To those who've accused Kerry of wanting to 'stay the course' on Iraq

[Feanorcurufinwe]

I don't think we will ever stop hearing from those who accuse Kerry of being PNAC=lite, of wanting to maintain permanent bases and a permanent troop presence, but I wanted to point this out so that when they chime in, you will know that they are lying.

Asked his timetable for pulling troops out of Iraq, Mr. Kerry told a few hundred people in Canonsburg, Pa.: "My goal would be to get them home in my first term. And I believe that can be done." He said he would make it clear that "we do not have long-term designs to maintain bases and troops in Iraq."

Mr. Kerry has said he could replace most, but not all, American troops with foreign forces within four years by offering new inducements to other countries.

"When they talk about a coalition - that's the phoniest thing I ever heard," Mr. Kerry said of the current array of foreign soldiers deployed in Iraq. "You've got 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war.

"It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/politics/campaign/07campaign.html?pagewanted=all&position=

[BJ]

1. Let us hope the "liberal" media gets this out there.

I saw a clip on the early morning news so I hope it's around at dinner time.

[A_Possum]

2. inducements, no military bases, some decent diplomacy

Has Bush got ANY kind of plan? Or are we just supposed to keep on like this for 4 more years, with car bombs and insurgents and small arms fire and withdrawing from this or that town?

I haven't heard squat about anything actually going ANYWHERE in Iraq??

[babylonsister]

3. Unfortunately,

it's looking like *'s future plan might be to invade Iran. Now wouldn't THAT be just swell? As my brother used to say, "What a doofus!"

[Nederland]

4. Its not lying

Just to be clear, I was in favor of the war and agree with Kerry's position on it.

However, apparently you don't understand that nobody here is saying that Kerry's position is exactly the same as Bush's. What they are saying is that the difference between Kerry's position and Bush's is merely, irony intended, a nuanced difference. If Dean or Kucinich were the candidate there would be no doubt as to where they stood on the war and how their position was different from Bush's. With Kerry, you have to dig fairly deep to understand exactly how his position differs. Unfortunately, digging deep is not something the average voter is going to do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Please don't try and guess at what I understand and what I don't.

Instead of responding to something I didn't say: somebody here is saying that Kerry's position is exactly the same as Bush's., why don't you try responding to something I did say?


Your response is a good illustration of the kind of essentially dishonest arguments I find so reprehensible.

[Nederland]

8. Fair Enough

I don't think we will ever stop hearing from those who accuse Kerry of being PNAC=lite

Kerry's position is PNAC-lite because unlike other Democratic candidates, his position differs from Bush's is subtle, nuanced ways.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Thanks for stating your true opinion. Just because it is obviously wrong

in most people's eyes is not a reason to hide it.

[Nederland]

14. Missing the point

The problem for the Kerry campaign is that you cannot explain why Kerry voted the way he did and how is position is significantly different from Bush's in a 30 second commercial. That's the point. You can defend his position all you want. You can even be right. The thing you cannot do is convince the average voter that there is a significant difference between Kerry and Bush on the war. You can't do this because the average voter has the attention span of a goldfish. With Dean or Kucinich it would have been easy, with Kerry its not.

The proof that I am right lies in looking at how DU and the media talks about this issue. You cannnot honestly tell me that if Dean were the nominee that we would be having this conversation. We wouldn't be having this conversation because the differences between Dean's war position and Bush's is obvious. With Kerry: not so much.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Avoiding the point -- which is, it is totally untrue to accuse Kerry

of being PNAC-lite.

Now there is nothing in DU rules against stating falsehoods, so your statement (Kerry's position is PNAC-lite) doesn't violate DU rules, even though it is totally false and without factual foundation.

Similarly, just because something is a RW talking point such as I've heard Marc Racicot or Tucker Carlson state repeatedly (e.g. The problem for the Kerry campaign is that you cannot explain why Kerry voted the way he did ) doesn't make it against the rules to repeat it on DU, either.

Personally, I would say on this issue, the bigger problem for the Kerry campaign would be real or pretend Democrats who willingly or unwittingly spread the GOP spin.

