act like this is so hard. he took seriously

bush's draft of iwr? it is in print. in words. he agrees with his vote on this document. he believes in the procedure. why cant he be of this opinion without being pro war. this image, made up definition of pro war and anti war is very limited and black and white to some. not everyone thinks in so black and white

[ultraist]

51. Appparently, you are having trouble with reading comprehension

he agrees with his vote on this document

That's NOT what Kerry is saying now.

BTW, those of us who do not agree with you are not dumb, "black and white" thinkers. :eyes:

[seabeyond]

56. thinking here

you and i seem to often butt heads in black and white ultraist. respectfully i say to you. ok too. i play it in with you. but yes, i do see a lot of black and white here.

[ultraist]

61. You still didn't address the issue

You claim Kerry still stands by his vote, which is NOT what he says in the recent speech.

But continue to insult and cling to your personal attacks, rather than discuss the subject at hand, if that makes you feel better.

[seabeyond]

68. from tay tay right below. i dont go into it, because the info is there

why must i always go get the correct info for you. why dont y just read the thread, or know what kerry has said. i am tired of saying the same shit over and over. you want to villify and create kerry as someone he isnt i am done. repugs do it too. they tell such lies, would take hours for me to go thru it all and they would end with. i dont believe you. not that they will go read the fact




THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE CAMPAIGN; In Harshest Critique Yet, Kerry Attacks Bush Over War in Iraq
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 1 09-21-2004
By JODI WILGOREN and ELISABETH BUMILLER



In an interview with David Letterman broadcast Monday night on the "Late Show," Mr. Kerry was asked directly whether, had he been elected president in 2000, he would have taken the country to war in Iraq. Mr. Kerry said simply, "No."

Pressed about whether American troops would be in Iraq now if a Kerry administration had received the same intelligence the Bush administration had, Mr. Kerry said: "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction. We know now there was no connection to Al Qaeda. We know there was no imminent threat and under those circumstances. I would not have taken America to war."


And you could as they say, look it up.

Here is the video: http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/kerryletterman.h...

And the Washington Post still has this transcript up from last year:


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) if the world is better off with Saddam gone, how did that square with the comment last night with David Letterman, that knowing what you now know, you wouldn't have gone to war?

KERRY: Because, for several reasons. First of all, it's obvious, if he is gone, the world is better off without him.

KERRY: Everybody understands that. He's a brutal dictator. And as I said yesterday in my speech, he deserves his own special place in hell.

But that doesn't mean that you go to war in an irresponsible way that puts America at greater risk. That doesn't mean you should take your eye off the ball, which was Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, and rush to war just to get rid of him.

[ultraist]

You must be confused

why must i always go get the correct info for you

You've never gotten info for me, before today and I've never requested it from you. You must have me confused with someone else because I rarely respond to your posts.

I'd done too, not interested in reading any more of your personal attacks. :boring:

[seabeyond]

89. of course you wont read it

i think that was my point. lol ultraist. oh well

[ultraist]

90. Did I say I wouldn't read it? No, I didn't.

Are you having trouble again with reading comprehension?

I said I'm done replying to you because of your trashy insults.

[seabeyond]

93. you are right. i made an assumption

"I'd done too, not interested in reading any more of your personal attacks. "

i took it to mean you werent going to read the tay tay part either. so you have read it? thank you. i appreciate it

[ultraist]

77. sorry dupe

[FreedomAngel82]

113. I remember that

I also remember the Bush group were going around saying that Kerry agreed with him and tried to manipulate what he said. :eyes: They only played the part about what he said about Saddam.

[Toots]

102. Just what do you think the IWR says?

It does not give carte blanc to the Administration although that appears how they interpreted it. Kerry has been fairly consistant on this issue IMO. He still stands by the IWR. If only Bush* had honered it....

