Kerry got nowhere near the central truths about Iraq on MTP today

The central truths:
- The war was planned by PNAC & its immediate forerunners, as far back as 1992.
- The entire media blitz about "WMD" and the terrible imminent "threat" Saddam posed to the US was a total & deliberate fabrication from start to finish.
- The complete absence of WMD, in the aftermath of the war, is nothing less than a national disgrace -- which should be spoken of as "criminal," not as an "error in judgement" or as "poor planning by the administration."
- The purpose of the war was seizing control of the oil, & placing hundreds of thousands of US troops in the Middle East.
- The feel-good fluff being fed to the public about "building democracy" in Iraq is a disgraceful contemptuous lie with no substance to it, other than Public Relations.
- A secondary but still vital objective of the war was the opportunity it offered to funnel "no-bid" government contracts worth many billions of dollars to Bush cronies such as Halliburton and Bechtel.

Kerry didn't so much as touch one of these points. The closest he got was when Russert himself, in a moment of uncharacteristic spontaneity, blurted out the forbidden word "oil," in a question about whether the US should now share "control" of Iraq -- including, Er, um, (Russert's voice actually got rather quiet at this point, as he really hadn't intended to get into the messy oil question at all!) the oil contracts -- with European "allies," to entice them into providing funds & soldiers for averting the looming disaster in Iraq.

Apart from this one moment where the truth almost bubbled to the surface (& for which Russert deserves most the credit), Kerry left UNSPOKEN every single one of the above important truths about Iraq. His criticisms were all either marginal, or rhetorical fine points. It is one thing to criticize the Iraq invasion as an enormous crime, violating every principle of international law, conceived as a scheme for looting oil from Iraq, funneling payoffs to Bechtel etc, & covering the whole thing over with pretty talk about "building democracy in Iraq" and "protecting American security from Saddam's imminent threats." It is something entirely different to merely say that the Bush administration didn't plan very well for post-invasion Iraq, & that it was a mistake not to have the allies on board.

The second of these "criticisms" is what Kerry is offering. He is directing no attention whatever to the principal crimes that were committed; & instead, merely quibbling about selected fine points of the procedure. It's like someone who discusses a bank robbery where many people were killed in the process -- and confining one's criticism to the fact that the robbers didn't plan particularly well for the getaway.

Expect Kerry to change to a more pro-war stance if he wins the nomination.

"Kerry is stating he is the only candidate with a military background because we are actually in a war situation now"

"A war he voted for. How convenient!"

I think that deep down, Kerry is very much against the war, and if he were not running for president there is no way he would have voted for it.

over doing the right thing? :(

Kerry looked old and tired and spouted the "soft-hitting" lines we have heard so often, instead of taking the fight directly to Bush, Inc. I'd vote for him as opposed to Bush, but I hope that's not the choice.

We, like all nations, a run by a maze of legalisms not crimes...

The October Resolution was used in a lawsuit to get an injuction against Bush from going into Iraq.

The people who used the Act as its case against Bush included, Dnis Kucinich, Shila Jackson Lee, and Jesse Jackson.


One thrust of the plaintiffs' argument is that the October Resolution only permits actions sanctioned by the Security Council. (5) In plaintiffs' view, the Resolution's authorization is so narrow that, even with Security Council approval of military force, Congress would need to pass a new resolution before United States participation in an attack on Iraq would be constitutional. At a minimum, according to plaintiffs, the October Resolution authorizes no military action "outside of a United Nations coalition."

For various reasons, this issue is not fit now for judicial review. For example, should there be an attack, Congress may take some action immediately. The purported conflict between the political branches may disappear. "hat the future event may never come to pass augurs against a finding of fitness." McInnis-Misenor, 319 F.3d at 72.

Many important questions remain unanswered about whether there will be a war, and, if so, under what conditions. Diplomatic negotiations, in particular, fluctuate daily. The President has emphasized repeatedly that hostilities still may be averted if Iraq takes certain actions. The Security Council is now debating the possibility of passing a new resolution that sets a final deadline for Iraqi compliance. United Nations weapons inspectors continue their investigations inside Iraq. Other countries ranging from Canada to Cameroon have reportedly pursued their own proposals to broker a compromise. As events unfold, it may become clear that diplomacy has either succeeded or failed decisively. The Security Council, now divided on the issue, may reach a consensus. To evaluate this claim now, the court would need to pile one hypothesis on top of another. We would need to assume that the Security Council will not authorize war, and that the President will proceed nonetheless. See id. at 72-73 (outlining chain of uncertain events necessary to make case ripe); Ernst & Young, 45 F.3d at 538 (same).

Thus, even assuming that plaintiffs correctly interpret the commands of the legislative branch, it is impossible to say yet whether or not those commands will be obeyed. As was the situation in Goldwater, "n the present posture of this case, we do not know whether there will ever be an actual confrontation between the Legislative and Executive Branches." 444 U.S. at 998 (Powell, J., concurring).


http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1266.01A

Read the case.

is a crime according to international law. It's the exact reason Germany was indicted at Nuremberg for attacking Poland (I'll have to find the source again - I stored it somewhere).
All the other things - premeditation, greed, lying - they are the cherry on top.
It is crucial to condemn preemption - because bushco is still touting it as a 'legitimate" strategy in the anti-terra war and this should be the crucial reason to get read of him.
So, I do agree with you, anything less than that is putting make-up on the sow.

was wrong and he can't afford to be reminded of it now.

Dean '04

NOT a war hero IMO.

Not a progressive.

Not a pacifist.

IS the richest bastard in the Senate.

Is tied into some of the most huge multinational real estate magnates in the planet (his Forbes relatives)

Is a liar and a fake (fake medals toss, fake reenacted scenes of "heroism" in Vietnam, fake pacifism, probably fake events got him medals outside the usual channels)

Perfect rich boy candidate.

Proof?

LOL, never mind. I've asked for that from you before. Enjoy your Two Minutes Kerry Hate thread. I'll be over here formulating my theories about how Kerry's hockey teammate status with Mueller helped him blow up the World Trade Center and steal all the cheese from the moon.

:evilgrin:

THEY will come and kill him.

THEY.

