More DLC BS against Kerry (Hillary is the principled candidate).

(this is what the two Hillary supporters on GD has been saying as well).

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/06/stalwarts.html

:puke:

but some of us realize that the fuck-ups who got us into this mess in the first place and have not made a right move since, are NOT the ones who will be successful. Slowly but surely the Bidens, Liebermans, and Clintons of our party will talk themselves into political obscurity.

Bush invaded Iraq based on falsified evidence, but we're there now. We know innocent people are dying, but no need to withdraw until we can kill off all the anti-American people and turn the rest into pro-American people!

I swear that's how these against the war, but not really against the war, people sound.

I really am beginning to think that if the war gets worse, Hillary and Biden could end up for the war when Bush is cutting his loses. Country before party implies the war is good - I think they need to hear Kerry's dissent comments. Kerry doesn't want kids sacrified for pride.

This has so many errors.
-The vote against the funding, as Kerry famously said was a protest vote because he preferred the amendment with oversight and which roll back some tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for it, not an anti-war vote. (Odd, a week or so ago an Edwards person cited his vote on that as anti-war and I questioned if it wasn't like Kerry's) This has been used before to say Kerry didn't want to give the troops what they needed.

-Kerry was never for invading - although Edwards was

I guess the country being in a civil war doesn't count as a reason to get out.

Just so you know. He left the party due to the extreme corruption, but I still think of him as a Republican. I used to read him, but when he came out in favor of the warrantless NSA wiretapping, I'd had enough, and stopped reading his blog.

Yeah, it's SOOO brave to say you favor the status quo and the overwhelming conventional wisdom that we are STUCK there and can't leave. Sorry, it's Kerry who's the brave one who is being pummeled by the MSM and pundits like Bullmoose and Andrew Sullivan. I nearly went ballistic when I read this from Sully:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/06/is_our_presiden.html



I had already e-mailed Andrew my "OBL wants U.S. to stay in Iraq" story, so I'm not e-mailing him for that petty remark. But please allow me this rant ** obscenity alert **:

"FUCK YOU, ANDREW and your fucking flip fucking flop bullshit remark!!!!!!! If you think Kerry's plan is WRONG, then explain to me what YOUR plan would be in Iraq!! Do you want MORE troops or less?? What do you want negotiated with the Iraqi government? How is it best to fight this counterinsurgency war? Because last I looked, you've been pretty damned vague about what needs to be done. You non-stop criticize Bush, yet want to "win" this war. Well tell me how?

Kerry has ALWAYS had the SAME position on Iraq, numb skull!!!!! He voted YES on the IWR vote because he wanted to prevent nuclear proliferation by getting U.N. inspectors BACK into Iraq -- a BIG STICK was needed for that, and that's what Kerry voted for. Well, now we find out Bush didn't really care that much about WMD, that he just wanted regime change, and he blatantly misled Congress, the American people, and even his own Sec. of State. Kerry did NOT say yes to the question "knowing what we know now, would you have voted yes on the Iraq vote?" in the Grand Canyon in August 2004; you see, due to a hearing loss that he got while he was FIGHTING a counterinsurgency war in Vietnam, he didn't hear the question properly. John Kerry has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS been against the invasion of Iraq. And he gave AMPLE warning that he would run out of patience for this administration getting it right. So in April, he came out with his plan, which is still the SAME PLAN today on June 15th. And it'll be the SAME GOD DAMNED plan come December, when he says -- WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ, BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL DIE FOR A POLICY THAT HAS ALREADY FAILED.

You write your clever little blog every day like you know everything. Well, you don't know John Kerry -- you don't know JACK SHIT about him, so don't you FUCKING snark about him when it comes to war. His life was utterly SHATTERED by war; it wasn't a little intellectual discussion -- it was REAL. John Kerry is no pacifist, but he thinks much longer and harder about putting men and women in harm's way than you do, probably because you won't ever have to carry out the orders to implement "democracy across the Middle East at the barrel of a gun". As he said a MILLION times in 2004 -- you don't go to war because you want to; you only go to war because you have to. Jesus. Where the FUCK were you in 2004 -- oh, that's right -- memorizing GOP talking points."

See -- that's why I'm not writing to Andrew right now, because I'm REALLY mad, and will only share my Banshee scream with you guys. Rant over.

That was impressive. :hide:

Just kidding - that was AWESOME!!!! :kick:

though it's perfect as a response on DU to some people who presist in saying the same thing. You should send him a toned down version because it's an excellent summary that does show the motivations and consistancy of Kerry's positions.

Beachmom, that was truly impressive! I couldn't have said it better. Thanks!

Principled and putting country before partisanship? Biden? Clinton?
The only one I would give them a nod on is Leiberman.I think he really believes he is right.

principled.

LOL! (But not really.)