[seabeyond]

29. i think when that happened there was a to do. and it didnt get reported

and it wasnt cleared up. but i know htere are people on this board that knows what that was about. we need to get the story in this. i have heard what all say kerry says. then i hear what kerry says., it is never the same. i know media jumped on this. they did not tell the whole story. if we can just take the time to get the facts. i dont think the dems are all evil. i do think they are our hope. and i hear more integrity and honesty in dems than most all parties, in previous time. they are so being attacked on everything and all, we have them pretty much tippy toeing.

then we yell at them for tippy toeing. something parents often do with their children

[sandnsea]

35. The vote isn't the war

There was 6 months between the vote and the war. They are not and never were the same thing. He has always said he would have let the inspections continue and not gone to war except as an absolute last resort. He said on the day Bush launched the war that he didn't think all diplomatic measures had been allowed to work. That just is not the same thing as the vote, which BUSH SAID was a vote to keep the peace not a vote for war. Too bad people didn't make BUSH accountable for what HE said.

[seabeyond]

40. 3 weeks before elections. right after 9/11. with the understanding

ALL options would be exhausted, before troop build up, before four more years of lie and incompetence to see just how bad bush was. even not trusting bush but saying. you say this to senate, the people, the u.n. we have all heard you. gotta do it

and bush didnt

and we yell at the dems?

[TayTay]

63. New York Times, 9/21/04 Knowing what I know now....

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE CAMPAIGN; In Harshest Critique Yet, Kerry Attacks Bush Over War in Iraq
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 1 09-21-2004
By JODI WILGOREN and ELISABETH BUMILLER

In an interview with David Letterman broadcast Monday night on the "Late Show," Mr. Kerry was asked directly whether, had he been elected president in 2000, he would have taken the country to war in Iraq. Mr. Kerry said simply, "No."

Pressed about whether American troops would be in Iraq now if a Kerry administration had received the same intelligence the Bush administration had, Mr. Kerry said: "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction. We know now there was no connection to Al Qaeda. We know there was no imminent threat and under those circumstances. I would not have taken America to war."

And you could as they say, look it up.

Here is the video: http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/kerryletterman.html

And the Washington Post still has this transcript up from last year:

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) if the world is better off with Saddam gone, how did that square with the comment last night with David Letterman, that knowing what you now know, you wouldn't have gone to war?

KERRY: Because, for several reasons. First of all, it's obvious, if he is gone, the world is better off without him.

KERRY: Everybody understands that. He's a brutal dictator. And as I said yesterday in my speech, he deserves his own special place in hell.

But that doesn't mean that you go to war in an irresponsible way that puts America at greater risk. That doesn't mean you should take your eye off the ball, which was Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, and rush to war just to get rid of him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39311-2004Sep21.html

I am sorry that these comments were held in dark dank little places that no one can see, like the Letterman show and referenced in tiny Indy papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, but you campaign with the media you have, not the media you wish you had.

[Breeze54]

106. I was in tears when I heard that!

He did say YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

I concur!

[Catchawave]

8. Wish he would have driven this point home

during the campaign with more passion during the Flip-Flop Rovian attacks :(

Too late now, but a costly learning experience :banghead:

[Mass]

15. STill good that he said it. He is the 2nd senator to present a plan

for withdrawal, and, even if I have the same reservation I have with Feingold's one, it was more than time they would do it.

[ultraist]

32. What plan?

This is not a plan:

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks

[seabeyond]

47. but it is. deep breath everyone. back to adult war. lets all figure

this out together. we are all tired of war, killing, corruption and ineptness. you dont think the world wouldnt jump at it.

i do

[Mass]

49. These are excerpts - not the full speech

I wish people stop to publish excerpts. According to AP, Kerry calls for troop withdrawal starting at the end of this year and going thru next year.

But of course, it is easier to criticize without knowing.

[Sparkman]

107. peace activist, me, worked for months, precinct stuff, cause Kerry was dif

ferent from Bush's war associates and his Office of Special Plans, PNAC, etc. I was and am now convinced that Kerry, as he now and then, claimed, would not have expected the resolution to go so awry and would not have mimicked Bush's war or foreign policy. Please restrain your Republican Talking Point parroting.

