Kerry Supports War Propoganda

[MrSoundAndVision]

There was a story on Yahoo! ealier this morning (and presumably now buried in it's archives) that the Senate voted overwhelmingly (96-4) to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria, those opposed include Sen. Byrd, who we all know and love, the famous Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and a couple of Republican senators whose names I can't remember. So where the hell is John Kerry's name in that list of dissidents?

Also included was a provision allowing the president to waive any and all individual components of the sanctions HE sees in the national interest to do so. The US does $300 million in business with Syria, the article states. Consider: if executives of these companies doing the business with Syria hold a Bush fundraiser at, say, $2000 a plate, and their are ten companies which do this, that could gain the Bush campaign a lot of money. Then maybe Bush will allow this or that company to do business with Syria, "as he sees fit."

Being the only Presidential candidate who is also a member of the Senate, one might expect John Kerry not to contribute to the Bush propoganda machine's SPIN that the Iraqi resistance movement against this illegal war is composed of Syrian and Iranian terrorists, not actually the people who have the boot on their neck. This SPIN is quite a stretch to say the least, and it's part of a wider propoganda campaign designed to at least convince American's that this is part of the war on terrorism. So why is John Kerry complicit? Or more importantly, why the hell is Tom Daschle voting to impose sanctions on Syria?

We need to challenge these establishment Democrats just as we challenge the Republicans, because they are ruining this country too.

[KC21304]

1. Leiberman and Edwards resigned ? Well, I'll be darned.

[JI7]

2. uhhhhh, ever hear of edwards,lieberman ?

kerry is not the only member of senate who is running. and who do you support and where does that candidate stand on the issue of relations with syria ?

[wtmusic]

6. Dean agrees with Kerry, but...

This is from May '03:

Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean today joined Senator John Kerry in calling upon President Bush to pressure Syria and Lebanon amidst allegations of money laundering.

"Senator Kerry is correct: President Bush must address the concerns about possible money laundering by Syria immediately," said Governor Dean. "Given the long history of terrorist organizations operating in Syria, we cannot afford to take chances when $1 billion may be working its way into the coffers of terrorist organizations."

This deal about * exempting special-interest transactions is bullshit. You either stand behind the process or you don't. The bill says financing terrorism is OK as long as my campaign supporters make a healthy profit. How hypocritical is that?

[walkon]

3. 96-4

Are we already a one-party nation? This means that all Democrats from the Senate running for President support what * is doing in the ME. I cannot get my head around that. BTW, aren't Edwards and Lieberman Senators? And also, not running, Hillary Clinton?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Saudade]

5. Why

This is why the Kerry campaign is going down in flames.

We don't want someone who lacks the guts to stand up to the worst, most dangerous President in US History.

Kerry has been a gigantic disappointment, and now he's paying the price.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Aren't you a Kucinich supporter? Kucinich missed the vote on this bill

just like Kerry did. They neither voted for it nor against it. What was your point again?

House roll call vote #543: http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=543

Senate roll call vote #445: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00445

By the way, Lieberman also did not vote. Edwards did indeed vote Yea.

[sandnsea]

8. Are terrorists real?

Do they exist in Syria? Do those terrorists cause havoc in Israel? Is it possible funds from Syria are being funneled into whoever is resisting in Iraq? Should we fight terrorism or not? Considering Kerry wrote a book about money laundering and illegal activities around the world, is it possible he just might know how this works and how dangerous it is for all of us?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Let's not forget that the basic premise of this thread is FALSE.

The Senate did not pass this 96-4 and Kerry didn't vote for it.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00445



So we are discussing a phantom.

[sandnsea]

10. Still

The premise of my questions is the same. It has to do with alot more than just this vote. It's the whole idea that the Democrats are supposed to fight every single thing Bush suggests just because Bush suggests it. That's no way to get down to serious debates about which candidate's views are best for the country if every issue has to start with whether Bush was for it or against it.

[helleborient]

11. One of the things I find particularly troubling and odd in the

War on Terrorism is this notion that somehow terrorism didn't really exist before September 11.

I listened to Dick Gephardt on NPR yesterday. In what I thought was generally a positive interview for him, he said that he thought a President with experience as a Washington insider was particularly important now because there is terrorism and the economy is in trouble.

Um...didn't terrorism exist in the world when Bill Clinton was running for President?

Who exactly killed the Israeli athletes in Munich at the 1972 Olympics?

Terrorism as a real world concern is nothing new whatsoever. Americans who travel overseas have had this as a significant concern for 30 years. Terrorism here at home has been a real issue with the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, and those who murder abortion doctors. September 11 didn't start terrorism or concern about it for the U.S.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. The meme - everthing changed because of the Reichstag fire,

I mean the 9-11 attacks, is definately one of the most potent false arguments we are facing.


I haven't heard any candidate challenge it, however.

[Kolesar]

13. Planes were hijacked "to Cuba" every month when I was young

Ok, I don't have the statistics so it may not have been monthly, but hijackings were quite common in the United States about thirty years ago.

And outside of hijackings, a History Channel special reported that there were seventy terrorist incidents in Italy in one year about thirty years ago.

70!

[no name no slogan]

14. Totally agree with you there

The world DID NOT change on 9/11. The only thing that happened was that one of the biggest exporters of terror in the world had a suffered a terrorist attack within its own borders.

We also declared a "war on terror" in 1985, after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. And we did much of the same things we're doing now, too.

98% of Americans have this head-up-my-ass mentality that our actions at home and abroad don't foster terrorism. Our dismal record on supporting corrupt authoritarian regimes and so-called "freedom fighters" around the world speaks VOLUMES on why so many people on this planet want to see us destroyed.

Interestingly enough, Syria has been one of our best allies in fighting al-Qaeda. They have shared copious amounts of information and have helped the CIA track down a number of AQ operatives. Go figure.

[sandnsea]

15. Hitler existed before Dec 7

But that changed everything, even though Germany didn't attack us. Being attacked the way we were on Sept 11 changed terrorism from an inconvenience to an emergency. We certainly don't have to go to the extremes Bush and Ashcroft have chosen to go, but we can't poo poo it away either. It would be foolish for this country in any event, but it would be absolute suicide for the Democratic Party.

[George_Bonanza]

16. If Feanor is right, then do your research MrSoundAnd Vision

You have already come off strongly anti-Kerry in the "I don't care if Kerry's campaign stinks!" thread. And here, you bite the media tripe of Kerry being an untrustworthy establishment candidate. If being an establishment candidate means being an understudy to Ted Kennedy, a hardcore environmentalist, a lifelong supporter of civil rights, and a lifelong supporter of personal conviction and courage in the battlefield, in the senate, and in the operating room, then we need more establishment candidates than we need hapless outsiders.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Even if Kucinich and Kerry had voted on this bill

let's note that not only did it only receive 4 nays in the Senate, it received only 4 nays in the House. As I mentioned before, neither Kerry, Kucinich or Lieberman voted on it. Edwards voted Yea. I certainly don't know the details of this bill, I haven't read it, I don't know enough to know how I would have voted on it, but between these lopsided margins and the false facts we've been presented with, MrS&V's attack seems quite out of line.


House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=543
Senate vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00445

US Senate approves sanctions on Syria
<snip>
The White House, which in principle opposes moves by Congress to restrict diplomatic options in dealing with problematic relations, has gone from opposing the Syria Bill to accepting it as inevitable.

<snip>

The US has long complained that Syria gives sanctuary to leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two Palestinian groups designated as terrorist organisations by the State Department.

The Bill states that Syria must end its support for terrorism and its 13-year military occupation of Lebanon by withdrawing its 20,000 troops, stop efforts to buy or make weapons of mass destruction and long- range ballistic missiles and stop terrorists and weapons from entering Iraq.

As we are becoming accustomed to, Byrd strikes the only cautionary note:

Senator Robert Byrd, a long-serving member of the US Congress and outspoken critic of US military policy in the Middle East, said the Bill would be misused by US policy makers to justify future military action against Damascus.

He said sections of the Bill 'build a case against Syria, and I fear that those provisions could later be used to build a case for a military intervention'.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,219704,00.html

I'll admit that for me, Byrd's argument would be pretty convincing. I certainly don't want to stick up for Hamas and Islamic Jihad or in favor of Syria's occupation of Lebanon, but I don't think this is the time to escalate things with another country. But if Dennis Kucinich had shown up and voted on this bill, it would have changed nothing, just like the vote Kerry didn't cast.