John Kerry, it is not about winning.

[Skidmore]

I disagree with you. There is no winning this illegal war. We have lost something much more important. If we need to win something, it is to win back our integrity, our rights, and our honor. Many of you sat in those chamber in Washington and voted to give the power of the people to this maniacal idiot. Did any of you stop to listen to the outcry before that vote took place? Did any one of you consider the precedent it was setting or the policy you were endorsing by surrendering the powers that belong to the people? I sat here in the middle of Iowa's cornfields and understood that we were being lied to, without seeing the raw intelligence handed to * and without reviewing the analysis of the raw data handed to you. Between the insult that is the Patriot Act and this debacle in Iraq, the best service the legislature can do is to return power to the people. Now that would be a win.

[blm]

1. Kerry said we can only succeed politically, not militarily.

It has has gone beyond hope of any military win and that is what he's stressing.

[Skidmore]

4. Something that America cannot achieve; there is no winning

of this war for this nation. By any stretch of the imagination.

[blm]

7. POLITICAL achievement, not military war.

Please read what he ACTUALLY said and what he EMPHASIZED above all else.

[Skidmore]

9. blm, I undrestand the distinction you are making. However,

a political win is not something that America can accomplish in Iraq. A political win can only be accomplished by the Iraqi people themselves. They cannot be forced to it, lied to it, or bribed to it. They must have the will to do this for themselves. It is a strawman, just like the arguments about them being able to stand their own army.

We lost this war before it began. The moment that those war powers were handed to Little Boots.

There is no winning this war on any level.

[blm]

11. Where does Kerry say force them, lie to them or bribe them?

Have you ever read Kerry's plan?

It's full of EARNEST proposals which he put forth after consulting with commanders on the ground and many members of Iraq's Parliament who want withdrawal.

Even Tom Hayden said Kerry's plan was doable and he is as staunch an antiwar person as there is.

Why change the meaning of what Kerry has said and proposed?

[Skidmore]

13. Where did I say that Kerry said or proposed that?

These are the means the administration has used and they haven't worked. My point was that the Iraqis need to do this for themselves.

Quite frankly, after listening to both administration and legislative representatives over the past week, I am equally disgusted. I don't care what they have to say at this point. It is all CYA. NONE of this needed to happen and could have been prevented by not voting to surrender the war powers to begin with. Nothing can make this war go away, and these people need to do more than mea culpas and make pretty speeches to atone for the deaths and destruction they have wrought.

[ProSense]

15. But your the title of your thread says Kerry.

Kerry's plan does calls for the Iraqis to do this themselves. So now the real issue is the IWR?

[Skidmore]

16. The real issue has always been the IWR, as far as I am concerned.

Did you read my original post completely? I believe I was discussing that vote in it.

[blm]

21. Answer this: If IWR is to blame then Bush is NOT to blame, right?

Because Bush is just following the IWR, right?

FACT: The IWR would have prevented war if implemented HONESTLY. The weapons inspections should have been the only intel operable from the moment the inspectors started reporting back to the UN and Bush with real time reporting of the facts on the ground.

[Skidmore]

26. In the lead up to that vote, * harped on the theme that Saddam

was so dangerous only removing him could prevent the world from blowing up. * was dishonest, but so was Congress. They washed their hands of it so it wouldn't interfere with the upcoming election. I remember screaming at the tv when Gephardt announced the support for this move. It was a cynical, political calculation on both sides. Both Dems and Rs share responsibility.

[blm]

29. Blame IWR and Bush is off the hook. It's not Bush failing to implement

the IWR guidelines honestly, it's IWR that forced Bush to war, there were no guidelines in it for Bush - Bush had to invade Iraq.

That's certainly the way the media likes to spin it, but why should HONEST Dems blame a resolution that most certainly would have PREVENTED WAR if its guidelines had been followed by any other president?

[ProSense]

28. This was a response to your previous post

The point is still valid: by saying it's not about winning to Kerry and mentioning the IWR you atrribute Kerry with advocating that objective and with starting the war. That's not what happened. He didn't start the war and he's not saying we need to stay, fight and win.

[Skidmore]

30. * and the Congress both had alot to do with starting the war,

either actively or passively. I get really upset when I hear Dems use *world jargon to address this war and its potential outcome. The idea of talking about "winning" at all, in any sense, makes me nauseous. He is still calling for some sort of CYA, when our hiney's have been flapping in the breeze for four years now.

You know, when the saber rattling and medal burnishing takes place, and people criticize Clinton for sitting out Viet Nam, I have one response. The man had the courage of his convictions and wasn't afraid to state his reason for not fighting. Well, I do hold our party responsible for its unwillingness to stake and stand on the moral high ground.