[seabeyond]

43. he did. time and time again. and then we and media and repugs

yelled at him for putting military experience out there and why they got to do swiftsmear on his military without guilt of ridicule of a military man that fought in a war

[Catchawave]

78. Oh I agree....

And blame the DNC for being such pussies for not fighting the fight...especially when we where "Cheney'd" with that garbage about Team Kerry putting the U.S. in more danger? Or was it, if we elect Kerry/Edwards, you won't be safe?

I'm still pissed we (DNC) didn't have a winning comeback to that tripe!

[seabeyond]

88. dnc didnt have the balls, but dean had the balls. why i donate

today in a monthly deduction from credit card. next time i think dean will make sure dnc supports candidate. dean did during the campaign, and he was good. expect the same and more from dean in the future.

we refuse to honor and recognize what we do right. i dont live that way. i want to win

[Catchawave]

98. A year ago....

I wouldn't have given the DNC my first born to win that g.d. election, and they let me down. Pussies, really, I mean that.

[Coexist]

9. Lets hope this is the start of all the Dems waking up

and coming out from behind their fear of "not supporting the troops and not being tough on terror"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. I no longer agree with Kerry about his strategy or Pottery Barn rule

The last quagmire we got into certainly turned out worse before it got better, but I think the other nations in the region have a stake in Iraq NOT devolving into a full blown civil war.

He had it right during the debate when he said the Iraqi people are not going to trust us if we have designs on their resources. Our presence will only make it worse.

Many people are going to die whether we stay or go...let them have their internal struggles. Of course, I do think Israel will be a major impediment to any accord on the continent, but I think we need to get out. Sometimes, you break it and take it to someone else to fix it at a high price.

[elehhhhna]

13. That speech is about 2 years too late. Kerry is soooooo 2004.

[WinkyDink]

14. Kerry EXPLICITLY said he would vote

the SAME WAY AGAIN, knowing what he does now.
HE wasn't the one with the CHOICE of "going to war"; he voted then, and says he'd vote now, to GIVE that "right" to BUSH, when it is constitutionally the right of Congress.

Sorry, John; you blew it.

ETA: Oh, then once he was "misled"; the SECOND time he was asked he was....what? Stupid? Because if he is saying TODAY that he wouldn't give Bush his vote, why now?? There is NOTHING NEW between today and the last time Kerry was asked.

So why the enlightenment now, eh?

[Mass]

17. Cant you read? He says he would not vote the same way.

[LisaL]

24. He says so now. Why couldn't he say that before the election?

[Dr.Phool]

30. Last year he said he WOULD vote the same way!!

[ultraist]

36. He also says he's been saying this for a year, which is BS n/t

[sandnsea]

48. vote has four letters, war has three

they are not the same GODDAMNED WORD.

[Mass]

58. No he does NOT.

He said he has been saying he WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO WAR for one year, which is different.

[Cassandra]

16. When is he going to use the word...

LIE!? Or lying, liar or lied to?

[Mass]

27. Well, two senators are on record starting to withdraw the troops and

do it in a given timeframe. (Feingold and Kerry).

As much as I would like the timeframe to be now, it is already something.

Who's next.

[ultraist]

39. During the campaign, Kerry said he'd send 40k more troops over

He did NOT have an exit strategy.

Where does Kerry propose we start withdrawing troops? Link please.

[Mass]

42. No he did not .

[ultraist]

83. Yes, Kerry did call for 40k more troops

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a3ixw0UrP_u4&refer=us

Kerry Calls for More Troops in Iraq, Bolstering U.S. Military
May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for 40,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq, saying he would ``modernize our military to match its new missions'' in the war on terror and homeland security.

[sandnsea]

50. The link in the OP

Click it and read. Kerry said he would have started withdrawing troops over this past summer.

You don't have a clue what Kerry said because you closed your mind. You repeated bullshit that helped create a confused impression about Kerry's Iraq plan. You helped elect Bush.