[Nederland]

18. One simple question

Do you believe that if Dean were the nominee that there would be anyone saying that Dean and Bush held the same position on the war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. One simple question

will you ever get over the fact that Dean lost?


BTW, your question is totally off the topic of the thread, which is: It is a lie to call Kerry PNAC-lite

[Nederland]

30. Whatever

Its become clear to me that while you'd like argue with anyone who says Kerry is PNAC-lite, the reality is that vast majority of voters don't even know what the PNAC is. You want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kerry is not PNAC-lite? You want to fully explain the subtleties of Kerry's Iraq policy? Fine, have at it. Meanwhile I'll move on to more important issues like convincing people that Kerry is better than Bush.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. The majority of DUers DO KNOW what PNAC is and what their agenda is

and they know that while they may have SAID 'Saddam must be disarmed' -- just as Kerry and Howard Dean said, that did not represent the true PNAC agenda.

[Nederland]

34. I get it

You want to preach to the choir and let them know why they are wrong. Fine, I get it. Kerry is not PNAC-lite.

[wurzel]

17. A DUer gave an anology that may interest you.

Kerry's vote gave permission to load the gun. But it is the Commander in Chief's call to decide when and under what conditions to pull the trigger. Is that acceptable to you?

[Old and In the Way]

40. If Clinton had come before Congress asking for the IWR because

he had CIA evidence that there was a clear and compelling danger that Iraq was going to nuke us, should Kerry have supported him?

Bush chose not to honor the conditions of the IWR. As it turns out he probably cooked the justification for the IWR to begin with. The point is not that Kerry voted to support US national interests based on the evidence presented, but that this pResident disregarded the spirit and qualifications of the IWR to get his invasion on. He is responsible for abusing the office and setting a precedent that future Presidents and this country will pay for.

[Larkspur]

50. A better analogy is

Kerry and the pro-Iraq war Dems loaded the gun for Bush, knowing that he did not need the gun loaded, and left it in plain site for Bush and the PNAC gang, who had already written a letter 4 years before urging the previous Commander-in-Chief to kill Iraq with a loaded gun. In this case, those that loaded the gun but averted their eyes from it while Bush picked it up are now accomplices to murder.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Can you provide any instance before the IWR vote where

Kerry is on record of supporting any of the PNAC talking points? If he is "PNAC-lite", then certainly there must be a number of times where Kerry must have voiced the need to get entangled in the ME.

[Nederland]

16. Sure

Kerry criticized Clinton for not being tough enough on Iraq. Kerry also said that he believed that the problem with Saddam Hussein was not that he might have WMDs or acquire them in the future, but that he might makes moves against Iran, Kuwait or Israel. If those aren't a PNAC talking points I'm not sure what is.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Please mods send me a PM and explain why you are deleting my posts

I can't answer the other post without pointing out what's wrong with it.

[Old and In the Way]

37. Sorry, I asked for quotes and links, not your recollections.

thanks.

[Nederland]

41. Sorry, here you go

"I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11."

John Kerry, Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 12/11/01

"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel."

John Kerry, CBS, "Face The Nation" 9/15/02

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. That isn't any part of the PNAC agenda so you have not responded

to the challenge.

[Nederland]

43. Nonsense

Removal of Saddam through the military force has always been a PNAC agenda.

http://newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. Impartial readers take note:

Removal of Saddam through the military force has always been a PNAC agenda.

Yet the provided quotes do not call for 'Removal of Saddam through the military force', they call for 'putting the heat on Saddam Hussein', they call for inspections:

"I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11."

John Kerry, Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 12/11/01

"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel."

John Kerry, CBS, "Face The Nation" 9/15/02

[Nederland]

52. Question

Is it your contention that John Kerry opposed the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Answer

I mean the things I've said, not any words you choose to put in my mouth.

It is my contention that anyone who tries to characterize Kerry's position as wanting to stay the course on Iraq or supporting the PNAC agenda is wrong. That's what I've said, and that's my contention.

lol

[Nederland]

57. Understood

The whole reason that I asked the question is because I didn't want to put words in your mouth. Up till now you haven't stated whether or not you believe that John Kerry supported the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein. Since you hadn't voiced an opinion on the matter, I asked the question.