:tinfoilhat: Breathe some air-get some sunshine on your face-B-)
have a hot dog & kraut:9

And above all- "Avoid the GRASSY KNOLL"!:scared:

Officers get the Bronze Star simply for showing up. During their tour, if they do anything even remotely heroic, they get a Silver Star. It's just a fact of life in the military. As I read the facts of the incident, Kerry ran after a fleeing Viet Cong and killed him. Well, big deal. An enlisted man wouldn't get a Silver Star over that, but Kerry was an officer.

The fact that Lt. Kerry got a medal in Vietnam does not make him a war hero in my estimation. Very few officers are heroic the way that enlisted men are. I've been called unpatriotic for saying this, but the evidence speaks for itself. Have you noticed that career officers always have fruit salad going up their chests all the way to their shoulders? Did they earn these medals? Don't even ask.

a couple of references to the killing by Kerry of a wounded VC and assertions that it may have been a war crime.

Hell -- it was war. Was it murder? I don't know. A violation of the Geneva Convention or heroism? I don't know.

What I found shameless was that Kerry went back afterwards with a super 8 camerra and made his crew reenact the incident (using real bullets and arguably putting his troops in harms way) so that he could later use these in political commercials.

I have read that this medal was awarded outside the usual channels but cannot find the source right now. It may be archived on the old DU Kerry archive thread,, but maybe not -- so I will keep looking (I am too poor to afford the right to a search function right now). But I believe it is there.

The issue with Skull and Bonesers and Medals etc goes back to Tarpley. It looks like Kerry's dad may even have been in the same Skully air unit in the navy as Bush -- but I could be wrong,

I first became aware of the practice of faking medals incidents by prospective political dudes when I was a teen and a "friend" a Harvard student who ended up in the sapooky Porcellian club, discussed these kinds of things with me kind of for fun. HOW to create an incident to get the big medals, etc. It seemed (and this was in 1968 or so) that this was a regular tyoe of convesation for these ivy league spook types to discuss. I was truly horrifed even then that a seemingly decent Harvard guy (from Andover)was trying to figure out how to fake an attack on a general so that he could "save" him by klilling the perpetrator (whom he had hired in the first place). He never went to Nam so the issue is moot. But it is an old Ivy league type of thing to do, it seems to me,

In reading Tarpley about the elder Bush and the flying Skull boys and their plush frat boy military pilot assignments, there are implications that one of the "steps" for skulls is the medals routine: They get placed in a sure-fire medals location for a brief spell to earn their war hero credentials for future political use and then get the hell out.

This is the critique of Kerry: 4 months in country and he gets 5 medals (3 purple hearts which may or may not have been combat related), then gets out of his hitch early to ruin for politics -- loses to father Drinan who is antiwar in a Congressional Race in Massachusetts, then earns his antiwar credentials with his skull and bones guys advising him through the halls of Congress and National TV (does this sound like a set up to you?) and then FAKES throwing his medals away.Then he quits the Vets against the war after getting his mug on all the nightly news channels in an impassioned speech written for him by aniother spooky type. (Didja hear the PRAISE for Kerry in Nixon's Tapes? Then the tapes go blank. Why?)

What really BURNS me up is that Kerry CLAIMED that he did not have his medals with him and that he threw away two other guys medals plus his own "ribbons" (which I doubt re: the ribbons) because he did not have time to go get his medals on the way to DC (though he had the ribbons and the unifrom, right?). BUT - get this -- Kerry WORE the medals, according to online sources, AT THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS - Meaning he LIED about that as well. He HAD his medals with him. He just wanted people to BEIEVE he tossed them. It was all political theater and we, the left, fell for it and are STILL falling for it. He is a damn liar and every veteran I know would probably want to kicj his butt for such asininity and self-serving bullshit.

I just finally discovered this detail in trying to back up the claim that his medals were awarded outside the usual channels.

I would LOVE, however, to see WHAT he got the purple hearts for. I heard he did take a shrapnel hit --- or was it a splinter? I don't know. But I think we all should be asking these questions.

War Hero or Fake?

I believe he is a fake all the way.

The medals thing really clinches it for me as does his votes for the war, for the patriot act, and for the Bush homeland security disaster for our Constitution.

If Kerry would lie to his fellow vets on National TV for political gain -- why wouldn't he lie to the rest of us any chance he gets.

are over the top. It's my understanding that the medals he tossed were for a friend or friends of his and this was extremely clear to everyone when he did it. Sen. Kerry *is* a war hero who served extremely honorably during two voluneer 365-day tours of Vietnam. Unless you have some information to back up these accusations, please refrain from making them.

fake medals toss, fake reenacted scenes of "heroism" in Vietnam, fake pacifism, probably fake events got him medals outside the usual channels

he basically admitted the medals toss fakery (altho he fudged it in a way that is difficult to prove).

He lied about tossing his medals and yYERS later fessed up that he still had his medals and that he had tossed some friend's medals (whose name he did not remember). It is bulldoodoo.


Thise who do not really understand elitism and the Power elites (See C. Wright Mills, as I recall)would tend to dismiss thew Yale spook club conne3ctions and the fact that Kerry and Mueller shared a locker room for a few years (where they only discussed slap shots I'm sure).

Would Kerry NAIL his old Hockey teammate for criminal coverups? I doubt it.

Now -- the medals outside the usual channels I will have to search for.

I have posted the link before. But trust me -- there are those who say Kerry was no hero and that his medals (the ones he faked throwing away) were awarded outside the usual channels.

This is a story the Kerryites want to bury.

I won't let them.


So On BOTH counts, w4rma you are completely wrong.

And I can back that up.

tick tick tick tick

If you need Brian's e-mail I have it. Sorry for the bad news... When I talked candidates with these guys, the only one they are going for is DK. The reasons against all the others were very compelling.

An Open Letter
to Senator John Kerry
on Iraq

by S. Brian Willson (You remember him right?)
October 10, 2002
FROM: S. Brian Willson (bw@brianwillson.com)
TO: John Kerry (john_kerry@kerry.senate.org)

<snip>

When you decided to run for the Senate in 1984 against Ray Shamie, a wealthy businessman, remember that I loyally supported your campaign as one of the dozen or so Vietnam veterans the press called Kerry's Commandos, you called "Doghunters." We accompanied you throughout the state, and fended off right wing criticism from folks such as General George Patton III, who accused you of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" for your earlier VVAW activities. I'm sure you remember with fondness that critical time that launched you into national office. Your lawyer brother, Cameron, concluded that it was the veterans' support that pulled your first campaign out of a nose-dive and created the necessary "galvanizing energy."