[ProSense]

32. OK

you're against the term winning.

Kerry had the courage of conviction to stand up and expose the atrocities he saw in Vietnam.

[blm]

17. And that is why Kerry's plan is different than Bush's and based on earnest

proposals.

You are wrong about the IWR - it did not take us to war. IWR would have prevented war if it was administered by any other president.

Bush was going in with or without the IWR based on the original 1991 UN resolution.

The IWR put the inspectors back in and it was THE INSPECTORS', on the ground, real time intel that Bush was supposed to use to make his decision in good faith - he lied ON HIS OWN when he said our national security depended on invading Iraq after the inspections were proving otherwise.

Blaming the IWR instead of Bush for not adhering to the guidelines in the IWR is very convenient...FOR BUSH.

[bigtree]

2. exactly

I heard him refer to an American victory in Iraq. I couldn't disagree with him more. Any 'success' will have to come to Iraqis before it is at all significant. Success for Americans will be when all of our troops are home.

BTW, Kerry did listen. IWR was not a licence to commit forces. That authority lies in the War Powers Act which gives the president the power to commit forces without any imput from Congress until a number of weeks when he has to present them with an explanation. At that time Congress would either have to cut funding for the troops or ratify the president's action. Given the balance of power in Congress, the only imput, the only levers Democrats had were a 'no' vote or language (which was included with Kerry's and other's insistence) which attempted to place limits on the president's authority. The president exceeded the authority of the resolution by failing to exhaust all peaceful means and failing to return to the U.N. Security Council. Presidential power to commit forces is so great that the president violated his own resolution with impunity, without fear of rebuke, especially from his republican Senate and House. The IWR no more gave Bush authority to do what he did, invade and occupy Iraq, than the subsequent 'emergency' authorizations (the first voted against by Sen. Kerry)

Look to Kerry's speeches before and after his vote and you will find a consistent opposition to Bush's ultimate course. To suggest that as a Senator in the minority he could have stopped Bush is not true. To doubt his words and explanations of his motives is legitimate, but they contradict any assertion that he supported anything Bush did in his invasion and occupation of Iraq, before and after the IWR.

[blm]

5. Then you heard it wrong. He stressed POLITICAL SUCCESS and specified

that military success can NOT be achieved.

[bigtree]

18. Well I just heard him answering questions

I heard what you say he said, but I also heard him refer to an American victory. For whatever reason, he wants to portray our involvement there as a success in the end, if there is to be one. He goes out of his way to stress that his is a plan for victory, this scaled back force he sees us employing after the next 'election' and beyond is supposed to facilitate cooperation politically from factions there, or something like that. And afterwards, peace happens. But that is not a realistic portrait he paints of an aftermath or even of a probable future in the short term. When we leave, there will be a struggle for control without our heavy hand. If we wait for a coalition to rescue us we will never leave. The soldiers are there for what then? What will our soldiers do? Bush has them out on another insurgent raid. What specifically does he want our soldiers to do? Right now they are propping up the ruling faction of the new government, our military doing their bidding. One man's insurgent is another's . . . There will always be some 'mission' that Bush will dream up for these troops to keep them there. And here's Kerry, forced to rationalize that his intent in withdrawing is the success of the mission. What about, we,ve failed and there's nothing more that our military can accomplish? It's time to come home. No strings. I think Americans can take that. It's not like we think we're winning anything there.

[1620rock]

3. Well said.

[sui generis]

6. skidmore you said EXACTLY what was on my mind

that was excellent.

:yourock:

[ProSense]

8. Where does Kerry say he wants to stay and fight a war?

He's calling for full withdrawal.

[Skidmore]

10. Please read what I have said carefully. I have given my

viewpoint 3 times on this thread. Victory, even in a metaphorical sense, is not something this nation has a right to claim.

[ProSense]

12. I'll leave it up to others

to decide how they want to view full withdrawal. Get the troops out.

[MH1]

22. Well, that's a sure loser for Dems at the ballot box.

Like it or not.

I haven't had time to analyze your points vs what Kerry said or didn't say, but I'm fairly certain that Americans will never accept "losing."

It may suck for an idealist, but sometimes words need to be parsed and applied with some sense as to how they'll be interpreted by the audience.

Or, we could just let republicans continue to rule this country and drive it ever deeper into the moral abyss. THAT will make things better for lots of people in this world, won't it?