[ultraist]

55. Excuse me?

Who the fuck are you to accuse me of helping to elect Bush? How many hours did you volunteer and how much money did you donate? Or did you sit on your fat ass and blog all day? Because I donated hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars. So fuck off.

BTW, I read the link. If you had read the posts, you'd understand that I was asking for a link where Kerry previously offered up an exit strategy.

No one has provided that link.

[sandnsea]

60. He's been offering them for 3 years

Since you don't know that, I don't know how you possibly could have campaigned for him. Too bad you didn't take ten minutes to learn what the man actually said, would have been worth ten times more than all those thousands of dollars you gave.

[ultraist]

Continuing with your personal attacks, still no link

Now you're accusing me of lying about volunteering hundreds of hours at the Kerry-Edwards HQ? LMAO!

[sandnsea]

79. I did?

Where did I say you were lying???

You don't remember the speech in Missouri last year that laid out a withdrawal plan? The OP is an excerpt of a speech he's planning to give today. It'll have his complete withdrawal plan, transferring responsibility on a sector by sector basis so the troops can be brought home. Bring Sunni countries in to help negotiate, bring NATO in. Much the same as what he's said for 3 years now, but updated to fit the current situation. And with the caveat that the visibility of the troops is contributing to the problem which is all the most reason to turn over security to Iraq.

[ultraist]

80. uh, here...

"I don't know how you possibly could have campaigned for him."

[sandnsea]

81. campaigned, as in advocated

I don't know how you could have been an effective campaigner since you hate the air he breathes. Sincerely would have been better had you stayed home.

[ultraist]

86. You obviously have never been in a campaign HQ

You don't know what I would have done because you obviously didn't work at all on the campaign.

Did you?

Kerry and his family certainly appreciated my efforts, when I met several of them!

Interesting you feel compelled to personally attack and insult those who disagree with Kerry on some issues.

Kerry would be better off, without fanatical fans, such as yourself, who fail to allow a dialogue and engage in trashy attacks.

[sandnsea]

91. If they only knew

And yes, I heard far too many people say the dumbest shit imaginable during the campaign. Not alot you can do about it but hope the vogters can figure out the truth between the bullshit. But I don't have to bite my tongue here. And I'm not the one who called anybody a "fat ass", that was your trashy attack.

[ultraist]

95. Well guess what?

I wasn't a phone banker or canvasser who dealt directly with the voters. I did events, coordinated a county wide rides to the polls project and did volunteer coordination, primarily.

What did YOU do during the campaign? Did you volunteer?

BTW, Kerry DID win. And the volunteers who worked their asses off don't deserve your selfish criticism.

THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of people, in my county alone, made a lot of sacrifices to work on the campaign and your after the fact, arm chair insults are not warranted. It's not our fault they fucking cheated and that there were some campaign strategy problems.

[sandnsea]

100. oh gosh

Phone banking, canvassing, envelope stuffing, booth working, email coordination, forum and blog volunteer, event volunteer, donator, letter writer; and spent my spare time here.

I'm not criticizing volunteers, I'm criticizing you. People who don't even know what the man stood for after putting in all those hours couldn't have been very effective campaigners. It just is.

[ultraist]

101. Oh, ok

I didn't know anything about what Kerry stood for and harmed his campaign, alrighty then! :eyes:

And your outstanding presentation of Kerry's stances on issues is just so impressive. LMAO!

And yes you did criticize others who volunteered:

"I heard far too many people say the dumbest shit imaginable during the campaign. Not alot you can do about it but hope the vogters can figure out the truth between the bullshit"

[sandnsea]

108. BTW, here's your link

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=1427

[ultraist]

65. sorry dupe

[Upfront]

20. If Kerry

Had said that before the election he would be President today. To little to late. I am glad he now gets what most of the world new three years ago.

[LisaL]

21. It's a nice speech. But a bit late.

[Mountainman]

22. If we DUers were not misled why was Kerry misled?

I don't think that he should say we were misled when we all new the reasons to go to war were lies. It makes Kerry look less intelligent than us and he should be a leader not a follower.