The fact that you are trying to dodge the question and stick rigidly to the narrow subject of support for PNAC and keeping troops in Iraq speaks volumes of how weak your position is. Sure, you can back up your opinions on the narrow subject of PNAC well enough, but the minute the subject broadens out to something that voters actually care about you act as if its irrelevant. Its not irrelevant, in fact its far more important than any of the trivia you seem obsessed with.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Sorry, you don't get to state my position for me - that's my role.

You get to state your position. You are welcome to disagree with what I've said if you want -- you are even welcome to disagree with things I haven't said, but if you try to represent those things as my position I will challenge you.

[Nederland]

65. Jesus Christ

I'm NOT stating your position for you. I'm asking a fucking question. All you have to do is answer it. Christ.

Do you believe that John Kerry opposed the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein?

Yes or no. I don't think its too much to ask.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. I'm not religious.

Are you under the impression that DU posters are required to answer any yes or no question that is posed to them?


If those were the rules, I would have some yes or no questions for you as well.


I love Socratic dialogue, but you won't ever see it on DU.

[Nederland]

69. I'll make you a deal then

You answer my one yes or no question and I'll answer yours.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. I'll make a deal with you - I'll express myself in the manner I choose.

You get to do the same.

[Nederland]

72. Good luck with that (nt)

[wurzel]

5. Posters can be mistaken without any intention of "lying".

For instance. When Kerry was asked if he would vote the same way as he did "knowing everything he knows today", Kerry said "Yes". I took that literally. Since Kerry "knows today" that Bush had invaded Iraq, and in agreeing that he would make the same vote again, he must by any system of logic support the war.

But I have since learned that when the reporter said "knowing everything you know today", he meant ONLY things like WMD and Nuclear weapons. The question did not include Kerry knowing today that Bush started the war. It makes a huge difference. These are very confusing times made so by a media that intends to keep them that way.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Posters can also repeat false and deceptive RW spin

while still having the best of intentions.


However, I'm not going to just assume without evidence that they have good intentions.

[wurzel]

10. I think on this board you are required to assume good intentions.

Until you have evidence otherwise.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Actually the rules don't require anyone to assume anything.

You are wrong again.

[G_j]

58. correct, you can assume them all to be liars if you like

not that helps anything..

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. You're welcome to think anything you want - would you have it otherwise?

Surely you are not saying everyone should be required to hold a certain viewpoint or agree with any particular assumptions?

[G_j]

71. you are right, I surely didn't say that

nor do I believe it. I fully support freedom of thought and expression.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. Gee, it's so pleasant to be able to agree with someone

[nomaco-10]

13. You can parse it, you can blame it on the media, you can even try to...

rationalize Kerry's vote on the IWR, hell, you can even rationalize your own opinion on the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and continue to play word detective all you want, but Kerry and Edwards have been quite clear, they both support the invasion of Iraq, they just have fault with the bush* admin's "execution" of the occupation. I don't know how Kerry and Edwards can be anymore clear.

It just is what it is, no matter how you and many others in the dem party want to spin it for your own purposes.

Please let us all not lose sight of the historical vote and how many lives both here and abroad it has impacted.

Edited for grammatical errors only. The editorial content of this post has not been altered in any way.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[nomaco-10]

21. You are the one! Read their speeches, research their interviews after the

vote. The TRUTH is there for all of us to see that WANT to see it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Provide the quote that you say exists.

You said:

Kerry and Edwards have been quite clear, they both support the invasion of Iraq


if that were true, you would be able to find a quote backing you up. But since it is absolutely untrue, there is no quote, and you won't be able to provide it.

So: provide a quote in which Kerry 'clearly supports the invasion of Iraq'.

[nomaco-10]

26. You do it and You have seen the accurate quotes and interviews the same..

as the rest of us that have held vigil over the Kerry primaries and his subsequent nomination.
It only makes you appear to be all the more delusional when all the quotes and interviews of GD2004 with LINKS for the last three months have more than proven where John Kerry stands on his IWR vote. Don't make a mockery of so many of us here that provided the truth from credible and reliable sources, the least of them, being his OWN soundbites and interviews, for the last few months.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. No such quote exists and that's why you can't provide it.