(oh, and don't take my words and put them into Kerry's mouth, as some like to do on DU - I am only speaking my own opinion here, I have no idea if this has anything to do with why Kerry spoke the way he did.)

[LittleClarkie]

14. Here was my take, esp after hearing Rush talk about backpedalling

Rush was spinning to save his life. The Dems are backpedaling he cried.

I guess that is a Republican tactic. Mistate your opponents position, then when they correct you, call them a flip flopper.

"Cut and Run! They just want to withdraw in disgrace and leave our allies hanging! They hate America! They want us to lose! They want our soldiers to die!"

So here comes Kerry saying that the Dems never said cut and run, or withdraw in disgrace. What they are suggesting is a way to get out while leaving something intact behind them, using diplomacy, setting goals and benchmarks, with an ultimate goal of having most if not all of our troops out by the end of next year.

Rush meanwhile is still spinning that our Dems just want to "cut and run". To correct OxyBoy and the Republicans is not to be a flip flopper, or a back-pedaller.

The goal is to leave behind a stable Iraq able to defend itself. The goal is not to run screaming out of the place tomorrow leaving whatever mess there is in our wake.

I thought it was a good counterspin myself.

[Skidmore]

20. Good counterspin, yes. But the stain of this war on the

nation is something that will not disappear and will leave repercussions for many years to come. I understand what he was saying and the political implications of it, but I believe the grievance done to our nation and the world is so huge that any fix is cosmetic or a bandaid fix. This war was so immoral and undertaken in such a politically calculating way on both sides of the aisle.

[LittleClarkie]

34. I will admit that the one thing wrong with the Kerry plan is that

Kerry ain't there to impliment it.

I think he is just trying to redefine "winning". Winning in this case will be to get the fuck out without to much of a fubar left behind us.

We also can't let the Republicans spin us into irrelevancy, so in that way, sucky though it may be, we have to counterframe and/or counterspin.

We can't let Bush recover from his tailspin. We need a Dem majority in Congress before we can do ANYTHING to stop these people. Right now, it's just "look, we have a plan" time.

Here's a nice bit from Ed Schultz though. Remember that Bush wouldn't even be talking specifics, wouldn't even be talking about any kind of withdrawl, except for two people:

Cindy Sheehan

and

John Murtha.

Good on them.

[Skidmore]

36. Absolutely.

"Remember that Bush wouldn't even be talking specifics, wouldn't even be talking about any kind of withdrawl, except for two people:

Cindy Sheehan

and

John Murtha.

Good on them."

--------

This is why when the usual suspects on our side of the aisle start speechifying now, I just want to scream. What took them so long? One death was too many. They had to wait till it was 2000 and then some before they decided to stand up and be counted. God bless Cindy & John Murtha, and include Kuicinich, Barbara Lee, and a few other courageous souls in that blessing.

[Lexingtonian]

19. stop overreacting, please

You make this funny assumption that he's trying to convince people like you and me of what Iraq policy should be. And you protest because he doesn't make you feel like you own the power. If I understand your logic, the most righteous people deserve all the power...is that really a political principle you want to elect people on and have them govern by?

The people who all the politicking is about at the moment, the people Bush is trying to get back and that Kerry is trying to get to defect, is not Democrats of any stripe. Or Indies. It's moderate Republicans that everyone is talking to. The stakes are so high- destruction of the present fragile Republican Party coalition if/when the moderate wing walks away on Iraq- that Democrats like Kerry would be fools to not drive the wedge.

It's not about you. It's not about John Kerry's career, all you selfimportant twits who spend all your energy whining about how he never seems to meet your oh-so-precious need not to feel powerless. This game is about him (and a lesser degree Hillary) putting the fatal hole in the bottom of the Republican boat. Howard Dean's job is make Democrats feel like winners, that's how the partition of labor in the Party is.

[MH1]

23. Good post. n/t

[Skidmore]

25. I disagree strongly. The constitution gives the power of war to

the PEOPLE, not the executive. The people have been actively stripped of power on many levels over the past 5 years. It is about all of us. If this war isn't an egregious enough affront, I suppose we should remain content to lie down and be run over for generations to come. There is a very basic wrong that has been done to the nation and to the peoples of the world here. *'s war is clearly his war; but it does not absolve those in decisionmaking positions at the time of their contribution to consent, either overt or passive.

As for sinking the Rs battleship, they should never have handed the keys to the battleship to the teenager to begin with.

[Lexingtonian]

39. Well, if you haven't noticed

the 2004 elections gave Bush no mandate, only a weak benefit-of-the-doubt edge based on a desire for no new initiatives or battles. He was tasked with just finishing the things already on the national plate. The Republican mandate (aka 'political capital') there was to the election comes out of their additional 4 seats in the Senate and stalemate in the House. The power to initiate things went over to Congress.

As a bottom line, Bush won the office of President in '04, yet he lost the Presidency's power of initiative, i.e. domination of federal power, to Congress in the process. In which Kerry still is, btw, and leading the Iraq wedge effort.

So the '04 election de facto devolved the dominant power in the land from the Presidency to Congress. Congress is both somewhat less and far more sensitive to public opinion shifts than the Presidency, by design, and its exercising control of federal power is something people haven't experienced since 1995 imho. So it feels unfamiliar.

So you think you're in a fight with an Imperial Presidency and abhor John Kerry. I'd like to point out that John Kerry's campaign ruined this Imperial Presidency and the locus of control federal power became Congress. And control of Congress involves some form of compromise between public opinion and the number of seats held by the partisans.

You're now essentially advocating further devolution of power from Congress down to The People, which average people for all their emotions probably are incapable of handling at the moment (and admit, in their sober moments). Or you want it reevolving to a de facto Democratic Presidency, which I think you are really saying between the lines, though reality puts an awful lot of obstacles between the present condition of things and that.

[Skidmore]

42. I'm advocating that the people get their government under

control and make it work for them.

[jenndar]

43. I really like the concept you articulated here.

I hadn't thought about the impact of 2004 election on the separation of powers. Your insights are really impressive - not to mention, as far as I've observed, pretty accurate.

[seabeyond]

45. damn, you are smart. i am going to listen to you more often

i really emjoyed htose couple of posts of yours. thank you

[BlueIris]

49. Nice!

It's nice to know some of our smarter posters are paying attention.

[Kazak]

24. No noms yet?

Well, allow me.

[Skidmore]

27. Thank you for your support.

I must not be making my point clearly, because I have to keep repeating myself.

[loyalsister]

31. The elephant in the room

is that both parties are in on the pipe dream of "bringing Democracy to the Iraqi people."
There is still no recognition that our brand of Democracy may not necessarily be consistent with their culture. We are trying to bring these three tribes together, force separation of Church and state, women's rights, etc.
I don't think that they are interested in a form of government I would want to live under, but there are cultural influences that we are refusing to respect altogether.
The worst part is we have it backwards. We seem to believe that if we "allow them" to maintain shreds of their Islamic history and culture it will breed terrorism.
When the fact is, not respecting the desire to preserve some part of that history leads to the resentment that breeds terrorism and prolongs this war.
The entire war strategy is based on abolishing portions of their culture and implementing ours. It's not going to work.
Someone needs to start talking about THAT.

[Skidmore]

33. Thank you, sister. Absolutely right on target.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. No one cared about 'bringing Democracy' to the Iraqi people before

bushco launched their preemptive illegal and immoral War on Iraq, did they? The reasons for attacking Iraq have changed so much, it's a wonder Americans of all stripes don 't call for impeachment of those who authorized it, in any manner.

[Skidmore]

37. More precisely, no one cared about it until they couldn't continue

to say that they were close to finding WMDs.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. Well, exactly! You were more precise than I was, the results being the

same!

[emulatorloo]

40. do you mean GEORGE LAKOFF, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE FRAMING?

I mean really, give me a break. We have been beaten over the head with Lakoff and Framing, and now you want to play Semantic Cop with John Kerry over his use of WINNING to FRAME a POLITICAL SOLUTION to the Iraq Mess rather than more of Bush's BS military nonsense.

Kerry's Plan is nothing like Bush Boy. But Kerry is Smart Enough to Frame His Plan with a nice positive word.

[Skidmore]

41. Give ME a break. Where do any of the Dems who

refused to stand up before this war get off in your estimation? Why should they be given a pass as well? Are we moral relativists now when it comes to death and war? I've been angry with these people for several years now. * I detest, loathe, hate, abhor, you name it, with an intensity I never believed possible for me. Let's at least be honest in the framing of the debate.

[Usrename]

44. Victory is not impossible but the real enemy must be exposed.

I don't think the Islamic world was much impressed by the 'shock and awe' or even the capture of Saddam.

Impeachment and a trial in the Hague would be a different thing, I think. Our enemies and allies would be impressed by our power. Hell, I would be impressed for a change.

When people (like Kerry) refuse to see the seriousness of our situation, then it does become more hopeless. He has no articulated plan for winning.

[ginnyinWI]

46. here is the plan

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248663

It is detailed and articulate.