No, he should say we made a mistake and never should have supported the IWR. We all said after the 2004 elections that not supporting the war didn't hurt those who voted against the IWR.

I have less of a need to support Kerry than I did before.

[sidwill]

23. What you talkin bout Kerry?!?!

"as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq."

Pardon my skepticism, but I remember Kerry dancing around this question without giving a clear answer while on the campaign trail.

If I recall Kerry said roughly: "I still would have voted for the IWR because all that did was give the pres. the power to go to war after exhausting all other avenues." Wjile technically dead on, this answer left alot to be desired in the way of truly and simply clarifying his stance on Iraq.

My advice for Kerry in the future: Be true to yourself and JUST SAY WHAT YOU FUCKING MEAN INSTEAD OF WRAPPING IT UP IN FLOWERY DOUBLE SPEAK!!

You clarified your position 1 fucking year to late genius.

[Mass]

31. Not the question of going to war had he been president.

the IWR was NOT going to war.

I know some people are deaf to simple differences, but it is what it is.

[AlCzervik]

25. why do let advanced copies go out?

why not let him just give the speech 1st and then you could download a copy. I have never understood the purpose of doing this. I'd rather hear it fresh and be pleasantly surprised.

[CardInAustin]

26. No no no no....

Noooooooo.....

Don't do it Kerry. Fight the urge. Please don't rehash this battle. All it does is play right into their hands and provides a distraction in the media. They can turn the issue into "what does Kerry really believe" instead of their own insane ineptitude.

Kerry is the wrong messenger for issue. I like him and voted for him....but just step away from the microphone.

[Mass]

33. Are you talking of people of DU? Seems to me that they fit your model

[CardInAustin]

44. What model is that?

Not sure where you are headed with this.

[ultraist]

59. If you don't agree with Kerry, some here feel compelled

to personally attack you, incinuate you are a troll or claim you "helped elect Bush."

I wonder what these same folks did to help Kerry? I have a feeling they sat on their fat asses and did not much of anything, but bitch about about Bush.

[Mass]

62. Apparently a lot more than you as you dont even know what his positions

were, I cant see how you could have been effective in campaigning for him.

[ultraist]

72. You're now criticizing me for volunteering?

You Kerry worshippers sound desperate.

Have you ever stepped foot in a campaign HQ? Do you have any idea how much work there is to do or what type of work?

I tend to think you didn't volunteer at all. But go ahead and insult me for taking off hundreds of hours of work and essentially neglecting my children, to work on the campaign.

Kerry, Teresa, Andre Heinz, Alex Kerry, and Vanessa Kerry certainly seemed to appreciate my efforts when I met them all during the campaign.

And no, I didn't know all of the details of all his positions, I doubt you did either. But you STILL have not provided a link to support your claim. You continue to attack and divert. :eyes:

[Mass]

76. What claim??

Here is one of the text for not going to war

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE CAMPAIGN; In Harshest Critique Yet, Kerry Attacks Bush Over War in Iraq
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 1 09-21-2004
By JODI WILGOREN and ELISABETH BUMILLER


In an interview with David Letterman broadcast Monday night on the "Late Show," Mr. Kerry was asked directly whether, had he been elected president in 2000, he would have taken the country to war in Iraq. Mr. Kerry said simply, "No."

Pressed about whether American troops would be in Iraq now if a Kerry administration had received the same intelligence the Bush administration had, Mr. Kerry said: "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction. We know now there was no connection to Al Qaeda. We know there was no imminent threat and under those circumstances. I would not have taken America to war."

[Mass]

82. You are the one who criticized me in the first place.

[The Stranger]

38. A year late. He is with us more and more, and we need him less and less.

[welshTerrier2]

41. this is exactly why Kerry will never be President

just pathetic ...

if you need me to spell it out, feel free to ask ...

[Mass]

46. Well, why? I had no illusion that whatever he could say would satisfy you

but between the AP press release this morning and this, he is completely in one of the three solution you are describing in your post this morning?

[welshTerrier2]

53. a couple of points

first, i didn't see the "AP press release" ... what was in it?

second, this is NOT one of the 3 options ... i'm not hearing a TIMEtable ... i'm hearing a "results-based" plan ... why didn't he call for withdrawing troops after the Constitution vote that already took place???? what are the other "litmus tests" that have to be met for subsequent withdrawals (i.e. after the December elections)???

Kerry's "withdrawal plan" could take another five or ten years ... it's total bullshit ...

and please don't start with the "you're never satisfied" pitch ... i outlined 3 viable options ... any one of them would be fine with me ...

the withdrawal timetable i listed had the intent of near-term withdrawal ... it is not a timetable at all when it is tied to outcomes that will never "come out" ... once again, Kerry failed to take a bold stand ... he's tap dancing in the mushy middle ...

he had so much promise but it's clear now that he can't get out of his own way ...

[Mass]

54. I posted the AP release lower, if you care to read.

And I was not expecting Kerry to ask for withdrawal NOW (I still wished he had), so I am not surprised or disappointed.

[welshTerrier2]

67. i always "care to read" - thanks for posting it ...

the article you posted is much better than the one in the OP ...

Kerry showed greater understanding for the need to withdraw in that piece ...

but the bottom line is this: it is absurd to call for a withdrawal based on an unachievable, vague set of results that he thinks could be accomplished in 12 - 15 months but will keep us in Iraq for years to come ...

do you really believe that things will get better in Iraq and we will gradually be able to withdraw as we turn over more and more power to the Iraqi government?

i just don't believe that will happen especially while US troops remain in Iraq ... and how do you respond to the idea that neither the American people nor the Iraqi people want us to continue the occupation?

the 3 options I outlined in my post are the only realistic alternatives ... Kerry's approach will guarantee Iraq is still on the table in the 2008 Presidential debates ... and beyond ...

[Mass]

74. I already said many times that I dont believe in any other way than

an immediate withdrawal.

I dont see the difference between this proposal and Feingold, except that Kerry and Feingold have different speech patterns, which is, as far as I am concerned, the only withdrawal time table proposal. I have already said all the reservations I have with this approach on other threads and they dont change because Kerry makes the proposal. If you are thinking to another proposal, I would be happy to read it.

[welshTerrier2]

92. not sure i'm understanding you

i appreciate that you'er calling for withdrawal ... that's my position too ... what's confusing me is that earlier you said that you thought Kerry's new proposal is "completely in one of the three solutions" ...

i don't think that's true ... he certainly didn't call for immediate withdrawal or a referendum of the Iraqi people ... so those two are out ...

and while one might look at his guess of 12 - 15 months as a "timetable", i don't ... the option i referred to as a timetable was "NOT CONDITIONAL" on anything but the passage of time ... Kerry has tied his "timetable" to a series of yet-to-be-defined metrics ... the point is we have no idea how much time his timetable will take ... that's an open-ended occupation ...

the metrics for withdrawal have yet to be defined; i don't trust anyone who would measure those metrics once arrived at (i.e. bush will lie) and i don't think "stability" is achievable while the US remains in occupation ...

i see Kerry's approach as a mushy compromise that ultimately will be irrelevant ... if we all jumped on board with this proposal, we'd still be in Iraq in 10 years ... think of this idea in terms of Vietnam ... imagine if during the war in Vietnam, Kerry had said, once we see the South Vietnamese government taking over a larger and larger role and pushing the Viet Cong further north, we should begin a gradual reduction of our forces ... if that had been the plan, we'd still be there today !!!

Kerry needed to make his 12 - 15 months a hard date ... and no, you're right, i still wouldn't have agreed with it ... he needed to say that we should withdraw 25% of our troops every 3 months ... holding bush accountable means giving him deadlines to work to ... the "we have to achieve this much" requirement for withdrawal tells bush that if he achieves nothing, he can prolong the occupation ... how crazy is that ?????

[Mass]

94. Thanks for clarifying what you expect from a timetable

I just dont know anybody who proposes something like that. Do you?

[welshTerrier2]

96. timetables

not sure i'm familiar with the views of enough politicians to answer that ... the reality is that no one in the Senate supports any of the 3 viable options i listed ...

i have seen many posts on DU saying that they oppose immediate withdrawal because it would endanger the troops ... those people seemed to be supportive of a "timed" withdrawal over something like 6 to 9 months ...

my reference to Vietnam in my last post really highlights why i object to a solution-based, conditional withdrawal ... again, what if this same idea had been proposed for Vietnam ...

if the objectives can't be achieved, you'll be there forever ... to me, "conditional stability-based progress-dependent" withdrawal proposals may be well-intentioned but in reality they are open-ended calls for continued occupation ...

to me, "timetable" means based on the passage of time ... it is not a "timetable" to say something SHOULD be able to be achieved within some period of time; you need to say something MUST be achieved within that period of time ...

[Mass]

105. You stated the reasons why I dont believe in timetables anyway

You are right with your criticism, but MUST does not cut it either, because you can never know if the Bushies will not make this goal unachievable by messing up the situation so much that withdrawing will actually become impossible.


(This is why for me the SHOULD and MUST are more stylistic differences than anything else in this situation).

[MadHound]

45. Sorry John, but that shit simply doesn't fly.

How can you make the claim that you were misled when millions of your fellow citizens were not misled, and in fact were informing you of what the truth is? Whatever happened to doing your goddamn job, ie representing the collective will of your constituents? For if you had done your job, you wouldn't have voted for the IWR to begin with, after all, of the tens upon tens of thousands of messages that were pouring into Washington, they were running 268-1 against voting for the IWR.

Then there is the fact that there were millions of people, both here and abroad, who were out in the streets protesting against the IWR, what, you didn't notice that? And what about all those polls that consistently showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans didn't want to take any action, including voting on the IWR, until the inspectors had made their report.

If you were truly this ignorant, this criminally stupid that you honestly didn't see the truth, that you didn't pay attention to the message that millions of people were sending you, then you do not deserve to be in office and should resign immediately. This mealy mouth game of trying to shift the blame off your shoulders is bullshit. Either come clean and admit that you fucked up or get the hell out of the Senate.

Besides, if you were "fooled" on the IWR, why in the hell are you continuing to compound the mistake by voting for the the latest Iraq war funding of 81.9 billion? Why did you state last year during the campaign that you would have STILL voted for the IWR, even knowing then what you know now?

This is just more spin from Kerry who does a poor job of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He tries to placate the antiwar majority, while still enabling the killing at the behest of his corporate masters. Fuck Kerry, he may not have as much blood on his hands as Bushco, but he is indeed responsible for some of the death and destruction he unleashed with this illegal, immoral war.

[Mass]

52. For those who care to read more before judging.

I know that Kerry bashing is in on DU, but here is more on the speech.

As I said, Kerry's plan is very close to Feingold's plan (and I personnally have the same reservation I have with Feingold), but thrashing is not going to help anybody here.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/26/kerry_urges_post_election_troop_reduction_in_iraq/

[Mountainman]

64. You can't get passed the fact that Kerry voted for the IWR when we all

knew it was a lie. We can't just forget about it. It is right to call him on it.

[Mass]

69. He did and says now that he would not do it again and accepts part of the

blame.

And we did not all knew it was a lie. Many did not, in fact.

This said, I was opposed to the IWR and mad at Kerry for that. Does that mean that I will not read anything he writes because of that: No of course.

Does that mean I am going to distort what he said as some do here: No of course.

This is what the problem is. It is a loss of time and energy that is harmful. There are things to be criticized on what Kerry said today. There are issues with a timetable for a withdrawal. What is it that people are bothered discussing about with that? Could it be because their preferred person does not call for an immediate withdrawal either? (with the exception of Kucincich's supporters of course).

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. There were 23 Senators that were NOT misled, and knew it was a crock

of sh*t. If they knew, Mr. Kerry, and I even knew Mr. Kerry, why didn't you????