You made a false attack on Kerry, I don't know your motives, but your attack was untrue.


You said:

Kerry and Edwards have been quite clear, they both support the invasion of Iraq


if that were true, you would be able to find a quote backing you up. But since it is absolutely untrue, there is no quote, and you won't be able to provide it.

So: provide a quote in which Kerry 'clearly supports the invasion of Iraq'.

[nomaco-10]

35. You are kidding, right???? You must be kidding! Please say you're........

kidding.... Why do you insist on having this very same discussion daily here? Could it be... wounds, salt, rubbing... that holds some sort of fascination for you? This very subject has been devisive and hurtful and controversial to most, why belabor it daily?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Provide the quote that you say exists.

You said:

Kerry and Edwards have been quite clear, they both support the invasion of Iraq


if that were true, you would be able to find a quote backing you up. But since it is absolutely untrue, there is no quote, and you won't be able to provide it.

So: provide a quote in which Kerry 'clearly supports the invasion of Iraq'.

[Old and In the Way]

38. They can't, but they'll claim this is the case.

Doing Bush's heavy lifting here.....

[Nederland]

45. Here you go

"I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

John Kerry, ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. I understand the plain meaning of words.

My interpretation of what people say does not require substituting one word for another, nor does it require inferring that one thing means another.

Kerry plainly says he supported disarming Saddam, much like Howard Dean.


I think it is more accurate when quoting to include the question as well as the answer, also, I believe it is incumbent on the person quoting to provide a link so that readers can see the context for themselves:

And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004/archives/000054.html

I don't think Kerry gave a very good or clear answer, but Stephanaopolous asked Was that the right decision at the right time? and Kerry answered I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity so no, he did not think it was 'at the right time' and he goes on to say it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. Conspicuously absent is any statement that 'the invasion' was the right decision.

[Nederland]

54. Stop spinning

You asked for a quote demonstrating that Kerry supported the war and I provided it. Sure, he says that he wished that Bush had allowed more time for diplomacy, but that does not detract from the fact that he also says that he supported the decision to go to war. Your contention that "conspicuously absent is any statement that 'the invasion' was the right decision" is ridiculous. When John Kerry said "when the president made the decision, I supported him" it means exactly that. The President went to war and John Kerry supported that decision. No amount of spinning from you will ever convince me otherwise.

I feel it necessary to point out however, that unlike the vast majority of people here at DU, I have always been in favor of the Iraq war. Therefore, my criticism of you is not a criticism of John Kerry. I agree with Kerry that the Iraq war was a good idea poorly executed. We went to war without a plan to win the peace. All I object to is people like you that seem to insist that Kerry was opposed to the war when his multiple statements clearly indicate that he was not.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. My interpretation does not require substituting one word for another.

Nor does it require extracting a small part of Kerry's statement and examining it out of context. The way I interpret it the words carry their normal meanings. I'm not saying that when Kerry says one thing he actually means something else.

Yet -- I'm the one who's spinning?

:wtf:

[Nederland]

60. Yes, you are spinning

When I give you a quote that says Kerry supported the president's decision to go to war and you claim that Kerry didn't support the war, that's spinning.

Kerry supported the war, and that's a good thing regardless of what the lunatic far left at DU thinks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. If you want to pretend that I'm spinning and you're not, fine.

I don't think that makes any sense, clearly what is happening is, we disagree and we are each putting our own spin on things. But, as I've pointed out, my 'spin' does not require substituting one word for another or making a leap like 'when he said X, he really meant Y'.


It is possible, by the way, for reasonable people to disagree without calling each other 'lunatics'.

[Nederland]

68. Yes it is

And calling people lunatics is not fair. However, asking a person to answer a simple question is perfectly reasonable.

[wurzel]

24. I wasn't trying to "spin" anything.

I was trying to show that words matter. And that one person can see something differently than another, and neither are "liars". This is not to say that there are not liars like Bush around.