<snip>


The first hint of a bit of disconnect in your style was when during your first Senate campaign you denied returning your war medals, with a thousand other veterans, in protest of the war during Dewey Canyon III. That was a bit of a shock, since for most veterans who returned their medals in that emotional ceremony on Friday, April 23, 1971, it was a very proud and healing moment. Your 1984 campaign response: You had returned the medals of a WWII acquaintance at his direction. All those 13 years everyone thought you had had the courage and leadership to return medals that to veterans who returned them represented medals of dishonor drenched in the blood of innocent Vietnamese who did not deserve to die for a lie, any more than our fellow US Americans. I guess you knew then that you were to be running for office.

The second hint occurred at the celebration party you organized for us "doghunters" at your friend John Martilla's Beacon Hill house in Boston in late June 1985, 6 months into your term as a junior Senator. In the wee hours of the morning, you made two comments that troubled me: (1) you stressed your initials as "JFK" that would help you one day in your quest for the White House, and (2) that after War Department briefings (and perhaps CIA as well) about the need for funding and training contra terrorists in Afghanistan and Nicaragua you had a new appreciation for their importance in furthering U.S. policies. That did not mean that you necessarily voted for Contra aid but that once in power, information becomes part of an elite circle preempting genuine democracy.

<snip>

With your vote for essentially agreeing with the selected resident of the White House's request for incredible authority in advance to wage wars against whomever he wants, you have contributed to finalizing the last of the world's empires, and the likely consequent doom of international law, peaceful existence, and hope for the future possibilities of Homo sapiens. Of course, it also means that searching for the motivations of other people's rage and desperate acts of revenge will be overlooked, dooming us to far more threats and instability then if we had seriously pursued a single-standard in the application of international law equally with all nations in the first place. We are too much of a bully to do that, and have stated over and over again that the American Way Of Life is not negotiable. Can you understand that this means species suicide?

I'm sorry and terribly fearful for this state we are in. Your vote is terribly misguided, John. Now that veterans have reorganized throughout the nation as once again an important part of the growing movement, know that we shall work hard for your defeat, whether as a Presidential candidate or for another Senate term.

Sincerely,

S. Brian Willson, Arcata, CA
Veterans For Peace

--------------------------------------------

Warsh wrote that such a "coup de grace" would have been considered a war crime. Belodeau stood beside Kerry and said he'd been misquoted. He conceded that he had fired at and wounded the Viet Cong, but denied Kerry had simply executed the wounded Viet Cong. Dan Carr, a former Marine from Massachusetts, who served 14 months as a rifleman sloshing around in the humid jungles of I Corps, South Vietnam, questioned whether or not Kerry deserved a Silver Star for chasing and killing a lone, wounded, retreating Viet Cong. "Kerry is certainly showing some sensitivity there. Most people I knew in Vietnam were just trying to pull their time there and get the hell out. There were some, though, who actually used Vietnam to get their tickets punched. You know, to build their resumes for future endeavors," Carr said.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story10.htm

---------------------------

The Making of the Candidates:
John Forbes Kerry
By Charles M. Sennott, Globe Staff
SUNDAY, October 6, 1996

<snip>

But as it later turned out, the medals Kerry threw were not his own. Since that fact was revealed by the Wall Street Journal in 1984, it has dogged Kerry. It appears as a throwaway line in nearly every profile of the senator, usually used to paint him as a phony. In his recent interview with the Globe, Kerry added a new twist.

He said that the two sets of medals he threw had been handed to him by a wounded veteran in a New York VA hospital and by a World War II veteran from Lincoln, Mass., whom he'd met at a fundraiser. Kerry says he can't remember their names. While he did not throw his own medals (they remain tucked away in a desk at his home in Boston), Kerry said he did throw the ribbons on his uniform that symbolized the medals he had earned. Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw since it was planned weeks in advance, Kerry said it was because he ``didn't have time to go home (to New York) and get them.''

``It is frustrating,'' Kerry says of the criticism he's received. ``People said things, you know, about the medals. And ``I mean, I led that march, I stood up at the goddamn thing, and I took my ribbons off my chest and I threw them over the fence. I was the last person there, the leader of the event. I waited till everyone had done their duty, then fufilled mine.''


http://www.boston.com/globe/specialreports/1996/oct/senate/jk106.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Excerpts from
STOLEN VALOR
How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History

by B.G. Burkett/Glenna Whitley

<"But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry's medals turned up on the wall of his Capitol Hill office. When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his. [see footnote #209>

And Kerry's emotional, from-the-heart speech had been carefully crafted by a speechwriter for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it.

TV reporters totally ignored another Vietnam veteran, Melville L. Stephens, a former aide to Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, chief of Naval Operations, who that same day urged the Senate not to abandon America's allies in South Vietnam. "]

<snip>

page 135

After a man who said his son died in Vietnam blew taps, the soldiers began flinging their war medals over a high wire fence in front of the Capitol: Purple Hearts, Bronze Star Medals, Silver Stars - bits of ribbon and metal hurled in the face of the government that had so betrayed them. Some, after throwing away what had cost them so dearly, broke down and cried.

One of those was John Kerry, Vietnam Navy veteran and aspiring politician who had been among those who organized the protest. Kerry flung a handful of medals - he had received the Silver Star, a Bronze Star Medal, and three Purple Hearts - over the fence. Kerry spoke later that week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, putting a face on the antiwar movement far different from the one seen before - the scruffy hippie or wild-eyed activist. Kerry represented the All-American boy, mentally twisted by being asked to do terrible things, then abandoned by his government.


From start to finish, the public took Dewey Canyon III at face value, not understanding that they were watching brilliant political theater. Kerry, a Kennedy protege with white-hot political aspirations, ascended center stage as both a war hero and as an antiwar hero throwing away his combat decorations. His speech, apparently off the cuff, was eloquent, impassioned.