[nolabels]

75. Leaders lead, followers follow

Which one is Mr Kerry?

If you follow him he is your leader and that should be okay on some level with everybody. Yet that does not make him mine or anybody else's leader if they do not subscribe. Many a poster here follow no one but often run with the pack. Agreeing to being able to disagree is only civilized :shrug:

[Presstitutes]

66. PLEASE RE-READ ORIGINAL POST

and original link for more details on Kerry's plan

[Mass]

70. Who cares? Kerry bashing is the latest fade on DU.

[robbedvoter]

84. No dear, he is quite irrelevant. Today it's Fitzmas - who gives a rat's

a* about kerry's opportunistic twists?

[seabeyond]

97. because everyone dissing him is yelling at him and all the others

to SAY something. he does and you dismiss it. odd, odd behavior. being a mom, i can multi task well. both plame and what kerry says today

[Sparkman]

109. Proximity of indict's has me giddy, and MORE political: Kerry /Edwards!

Now that 23 months have passed, IMAGINE how different our world would have been with them at the helm!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

85. "One issue" nuts, Mass... Pay no attention.

Sure the war in Iraq is an enormous issue, but so is the way America is run at home, and its policy with regard to the rest of the world, apart from Iraq.

They want to rave about positions on Iraq that they allege JK took in the past? Tough! True or false, it's irrelevant. He has made his position now abundantly clear, and it's a whole lot better than any alternative on offer I've read of. Get out asap, causing minimum harm to all parties.

First priority should be the economy (and a smooth and expeditious withdrawal from Iraq will of course be a very substantial component of a recovering economy), since human beings are not pure spirits, and need bodily sustenance and protection from the elements. That means employment and appropriate remuneration for all. Obviously, not achieved overnight, given the state of the nation! But so many other things, besides.

[napi21]

71. So NOW he decides to say what he should have said during the

Campaign! Now, when it's politically correct?

Sorry folks, it's too late!

It's good of him to say this now, but it's NOT going to get him another nomination.

[Sparkman]

111. W/O reading ALL other threads....has anyone here wanted JK in 2008?

[robbedvoter]

73. Better late than never...In 10 years he'll tell us he won the election!

Why, John, when did this epiphany just came to you? What did it? Treasongate? Poll numbers? W challenged you to say it during the campaign - you still would have voted for war. You picked the runningmate who was PROUD of his vote for war and would have invaded Iraq if president.
At least Harkin said he was sorry. ARE YOU? 2000 families want to know.

[sidwill]

87. Its not "Kerry bashing"

to point out that Kerry could never effectively articualte his Iraq position with clarity.

Kerry was always "technically" dead on in his assesment of Iraq, but he never could or WOULD say it in a way that clearly differentiated his position from Bush's. He also never attempted to LEAD the country away from the war culture its currently stuck in and in fact embraced the war culture by trying to play Johnny war hero at the convention.

Basically we had two candidates selling the same flavor of "Iraq cream" with only one who was speaking strongly to his base.

[Tatiana]

99. Good to see him taking steps toward making amends for that bad vote.

Honestly, it's probably the growing anti-war sentiment that is causing him to go in this direction.

Again, how did we as average lay people see the truth, and our Senators/Congresspersons did not? There is no excuse. We knew what Bush was up to and they did too.

They were just afraid to get Cleland'ed.

[AztecGringo]

103. Who CARES?

Kerry is like most politicians, a political whore...Yes, I voted for him as the lesser of two evils, but, in my humble opinion, to view him as the answer to lead our country towards a more righteous future is ridiculous.

He, too, voted for the Iraq War and seems to me to lean towards wherever the wind of political expediency carries him.

As for me, it looks like 2008 will be another choice for the lesser of two evils.....

[FreedomAngel82]

110. Go Kerry!

And remember what George Bush said??

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W Bush (R-TX)

I wish a democrat would go on all the programs and use these republicans words against them. Such as this nice little gem.