I happen to agree with you that Kerry and Edwards were wrong to vote the way they did. They voted the way they did because they were either too busy or too lazy or too stupid to read the intelligence report supplied to them by the WH. That is the reason they are in the position they are in. They have to go along with Bush now because they can't possibly admit they never read it. This is also true of 90% of Congress.

[nomaco-10]

31. OK, by your own admission, we should just continue to elect.......

officials because they are just "too busy and lazy" to measure up, and this is OK according to you?
So, according to you, not only should our party NOT hold current elected officials accountable for their actions, but we should give them a pass because they are too "lazy and stupid" and furthermore, we should just be satisfied with substandard politicians. I find this not only disappointing, but somehow completely foreign to my entire concept of democracy and how I would like to see us evolve as a bonafide voting block to be dealt with in the future. So Sad.......

Edited for grammatical errors, the content of this post has not been changed.

[wurzel]

39. No! But the alternative is George Bush. What's the choice now?

I am no great fan of Kerry. But the alternative is a lying President who is also a corporate crook using this country to fill his pockets. I don't have the luxury of voting for Howard or Dennis. I lost that battle. I don't want to lose the war.

[Rabelais]

32. The problem is

Kerry is living in fantasy land if he thinks he could replace our troops with foreign forces regardless of "inducements."
Also, four years is longer than we spent in World War 2, so it would have been better for him to not say anything at all about Iraq.

[Lerkfish]

44. to be fair, Kerry is between Iraq and a hard place.

If people will recall, Nearly EVERY member of congress voted in support of Bush's personal war, for three very rational political reasons:

1. The country was reeling from 9/11, and reactionary patriotism as well as an understandable need to punish SOMEONE was palpable in the citizenry.
2. BushCo was pounding anyone who objected as being "unpatriotic" at a nation's dire time of need = political suicide, given #1.
3. BushCo misrepresented the justifications for it, in order to take advantage of #1, and #2.

Kerry/Edwards voted for the war, under those circumstances, because to do otherwise was politically incorrect, and at the time, even a Bush-hater like myself gave the chimp more credit than he deserved on "intelligence" reports that he didn't share.

And, now that we are there, the milk is already spilled, so its not going to be an easy mopping up scenario, and it has to be accomplished CAREFULLY, in order to maximize benefit and safety of the remaining troops and minimize the damage diplomatically.

Sure, I'd prefer that K/E denounce the war COMPLETELY, and they have come as close to that as they can, but if they go too far, its too easy for Bushco to attack them for not being strong enough to keep america safe (which they are doing anyways, but it rings more hollow).

[CWebster]

47. I don't understand this logic

What we need to wage a strong opposition to Bush is someone who cowered in fear for their political career while Bush called the shots? "No criticing a war time president" lead us to this disaster and those who protested and voted against this fabrication were marginalized as unpatriotic.

Not only did Bush hide in an elementary school story time, from there he was flown around the country and to a Nevada hideout until the coast was clear enough, 11 hours later for Bush to come out of his shell. Some leadership, and yet they still exploit 911 with very little challenge.

Everytime someone brings up 911, ask about OK City. Where is the hysteria over white male, reactionary right-wing terrorists? Or is the war on terror reserved for Arabs with our oil?

And what does Kerry attack Bush about? High gas prices.

[Lerkfish]

56. I think you misunderstood me...I"m just saying "this is why"....

I'm extremely antiwar myself, I was even against afghanistan, even though it made more sense.

I'm explaining that the political climate AT THE TIME meant it was difficult if not impossible to oppose Bush. Its not that long ago, surely you remember the tenor of the times as well? That's what BushCo was taking advantage of, and striking while the iron was hot, or while the memory of 9/11 was still fresh,

It's not MY logic, NOR am I saying Kerry "cowered in fear" for his political career. What I'm trying to do is point out that if the criticism of Kerry is that he voted in favor of the Iraq war, its misleading to do so because it passed virtually unanimously, so EVERY congressperson would have to smeared with that same brush. If memory serves, there were only 2 that held out against it, and they both suffered in the press for doing so. (even though I personally applauded them)

the truly sick and twisted part of this is that BUSHco uses kerry's vote to allow Bush to invade against Kerry, instead of against himself, where the blame really lies.