[Usrename]

47. What about the U.S. companies that are there making money?

Get the soldiers out, look around for the next Pol Pot, secure the oil fields, bomb the shit out of anyone who comes near them....

I can't really see the plan. What is the plan?

How can ANY real plan fail to address Haliburton? It just can't, IMHO.

The war in Iraq is going very well for some folks. Couldn't get any better for them. What about those people?

I think they must be overthrown, by us. We must take back our country.

[Skidmore]

50. Exactly what is the "seriousness of our situation." Much of the

mess were in is of our own making over the past 70 years. Our middle easter policy has been to try to divide an conquer. We supported the state of Israel to purposefully keep the Arabs divided. We exploited the resources of the region while keeping the peoples in mind-numbing poverty while propping up corrupt and despotic monarchies, miliatary strongmen, and venal dictators. Little surprise that they are angry with us. What needs to occur is a serious revamping of our nation's policies. Our enemies are not the peoples of this area of the world, but their leaders and ours many times, who set out to keep the average person ignorant and economically subservient.

[Usrename]

51. Exactly as you say.

The long version goes like this:

We are entering a period of lawlessness that I feel is very similar to what occured in Germany in the late thirties. I wasn't there, but laws were enforced in a systematic manner that made a complete mockery of any concept of justice. We are THERE now.

At least that is the way it seems to us in this country. Teetering on the brink of fascism. To the rest of the enlightened world, we fell precipitously over that cliff with the occupation of Iraq. They are watching us suck the rest of the world down with us.

A couple examples to illustrate: Martha Stuart does time for no underlying criminal act, but for lying to investigators. Kenny Boy and Schilling and that crowd have yet to be charged with a single crime. Scooter is charged with lying to investigators and the White House says its politics. As if the country has a long history of exposing it's own spies. Nuke the Senate to preserve the right to an up or down vote. What President has ever been given the courtesy of an up or down vote on all their nominees? Not even George Washington!

Do you see a theme? There are millions of other examples, Diebold, Bush v. Gore, etc., etc. But here is what I think the plan was for the Katrina aftermath. Withhold water and food for several days until all civilization broke down in New Orleans. People would loose it and the shooting and looting would be justified. Marshal Law and no one leaves. Cholera or some other disease is detected. Quarantine.

Tight security on the quarantine. Three or four levels of access. No one in or out except the propagandists. Eventually (by now) the survivors would be starting to come out, fully debriefed with Stockholm syndrome, cured of all disease. They would be praising Bush for doing a 'heck of a job' and rescuing them from a hell that was New Orleans. The city would be deemed contaminated and given to Halliburton. Americans would be thankful and relieved to have such a great leader.

Too many people woke up! Many, especially the media propagandists tried to focus on Dems and corrupt locals as the culprits. Didn't ever get legs. I think the denials of racism helped open the eyes of the public. Odd, since racism had been such a large factor in contributing to the invasion of Iraq. I guess there's racism, and then there's racism.

So, the "seriousness of the situation" is they are way down in the polls. Something is being planned to change this. People are now very skeptical of this Administration. An assassination attempt would seem fishy and might not fly too well (remember Regan was shot). Jerking the threat levels around like they used to do just isn't working anymore either.

They will do something. Fatal pretzel accident? Blame the accident on Hugo Chavez? Bomb Venezuela? Or invade China! Who knows what they will do! They will not stop, they will not police themselves, they're victory will be complete unless they are stopped.

Bush's reign has been the largest transfer of wealth in a long time, maybe ever. They will not just fade into the sunset. Or will they.

[yurbud]

48. I don't blame Kerry but he knew Iraq was not a threat and either agreed

with the real goals of the war, controlling what will be the last oil producing region of the world.

or he is playing a very long game of chess and trying not be be checkmated by a car accident, plane crash, or double shotgun blast suicide early in the game.

Even without access to the same intel as Bush, as a veteran, he would know that even with a a couple of dozen nukes, Saddam would be no threat to us. If he got off a lucky shot and landed a nuke here,or gave one to terrorists that they detonated here, he knew that he and his country would be heated to a million degrees and hole dug where Iraq used to be before he even got word if the attack was successful. Evil and stupid are not the same. That was the whole algebra of the Cold War, and anyone over 40 has no excuse for forgetting it.


I, like most people here, sincerely hope Kerry is playing chess, that he is working for our best interests behind the scenes.

The evidence for it is scant though, and as we saw in the 2004 election, putting our eggs in that basket didn't get us very far.

We have to work as if people like Kerry aren't with us, and if they turn out be, accept it as a pleasant surprise.