But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry's medals turned up on the wall of his Capitol Hill office. When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his. And Kerry's emotional, from-the-heart speech had been carefully crafted by a speechwriter for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it. TV reporters totally ignored another Vietnam veteran, Melville L. Stephens, a former aide to Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, chief of Naval Operations, who that same day urged the Senate not to abandon America's allies in South Vietnam.

http://www.vietpage.com/archive_news/politics/2002/Dec/2/0085.html
http://www.geocities.com/seavet72/AW/ws-kerry.htm

John Kerry: The Chameleon Senator
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
October-December 1996 Issue

http://www.usvetdsp.com/story10.htm

Hes not progressive
hes not a pacifist
Hes pretty rich
He probably has some business connections
so I dont see why you would call Kerry the perfect rich boy candiate when you support Dean who btw is also a Yale grad which may or may not mean hes in skull n bones. I dont care really. I dont support either Dean or Kerry at the moment.

Kucinich is closest to my political positions on most issues.

Dean is a candidate I can live with and his background greatly coincerns me.

I voted for Kucinich in the Moveon poll and will probably do it again.

But when 60% of socalled democrats in a recent poll don't even know who the CANDIDATES are for president -- I have to realisitcally look at the prospects.

Until Gore's speech to moveon I was stuck hoping for him.

I just do not think that Kucinich plays to the voters as well as Dean. Dean, frankly, reminds me of McCain: a no bullshit guy, more or less, who is hard headed and determined and way to conservative for my tatstes.

But when I compare him to Kerry, whom I KNOW is a spook due to his skull and bones ties (Dean is NOT Skull and Bones as far as I have EVER heard. If he were that would change everything for me pretty much) then the choice is clear for me.

Dean has some creepy background issues that DO go the Yale thing. His Dad worked for a CIA connected airline in Communist China in the 1940's and his brother weas killed as a CIA operative in Laos or Cambopdia probably while engaged in covert ops. Dean's Israel positions are tooo close to the right for me as well. So I have concerns,

So realistically I would probably vote for Kucinich in a fair one on one race with Dean. But since STOPPING KERRY is realistically only possible IMHO with Dean's candidacy (I honestly don't believe that Kucinich can beat either Kerry or Dean in a primary) - then I am bound to do what I think is best for America.

STOP KERRY and BEAT BUSH. Two birds with one vote, so to speak.

I WISH Kucinich had more appeal to the electorate at large. I would prefer him to Dean and most of the other contenders and potential contenders.

My favorite (after Gore) would be Russ Feingold, frankly - the only Senator to vote against the "Patriot Act".

I could also support Hillary while holding my nose as a viable beat Bush candidate.


But my primary reason for supporting Dean is that he is the best prospectr for beating Bush AND Kerry (whom I think are in cahoots).

Can you show me where Dean or Gephardt or virtually any of the other candidates have openly discussed PNAC? I know Kucinich has, because he's a stud. The others? I'd be thrilled as hell to see it.

...see statements concerning Wolfowitz and those on the ...omg, the intials have completely slipped my mind...DPB? Defense Policy Board?

and his comments warning of trying to make America into an empire is as close as he has come.

16 Questions for Bush
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7000&news_iv_ctrl=1441

…
There is a dawning realization across the land that despite winning a military battle in Iraq, the United States may be losing a larger war. That we may well be less secure today than we were two and a half years ago when this administration took office. And we have yet to see the report that details the events that lead up to September 11th, so that we can improve our ability to respond in the future.

Americans are ready, I believe, to restore the best traditions of American leadership. Leadership in which our power is multiplied by the appeal of democratic ideals and by the knowledge that our country is a force for law around the world not a law unto itself.

America became America by rebelling against imperial power.

America emerged from isolation to greatness by beating fascist power.

America became synonymous with justice by supporting independence for colonies from an imperial world.

America's ideals triumphed when it confronted communism to the point of extinction.

America is not Rome. We do not dream of empire. We dream of liberty for all.

In November 2004, the American people will seek a President who is prepared to use our brave and remarkable armed forces as I would to defend against any actual or imminent threat to ourselves or our friends and allies and, in concert with others to deal with grave humanitarian crises.

They will seek a President skilled at garnering the support of allies, but willing to act as I would when it is necessary to protect and defend our country.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6456

Iraq Truth Center
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emption and his "right wing ideological advisors"

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5362&news_iv_ctrl=1441

I heard him somewhere. Darn, I will try to find it. I agree with you, why hasn't this been brought up by the people running? I think Bob Graham has talked about it. Good for Dennis.

but I haven't seen anything about PNAC either. In my opinion, that would be a tricky road to go down, as most people don't pay enough attention to be interested. I think you have to fight the ideas on their merits (war, etc) not based on where they are coming from or who is putting them out. Most people don't have the interest to figure out what PNAC is.

:eyes:

that Sharpton might, as well -- but I haven't heard him on this subject.)

IMO, these are the only 2 Democrats -- DK and Sharpton -- that are willing to directly articulate the unpopular truths I listed above.

spineless, mealy-mouthed, conservative, bush apologist masqurading as a liberal democrat. along with gephardt, edwards, lieberman and graham.

and DU some may wonder about why other DUers can't too excited about the fact they are supposed to vote for one of these collaborators. :puke:

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

:)

hypocritical, say-anything-to-get-elected, not-my-problem-once-elected, grease-the-fat-cats, screw-the-little-guy, throw-out-the-bill-of-rights, pro-factory-farms, conservative, self apologist masquerading as a liberal democrat.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2¬Found=true
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792
http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html

and DU some may wonder about why other DUers can't too excited about the fact they are supposed to vote for one of these collaborators. :puke:

amount of your bashing is going to change that.

And your opinion is just that and I will take it for what it is worth.

the pols i mentioned are serving members of congress, had their chance to stand up for what's right, and failed to do their duty on front of the world, for thier party, their country and their god. :(

Your punk posing betrays you badly

:shrug:

Does Not Compute

although he did miss an opportunity to shove Timmy's lack of knowledge and preparation down his throat but one cannot have everything, I suppose.

how long have you been involved with POLITICS? It's much more difficult than a poker bluff.

I saw your challenge on the other thread. Since your issuing it again, and since I am in total agreement with Rich, I believe I'll answer it.

I've been actively involved in DEMOCRATIC politics since 1960 and have followed every campaign since 1952. (Okay, I started at the age of seven but I was a wonkish little kid.)

Kerry's dialectic on why he voted for the war is sheer crap. And I can say that having been a full time participant and researcher on the Senate Watch threads throughout the entire debate.

The real reason may be connected to the real reason why Will Marshall the founder of and brain behind the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute, is Kerry's foreign policy advisor. Marshall not only was a member of the PNAC spinoff Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (along with the entire PNAC cabal) but also signed the last two PNAC letters. I find it highly interesting that a man as well versed in foreign policy as Kerry is being advised by a known PNAC devotee. It certainly isn't an accident ... not with a guy as intelligent sophisticated as Kerry.

he lost me over Iraq. Once reason I'm seriously upset with him is because I found letters signed by Kerry, Lieberman, and Wolfowitz urging Clinton to attack Iraq even after the CIA had stated that Sadaam was no threat. Clinton refused.

It's good to have a paper-trail we can check on this one though I'm as concerned with candidates who have no trail to check because it's too easy to sway us with rhetoric and easy assurances.

There's a LOT more to the monstrosity against Iraq than the war. What about the obscene sanctions that the US & UK forced the UN to impose on a people that had already been so debilitated by war?

The only candidate I've found who opposed the sanctions and actively sought to end them was Kucinich (wow! how does he manage to always get it right?).

The sanctions contributed to more deaths during the post-Cold War era than all the weapons of mass destruction throughout history! Should we not hold everyone who supported that obscenity responsable?

I think everyone should be raked over the coals re the war AND the sanctions which were just as obscene as the war. All those who didn't speak out were just as complicit and should not be excused.

If anyone book-marked the thread with those letters, please PM me the link.

I didn't see this MTP but will try to catch it. Thanks for that analysis.

I have been crying out about the sanctions for a long time and everyone just seems to shrug it off. You are the first person i have seen actually recognize that we were and have been raping Iraq for years behind these so called sanctions.

For a second there i thought i was going crazy!

I've railed against them for years and glad to find another partner here!

Since you are as passionate about it as I am, do you know what Dean's position on the Iraq sanctions are? I know Kucinich worked hard to get them lifted but I want to know for the other candidates.

Thanks!

If i had to guess i would say he was probably for continuing them as his suport or lack of support for the war was based more on proving the case of imminent threat before atacking than anything else. In fact I am prety sure he has made statements concerning the need for Saddam to disarm.

This leads me to believe he really did think Saddam had some sort of weapons program going.

This is a position I think flies in the face of reality considering the complete brutality the united states showed in implimenting the sanctions.

Dean had the right idea and i think he sees through a lot of the fog put out by the administration and even some on the dem side. But I dont think he has taken a really hard look at the whole picture of what the whole iraq situation is/was about. Frighteningly enough I dont think many of our "leaders" have.

I am just guessing here though so dont quote me on his stances.

about Kerry. Now, why might that be?

DU has lots of prominent Kerry supporters, some of whom have entered this thread to slap at other posters about their manners, or other peripheral matters.

Yet, this thread has existed for 4 hours, and no one has even tried to dispute the statement at the top: namely, that Kerry had a whole hour to himself on MTP this morning on national TV, and FAILED TO EVEN MENTION ANY OF THE CENTRAL TRUTHS about Iraq.

What kind of "candidate" is this, who is so far away from the truth that he can't even mention aspects of the Iraq story that have been well-known & thoroughly discussed on this website for MONTHS?

Why would anyone find this acceptable? It's disgusting -- that's the only word for it. Kerry might be a nice man, an intelligent man, with a good liberal voting record. But there is a stench about his Iraq position -- I do not see how this conclusion can be escaped.

Look... I forgive every single Democrat who voted for the war. It's easy for us as armchair politicians to say that we would not have voted to allow Bush to wage war if Saddam did not comply with the UN sanctions. Hey... I wouldn't have voted in favor of the war but that's because I don't have thousands of moderate Democrat constituents who would have reamed my ass for not voting in favor.

Is that chickenshit, Yah..
Do most pol's have a fear of losing their job? uhhh huuuuh!

Do I think that most of the Dem Pol's who voted in favor of the war resolution think they made a very big mistake? YOU BET...So what do they do... I would think that they'd grow some balls, admit their mistake and rip George to shreds for lying to them.

Senator ?...you voted for the war resolution so how can you criticize the Prez? Uh...Er...because he lied to us in a big way and unfortuantly I believed him.

Senator ?...why would the Prez lie to the American Public about this war... Uh er...go ask Cheney about Halliburton!

Include most of the points RichM mentioned above and you got the makings of a fearless politician who is more concerned for their country than their own political career.

This is what RichM and a whole bunch of lefties want to see and hear. Not the same old er "ride the fence" bullshit that spills from the mouths of our more prominent Dems.

With Iraq realing out of control and a billion a week to pay for it, in my mind this is the biggest issue of the day. The Dems should be hammering 43 with this daily and then throw the economy on top for desert!

So...in a nut shell.... I get ya RichM....

what you call "THE CENTRAL TRUTHS about Iraq".

"What kind of "candidate" is this, who is so far away from the truth that he can't even mention aspects of the Iraq story that have been well-known & thoroughly discussed on this website for MONTHS?"

So because NO CANDIDATE is doing so they are all disgusting?

Oh...so, because you don't like him you ignore the fact that he addresses these issues?

which he worked hard to get lifted.


For Immediate Release
Wednesday, April 19, 2000

Kucinich, Members of Congress Ask Albright for Meeting on Iraq Sanctions Policy

Washington, D.C --- Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) and 25 members of Congress have sent a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asking to meet with her to discuss issues related to United States sanctions policy in Iraq. This effort is also supported by the American Public Health Association, the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world, representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 occupations of public health.
"There is an urgent need to re-evaluate our sanctions policy and develop better ways of providing humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq," Kucinich said. "I believe that there is growing skepticism in Congress about this policy and I am encouraged by the support for a meeting with Secretary Albright."

The letter emphasizes the devastated public health infrastructure in Iraq, which is considered to be the leading cause of the spread of disease and illness, conditions that were almost non-existent in Iraq before the Gulf War. "We feel that the gravity of the public health crisis makes it urgent for us to rethink the sanctions policy at all levels, especially in regard to water purification materials," the letter states. " We recognize that many items needed for water and sanitation purposes are considered ‘dual-use' items. But we believe that such items could be safely introduced with a careful system of monitoring by UN humanitarian officials." (seel letter below)

According to a recent report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (February, 2000), "Since then , money and spare parts have not been available to repair sewage works and purification plants, which are often working at reduced capacity, or not at all. This has led to an overall deterioration in the quality and quantity of drinking water and the rapid spread of infectious disease, such as cholera."

In an effort to continue the dialogue on sanctions in Congress, Rep. Kucinich will host a public briefing on the current sanctions policy on Iraq, its effect on the Iraqi civilian population and its impact on the Iraqi regime. The briefing will take place on May 3, 2000 beginning at 3:00 pm in room 2203 Rayburn. Speakers include: Hans Von Sponeck, former UN Oil-for-Food Program Director; Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq; and Scott Ritter, former Senior UNSCOM Weapons Inspector.

Co-signers: Reps. David Bonior (MI), John Conyers (MI), Cynthia McKinney (GA), William Jefferson (LA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Maurice Hinchey (NY), William Clay (MO), Peter DeFazio (OR), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL), Lynn Rivers (MI), John Olver (MA), Tom Sawyer (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), Jose Serrano (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Gregory Meeks (NY), Collin Peterson (MN), Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI), Pete Stark (CA), Nick Rahall (WV), Bruce Vento (MN), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), David Minge (MN), Tammy Baldwin (WI), and Xavier Becerra (CA).


TEXT OF LETTER TO SECRETARY ALBRIGHT:

April 18, 2000


The Honorable Madeleine Albright
Secretary of State
2201 C St NW
Washington, D.C. 20520-0001

Dear Secretary Albright:

We are writing to request a meeting with you to express our deep concern about the growing humanitarian crisis in Iraq which has resulted after nine years of economic sanctions.

We feel that the gravity of the public health crisis makes it urgent for us to rethink the sanctions policy at all levels, especially in regard to water purification materials. We recognize that many items needed for water and sanitation purposes are considered "dual-use" items. But we believe that such items could be safely introduced with a careful system of monitoring by UN humanitarian officials.

In particular, we feel that there is an urgent need to rebuild the public health infrastructure. A major problem that afflicts the Iraqi people is deteriorated water and sanitation systems. A recent report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (February, 2000) stated: "Since then , money and spare parts have not been available to repair sewage works and purification plants, which are often working at reduced capacity, or not at all. This has led to an overall deterioration in the quality and quantity of drinking water and the rapid spread of infectious disease, such as cholera." There are insufficient amounts of chlorine for water purification and insufficient electrical equipment and power to run the water and sewage plants. Chlorine is imported only in limited quantities through the United Nations Resolution 986 Oil-for-Food program. According to an April 1998 UNICEF report: "Water treatment plants lack spare parts, equipment, treatment chemicals, proper maintenance and adequately qualified staff...Plants often act solely as pumping stations without any treatment...The distribution network, on which most of the population relies, has destroyed, blocked or leaky pipes."

UN Reports and statistics on the humanitarian situation in Iraq from the past five years speak for themselves. They indicate that the public health infrastructure is worsening, and programs established to provide food and aid are inadequate. The recent protest resignations of Hans Von Sponeck, UN Oil-for-Food Program director and Jutta Burghardt, head of the UN World Food Program, attest to the inadequacies of the Oil-for-Food program in meeting the needs of more than 22 million people in Iraq and the urgency for relief. Most recently, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed interest in discussing with Mr. Von Sponeck ways of modifying the sanctions on Iraq to allow more humanitarian relief items enter Iraq.

We feel that this is an encouraging step in the right direction. We, too, believe that further review of the sanctions policy is necessary. We would like to meet with you to re-examine this policy and to discuss ways of helping to alleviate the continued public health crisis in Iraq.

We thank you in advance for your timely response.

Sincerely,
Reps. Dennis J. Kucinich (OH), David Bonior (MI), John Conyers (MI), Cynthia McKinney (GA), William Jefferson (LA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Maurice Hinchey (NY), William Clay (MO), Peter DeFazio (OR), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL), Lynn Rivers (MI), John Olver (MA), Tom Sawyer (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), Jose Serrano (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Gregory Meeks (NY), Collin Peterson (MN), Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI), Pete Stark (CA), Nick Rahall (WV), Bruce Vento (MN), Eleanor


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/iraq.html

---------------------------------


The Bloodstained Path

by Dennis Kucinich

<snip>

The United States must recommit itself to the U.N. Charter, which is the framework for international order. We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves. We also have an obligation to defend international law. We can accomplish both without going to war with Iraq.

There is a way out.

It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites.

The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Emergency relief should be expedited. Free trade, except in arms, must be permitted.

Foreign investments must be allowed. The assets of Iraq abroad must be restored.

And a regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction should be established.

The only weapon that can save the world is nonviolence, said Gandhi. We can begin this practice today by calling upon the Administration in Washington to stop the talk of war, and stop the planning for war.

<snip>

We must drop the self-defeating policy of regime change. Policies of aggression and assassination are not worthy of any nation with a democratic tradition, let alone a nation of people who love liberty and whose sons and daughters sacrifice to maintain that democracy.

The question is not whether or not America has the military power to destroy Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The question is whether we destroy something essential in this nation by asserting that America has the right to do so anytime it pleases.

America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

<snip>

We have the power to do this. We must have the will to do this. It must be the will of the American people expressed through the direct action of peaceful insistence.

If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

He is such a class act, and I wish more people would see what he has to offer its something very special. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm a Kucinich presidency.

An Open Letter
to Senator John Kerry
on Iraq
by S. Brian Willson
October 10, 2002
FROM: S. Brian Willson (bw@brianwillson.com)
TO: John Kerry (john_kerry@kerry.senate.org)

Dear John,

It has been a long time since we have had contact. As you might remember, our very first meeting was at VVAW's Dewey Canyon III, "A Limited Incursion Into the Country of Congress," April 19-23, 1971, in Washington, D.C. I'm sure you remember asking the Senate that week in an impassioned speech, "How do you ask a man to die for a mistake?" You also stressed the importance of being "totally nonviolent."

Our second and many subsequent meetings occurred in Massachusetts after you were elected Lt. Governor, 1982-84, while I was active in veteran's issues in Western MA. As director of a veterans outreach center in Greenfield, and the Western Massachusetts Agent Orange Information Project, I served on the Massachusetts Agent Orange Task Force under Governor Dukakis' veterans commissioner and your office as Lt. Governor. I subsequently also served on Dukakis' homeless veterans task force.

When you decided to run for the Senate in 1984 against Ray Shamie, a wealthy businessman, remember that I loyally supported your campaign as one of the dozen or so Vietnam veterans the press called Kerry's Commandos, you called "Doghunters." We accompanied you throughout the state, and fended off right wing criticism from folks such as General George Patton III, who accused you of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" for your earlier VVAW activities. I'm sure you remember with fondness that critical time that launched you into national office. Your lawyer brother, Cameron, concluded that it was the veterans' support that pulled your first campaign out of a nose-dive and created the necessary "galvanizing energy."

Your critics had suspected that your activities, both in the war, and in years following, were prompted, at least in part, to an intense political ambition, even as you addressed your Yale law school graduating class with an anti-Vietnam War speech shortly prior to enlisting in the U.S. Navy. Your career in the Senate has revealed your all-consuming ambition, but that is quite typical of politicians.

The first hint of a bit of disconnect in your style was when during your first Senate campaign you denied returning your war medals, with a thousand other veterans, in protest of the war during Dewey Canyon III. That was a bit of a shock, since for most veterans who returned their medals in that emotional ceremony on Friday, April 23, 1971, it was a very proud and healing moment. Your 1984 campaign response: You had returned the medals of a WWII acquaintance at his direction. All those 13 years everyone thought you had had the courage and leadership to return medals that to veterans who returned them represented medals of dishonor drenched in the blood of innocent Vietnamese who did not deserve to die for a lie, any more than our fellow US Americans. I guess you knew then that you were to be running for office.

The second hint occurred at the celebration party you organized for us "doghunters" at your friend John Martilla's Beacon Hill house in Boston in late June 1985, 6 months into your term as a junior Senator. In the wee hours of the morning, you made two comments that troubled me: (1) you stressed your initials as "JFK" that would help you one day in your quest for the White House, and (2) that after War Department briefings (and perhaps CIA as well) about the need for funding and training contra terrorists in Afghanistan and Nicaragua you had a new appreciation for their importance in furthering U.S. policies. That did not mean that you necessarily voted for Contra aid but that once in power, information becomes part of an elite circle preempting genuine democracy.

I had driven in from Greenfield for that celebration party, and after those remarks I immediately left the party and drove the two hours home. I never forgot it, obviously.

In late September 1986, you, along with some other Senators and Representatives, reluctantly supported the four veterans (myself being one of them) participating in the open-ended Veterans Fast For Life (VFFL) on the east steps of the Capitol building, protesting aid to the Contras. During that fast one of your fellow Senators, Warren Rudman (R-NH), stated in October 1986 that our "actions are hardly different than those of the terrorists who are holding our hostages in Beirut." Shortly thereafter, both our VFFL offices and separate housing accommodations were broken into with many files of our activities and addresses of supporters taken. The FBI initiated a "domestic terrorist" investigation of the members of the VFFL which was revealed later when an FBI agent refused to comply and was fired after nearly 22 years service in the agency.

In September 1987, as you remember, I was severely assaulted by a US weapons train in Concord, CA, during a peaceful protest of a Pentagon munitions train moving lethal weapons to Central America, suffering permanent injuries. Later it was revealed that they suspected me of planning to "hijack" the train, and had accelerated the train 12 miles above the legal speed limit of 5 mph rather than stopping and awaiting police arrest.

Such is life. Contra "terrorists" in Nicaragua called freedom fighters by US presidents, while nonviolent protestors of terrorist policies are labeled the "terrorists" to be investigated. Then look what happened with our terrorists, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Now the Congress is giving the resident of the White House virtual carte blanche authority to launch pre-emptive strikes against more evil lurking beyond our borders. It is a no-brainer to many outside the beltway that we are really experts at knowing how to create rage, then revenge, with our policies of aggression and arrogance.

In the life of being a Senator, John, I'm afraid that your career again proves that power corrupts (and blinds), and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course you have many friends in the same camp.

With your vote for essentially agreeing with the selected resident of the White House's request for incredible authority in advance to wage wars against whomever he wants, you have contributed to finalizing the last of the world's empires, and the likely consequent doom of international law, peaceful existence, and hope for the future possibilities of Homo sapiens. Of course, it also means that searching for the motivations of other people's rage and desperate acts of revenge will be overlooked, dooming us to far more threats and instability then if we had seriously pursued a single-standard in the application of international law equally with all nations in the first place. We are too much of a bully to do that, and have stated over and over again that the American Way Of Life is not negotiable. Can you understand that this means species suicide?

I'm sorry and terribly fearful for this state we are in. Your vote is terribly misguided, John. Now that veterans have reorganized throughout the nation as once again an important part of the growing movement, know that we shall work hard for your defeat, whether as a Presidential candidate or for another Senate term.

Sincerely,

S. Brian Willson, Arcata, CA
Veterans For Peace

his length of time in country, etc.

A very eye opening read

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:1G0lssdGL7cJ:www.boston.com/globe/specialreports/1996/oct/senate/jk106.htm+%22John+Kerry%22+Medals+Vietnam+crew&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.usvetdsp.com/story10.htm

John Kerry: The Chameleon Senator
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
October-December 1996 Issue

Despite the prayers and wishful thinking of POW/MIA families and Vietnam veteran activists, Sen. John Forbes Kerry, the "chameleon" senator from Massachusetts, was re-elected to the Senate in the
1996 election. Apparently Kerry's well publicized history as a longtime radical supporter of the Vietnamese communists and a recent flap about whether or not he is guilty of a war crime meant very little to the voters in Massachusetts.

Sen. Kerry, the "noble statesman" and "highly decorated Vietnam vet" of today, is a far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in the early 1970s. After Kerry, as a Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam, was awarded the
Silver he found it advantageous to quit the Navy, change the color of his politics and become a leader of VVAW. He went to work organizing opposition in America against the efforts of his former buddies still ducking communist bullets back in Vietnam. Kerry gained national attention in April 1971, when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then chaired by Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR), who led opposition in the Congress against U.S. participation in the war. During the course of his testimony, Kerry stated that the United States had a definite obligation to make extensive economic reparations to the people of Vietnam.

Kerry's testimony, it should be noted, occurred while some of his fellow Vietnam veterans were known by the world to be enduring terrible suffering as prisoners of war in North Vietnamese prisons. Kerry was a supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty," a supposed "people's" declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war.

One of the provisions stated: "The Vietnamese pledge that as soon as the U.S. government publicly sets a date for total withdrawal , they will enter discussion to secure the release of all American prisoners, including pilots captured while bombing North Vietnam." In other words, Kerry and his VVAW advocated the communist line to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam first and then negotiate with Hanoi over the release of prisoners. Had the nine points of the "People's Peace Treaty" favored by Kerry been accepted by American negotiators, the United States would have totally lost all leverage to get the communists to release any POWs captured during the war years.

Kerry was fundamental in organizing antiwar activists to demonstrate in Washington, including the splattering of red paint, representing blood, on the Capitol steps. Several hundred of Kerry's VVAW demonstrators and supporters were allowed by Fulbright to jam into a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1972 and to chant "Right on, brother!" as Sen. George McGovern (D-SD), then the only declared Democratic presidential candidate, accused U.S. troops of committing barbarisms in Vietnam.

Kerry became even more of a press celebrity during a highly publicized "anti-war" protest when he threw medals the press reported were his over a barricade and onto the steps of the Capitol. Kerry never mentioned that the medals he so gloriously tossed were not his own. The 1988 issue of Current Biography Yearbook explained: " . . . the ones he had discarded were not his own but had belonged to another veteran who asked him to make the gesture for him. When a 'Washington Post' reporter asked Kerry about the incident, he said: 'They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them.'" Kerry's medals have reappeared, today hanging in his Senate office, now that it is "politically correct" for a U.S. Senator to be portrayed as a Vietnam War hero. Alas, so much for integrity.

Recently, Kerry became extremely defensive when David Warsh, an economics columnist for The Boston Globe, questioned the circumstances for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. Kerry, who was in a close re-election battle with Gov. William F. Weld, a Republican, quickly gathered his former crew from his Swift boat days to rebuff the "assault on his integrity."

According to the official citation accompanying the Silver Star for Kerry's actions on the waters of the Mekong Delta on February 28, 1969: "Kerry's craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard. Once again Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry ordered his units to charge the enemy positions. . . Patrol Craft Fast 94 then
beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft 94 and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber." In an article printed in the October 21st and 28th 1996 edition of The New Yorker, Kerry was asked about the man he had killed.

"It was either going to be him or it was going to be us. It was that simple. I don't know why it wasn't us--I mean, to this day. He had a rocket pointed right at our boat. He stood up out of the hole, and none of us saw him until he was standing in front of us, aiming a rocket right at us, and, for whatever reason, he didn't pull the trigger--he turned and ran. He was shocked to see our boat right in front of him. If he'd pulled the trigger, we'd all be dead . . . I just won't talk about all of it. I don't and I can't. The things that probably really turn me I've never told anybody. Nobody would understand," Kerry said. In the column, Warsh quoted the Swift boat's former gunner, Tom Belodeau, as saying the Viet Cong soldier who Kerry chased "behind a hootch" and "finished off" actually had already been wounded by the gunner.

Warsh wrote that such a "coup de grace" would have been considered a war crime. Belodeau stood beside Kerry and said he'd been misquoted. He conceded that he had fired at and wounded the Viet Cong, but denied Kerry had simply executed the wounded Viet Cong. Dan Carr, a former Marine from Massachusetts, who served 14 months as a rifleman sloshing around in the humid jungles of I Corps, South Vietnam, questioned whether or not Kerry deserved a Silver Star for chasing and killing a lone, wounded, retreating Viet Cong. "Kerry is certainly showing some sensitivity there. Most people I knew in Vietnam were just trying to pull their time there and get the hell out. There were some, though, who actually used Vietnam to get their tickets punched. You know, to build their resumes for future endeavors," Carr said.

for those who simply want to be rid of Bush, assuming that by his removal everything else will miraculously be set straight. An improvement? Yes. THE answer? Not even close. How is it that the groundwork was laid for someone like Bush to be in the position he is in now?

Some may see Kerry as long on experience, but I would call it entrenched.

He is the status quo ruling class, his policies (particularly as regards Iraq) have been the same as Lieberman and other Bushlite politicians, and he offers no new vision for the world. It's a hawkish mindset masked by diplomacy. He comes across as ambivalent because he is not being straightforward, even though he has cultivated a decisiveness in his tone and demeanor.

Something I really appreciate so much about Kucinich is that there is no dancing around issues, no posturing and no sense that he is trying to pull one over on people. Kerry is so entrenched in Spin City and the culture of political strategy, which has taken the place of simple truth, that he has probably lost touch and track of what he, himself, really thinks and feels. And someone who does not know their own heart and mind becomes the instrument of other people's agendas.

The fact that Dean was not in the position to vote for or against the war is lost on the Dean supporter's. No one can say how he would have voted if he was an elected Rep sitting in Congress, he was not there, hindsight is very easy, especially when you do not have to put your money where your mouth is. I like Dean, but his supporters are over the top and I would find it difficult to work side by side with most of them if Clark does not jump into the race.

Clark
Kerry
Dean

Did you even bother to read my post?

BTW I'm NOT a Dean supporter...and am well aware he was not subjected to the War Resolution litmus test.

My response has everything to do with the Kerry interview I saw today, which I found to be very revealing on many fronts. Unfortunately I missed Russert's interview with Dean. But I'm sure there will be ample opportunties to respond to him in the future along with all the others.

I wonder if PNAC has passed any of thier lips. Or about the corruption in the media.

that made me lose a lot of support for him. I've been a Dean supporter this whole time, but have always thought of Kerry as a suitable replacement, should he get the nomination instead of Dean (Kerry's my 3rd choice though, Kucinich is 2nd).

Watching him dodge question after question with the same non answers really pissed me off. Russert asks a straight-forward question on Iraq and the immediate answer was, "Let me be very clear, I always felt that we needed to hold S.H. accountable, and that's why I voted for the resolution in October. That's leadership and experience with foreign policy--the kind that president Bush hasn't shown."

Its the answer he gave to the question about finding the WMDs, improving security in Iraq, and if the resolution was a "blank check."

It pissed me off to no end. I've been less angry from seeing O'Reilly.

:kick:

:)

IMO he tried to go into too much detail in answering the questions. He did not seemed focused enough.

When he talked about Bush he should have said that Bush was a doofus when he knew him in school and that he is a doofus now, or something to that effect.

Instead he seemed to try to avoid answering the question. It would have been better to state a reason why he said what he did and than go into his policy. As it was he ducked and dodged and did not say what he thinks. I truely think that of he was straight with the public and say what he thinks, instead of what he thinks people wants, he would do better.