Bush is made up completely of lies, I have never known him to even come close to the truth...in fact, I think he's allergic to it.

[CWebster]

62. No it didn't

It did not pass unanimously. In addition, after the Patriot act moment passed, Kennedy and Byrd implored Kerry to sign on to a revised resolution to oppose the hastily voted on first one, but Kerry declined.

What you are suggesting is similar to saying since Hitler was so strong no one dared oppose him - it was up to the world to rout him? Kerry is helpless?

[Lerkfish]

74. nice hyperbolic projection...

I said "virtually unanimously". I recall two people who opposed. My recollection could be wrong, though..does anyone have the exact number? Regardless, it was close enough to unanimous to make my point.

and, to the rest of your post...

er...no. I'm NOT "suggesting is similar to saying since Hitler was so strong no one dared oppose him - it was up to the world to rout him? Kerry is helpless?"

I meant instead what I actually said:

"I'm explaining that the political climate AT THE TIME meant it was difficult if not impossible to oppose Bush. Its not that long ago, surely you remember the tenor of the times as well? That's what BushCo was taking advantage of, and striking while the iron was hot, or while the memory of 9/11 was still fresh"

no elected official is helpless, if they band together for a common cause.

You have misunderstood me twice in a row, which either means I'm not being clear or you're reading into what I'm saying what you want to see...

at the risk of a further misunderstanding, allow to rephrase the same point differently.

1. Hindsight is 20/20. Its easy NOW to say Kerry should have opposed the Iraq war THEN. but if you make that point, you have make it for most other congresspeople, who voted likewise.
2. The tenor of the country AT THAT MOMENT would not have tolerated anything appearing (or more accurately) being labeled "unpatriotic". I don't think I dreamed this up. Were you not awake and sober after 9/11, did you not observe exactly what I'm talking about? I was painfully aware of it because I was constantly called a nutcase, a traitor and guilty of treason for suggesting we have no right to preemptively invade. It was an ugly time--highly emotional brown shirt time. I could stand on the courage of my convictions and be labeled as such, but I also do not depend on votes to keep my job.
3. I am NOT avocating that atmosphere, I suffered greatly because of it. I am stating that it was real, and palpable, and influenced a great many decisions made on all levels of political involvement. Was it right? no. Was it just? not in my opinion. But does that mean I should deny it existed? absolutely not. We need to remember that a new version of mccarthyism was reborn on 9/11.

I did not bring up Hitler, but since you did...how many people in Germany opposed him after the Reichstag fire? How many people objected to entering WWII after Pearl Harbor?

It feels like you're trying to push my buttons here, but I'm making a point that politics are real, and politics is not always pretty. You seem to want to tarnish Kerry, but I am absolutely not doing that myself. I'm saying his realistic choices were limited AT THAT TIME, in that context.

ok?

next time, I'd prefer you try to harpoon me for what I actually said.....mmmmmkay?

[CWebster]

46. Inducements, huh?

What would that be? Bigger bribes? Or, howz about a bigger cut of the spoils? An opportunity to grab the looting away from the Halliburton portion?

Kerry claims he would appeal to other countries to take the "target off of US soldiers backs" Why the hell would any country want to put the target on their soldier's back instead?

Who does Kerry think he is kidding? He has to do better--he has to face reality. Problem is, at this point, he has boxed himself in and his options are these lame bandaids for a gaping wound.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. You haven't addressed the topic of the thread

which is the fact that Kerry is opposed to a permanent US military presence in Iraq.

[Lerkfish]

59. right, which proves he's NOT PNAC-lite.

The whole purpose of PNAC objectives are those permanent bases and the halliburton stranglehold on the oil infrastructure. That's the REAL reason for invading Iraq.

If Kerry makes those bases temporary, he's negating the core strategy of the neocons...something they would never endorse.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. Thank you -

sometimes when I'm engaged in these discussions, it is easy to forget that there are others reading who can discern the important points being made.