Except the asshat said he was an Edwards coordinator, which I didn't buy for a second. But the person was repeating the "Iraq pullout" bullshit and that, get this, Kerry gave the middle nothing to vote for. So I responded. After a couple emails, he tells me:

"You are a perfect example of the problems the party is having with the left wing extremists.

A reasonable dialogue with you is not possible...with your mind set."

So it's turning this ugly already, hmm.

He said we can't "Cut and Run" and that we would be the first generation to lose a war not to another country but to a group of people connected all over the middle east who hate us (need transept these are not correct words - but point is he conflated Iraq and jihadists. He also mentioned that Clinton was right and she was booed.

The odd thing though was that when Imus said "Then Kerry's wrong about a deadline", he immediately backtracked and mumbled something about benchmarks and said that Kerry was booed too. (How can he be so ignorant?) He later - speaking of Bush's trip, mentioned he hoped Bush told him we won't stay forever and that they need to stand up !!!!

the benchmarks be set for the end of the year? Set the benchmarks and TRY LIKE LIFE DEPENDED ON IT (because it does) to meet them!


These people are just making silly excuses!

wait forever that the benchmarks are met, because, if we wait for Bush and the Iraqi govt to meet them, this could just be waiting forever (and it is not clear that this is not what they want, given Frist's claim that, should the US troops leave, there would be WMDs in Iraq).

The major evolution Kerry brought when he announced its plan earlier this year was the recognition that benchmarks will not work and that you need to put firm deadlines so that people know how much time they have to do these things and organize. This is the need for these benchmarks that other dems (Ford, Biden, ...) do not want to recognize.

Kerry is right, but Ford likely mumbled his response because if they start to actually debate benchmarks, people will realize that the first thing that needs to happen is standing up Iraqi forces. Ninety percent of the forces required are already trained, so what's the problem? No benchmark needed for that. Just get it done! That's why Kerry said a firm deadline is practical. The benchmarks talk is babble!

Biden and benchmarks. He especially wants to perpetuate this talk to give the impression that more needs to be done. He is constantly referring to the 250,000 plus Iraqi forces as people in uniform, giving the impression that they aren't trained. Yet, the WH continue to boast that they are.

Ford was actually misinformed on Kerry's position - saying Kerry wanted benchmarks (seems like Ford only knew Kerry's Oct position) - rather than explaining that Kerry wants a deadline and diplomacy. It was interesting that he railed against "cut and run", but refused to label Kerry as that. (My conjecture is that the DLC talking points were "no cut and run" and how brave Hillary was getting booed by all you scary people. But as soon as he was questioned - his answer that Bush should tell the Iraqi PM we're not staying forever and his refusal to apply the cut and run label to Kerry showed that his real position is to the left of what he said at the beginning.

The reason I suspect the Hillary thing was a talking point is that he clearly knew little about it - Hillary got booed on the war (or perhaps they booed her position) but other parts of her speech were well received. This was NOT Hillary going into a lion's den. That he added that Kerry was booed too - shows he really knew nothing about the event.

Ford sounds confused or he's intentionally muddling the messages so he can't be pinned down.

I agree very DLC. I don't agree with his stance, but I guess he is trying to get the conservative dem vote for his run for US Senate (TN).

Well now, for the Bush administration and apparently some of our own, the Iraq war has now become the country were we are waging the broader war against terrorism. The mindset is we have to wait them out. Wait until they give up. The idea being if we leave now, they will think they have won and this will encourage them to continue to terrorise to greater extents. We are expected to believe waiting them out there will discourage them in the long run. I personally don't buy into this idea. I don't think it is well though out. I also don't think it is the way to deal with terrorists. I don't know if Kerry has really taken on the issue of dealing with terrorism since the campaign, but I think this is what we should be discussing. Other alternative to fighting terrorism other than waiting them out in Iraq. Let these poor people in Iraq have their country back helping them fight for and maintain their democracy, but lets pull away and let them assume control.

I have a question. Did Ford use the term "cut and run"? If he did this has got to stop. Our own party should not be using Repub terms to describe Kerry's plan.

It may be that he feels he needs to in his red state. But when he spoke further he was saying that Bush needs to let the PM know we won't stay forever. (He clearly didn't know the PM is FOR a timeline.) So, when the surface "cut and run" nonsense is cut, he real was close to Kerry's "work out an exit date". (Nothing he said lets me say Ford wants it to be this year, like Kerry.

to describe Kerry's amendment. It would not of hurt his chances by describing it as a measured withdraw. This is disapointing to me. it makes me think less of him.

He seemed very ill informed - calling withdrawal, cut and wrong, but when asked if Kerry was wrong then, he said Kerry's plan wasn't cut and run (but his brief description was more like the Oct plan.)

I thought Kerry was helping him through KAP. He was with him during the primaries too. :shrug: