I will support Senator Kerry because - Democratic Underground

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 08:20 PM
Original message

I will support Senator Kerry because

he took on one of the most corrupt campaigns and was able to achieve a record 59 million votes, the second highest ever in presidential elections. Despite the media's complicity, Senator Kerry almost helped Bush set a record:

In the last two campaigns, the parties divided the electoral map almost exactly in half. In 2000, George W. Bush won the second-narrowest Electoral College victory since 1800. In 2004, Bush won a smaller share of Electoral College votes than any reelected president except Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
held http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook7may07,1,3221992.column?coll=la-headlines-nation

Despite comments to the contrary, Senator Kerry did fight the Swift Liars:

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=2555&mesg_id=2555

It stopped them cold, until the MSM launched its onslaught in August. Then Kerry called them out and issued a direct challenge to Bush:

Kerry defends war record

Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&

Text:

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

I also believe Senator Kerry handle the election results in the proper way given the facts.

From the RFK Jr. article:

By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

Senator Kerry still continued legal efforts:

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey (which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf (counting)
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

All of these efforts were thwarted by partisanship in Ohio Republican government and in the U.S. Congress. As Conyers report stated:

Whether the cumulative effect of these legal violations would have altered the actual outcome is not known at this time. However, we do know that there are many serious and intentional violations which violate Ohio’s own law, that the Secretary of State has done everything in his power to avoid accounting for such violations, and it is incumbent on Congress to protect the integrity of its own laws by recognizing the seriousness of these legal violations.

B. Need for Further Congressional Hearings

It is also clear the U.S. Congress needs to conduct additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities in the Ohio presidential election and around the country.

While we have conducted our own Democratic hearings and investigation, we have been handicapped by the fact that key participants in the election, such as Secretary of State Blackwell, have refused to cooperate in our hearings or respond to Mr. Conyers questions. While GAO officials are prepared to move forward with a wide ranging analysis of systemic problems in the 2004 elections, they are not planning to conduct the kind of specific investigation needed to get to the bottom of the range of problems evident in Ohio. As a result, it appears that the only means of obtaining his cooperation in any congressional investigation is under the threat of subpoena, which only the Majority may require.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/issues/issues/election.html

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

More in these interviews:

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

As Rolling Stone now states:

Enough. Only a complete investigation by federal authorities can determine the full extent of any bribery and vote rigging that has taken place. The public must be assured that the power to count the votes -- and to recount them, if necessary -- will not be ceded to for-profit corporations with a vested interest in superseding the will of the people. America's elections are the most fundamental element of our democracy -- not a market to be privatized by companies like Diebold.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463874/editorial_a_call_for_investigation

While Senator Kerry has stated the vote was wrong and has expressed regret for his vote on the IWR, he has stated repeatedly that he did not support the invasion and as president would not have done what Bush did with the authority granted. As with everything else, there are the facts of the IWR

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The IWR laid out a set of criteria that had to be met and specifically stated that Bush could only go to war as a last resort in the face of an imminent threat. Bush's violation: He ignored the criteria and started a war without the existence of an imminent threat to the United States.

The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to to use force providing specific conditions were met and only in the face of an imminent threat.

In the face of an imminent threat, the War Powers Resolution allows the president to go to war without prior Congressional approval. The president needs to report back to Congress withing 60 days after executing a war---provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.

From the War Powers Resolution:

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent
of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the
collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by
the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or
in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically
provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary
and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all
other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2)
specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed
forces

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm

Like it or not, the president has the power to go to war. Bush used manipulated evidence to claim that Iraq had WMD was a threat to national security.

The IWR gave Bush 48 hrs to report back, so the IWR didn't make it easier. It specifically stated the steps Bush had to take before considering the use of force when all other options for a peaceful solution were exhausted and the a clear and imminent threat was present. Without the resolution he would have defied Congress. With the resolution he not only defied Congress, he defied the specific criteria laid out by Congress.

Senator Kerry has been consistent in his opposition of the war.

Before the vote on October 9, 2002:

Snip…

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Page: S10174

In January 2003 before the invasion:

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Snip…

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=189831

During the campaign:

Kerry Hits Nail on Head

By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 04 October 2004

Snip...

John Kerry cut to the heart of the matter when he said during Thursday’s debate with George W. Bush that, "a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn’t have long-term designs on it." Kerry cited the U.S. construction of 14 military bases in Iraq that are said to have "a rather permanent concept to them."

Building these bases belies Bush’s protestations that he has "no ambitions of empire."

Snip...

Yes, as Kerry said, Bush made "a colossal error of judgment" when he invaded Iraq. "I will make a flat statement," Kerry declared during the debate. "The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq." With that promise, John Kerry turned the policy of Team Bush on its head. Kerry was also right on when, responding to Bush’s debate mantra that Kerry sends mixed messages, the Senator said: "You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, ‘You can’t have nuclear weapons,’ but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

more...

http://www.uncle-scam.com/Breaking/oct-04/to-10-4.pdf#search=

Here is an exact quote from the debate:

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

KERRY: And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646640.shtml

In 2005:

06/28/2005
John Kerry Speaks Out on Iraq, Details Concrete Steps President Must Take to Rescue the Mission

Snip...

“Getting it right also means putting together a real plan for the training of Iraqi troops and following through on it. This should be our top priority. It’s the key to getting our troops home and avoiding a humiliating withdrawal. It’s time to move beyond fudging the numbers and finally put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing, which includes ensuring the Iraqi government has the budget necessary to deploy them. It’s also time to stop using the in-country training requirement as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more. Why would we turn down this opportunity to give our troops the relief they deserve?

“Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The Administration’s plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments. This plan must be more than dates and numbers - it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=239696&

10/26/2005
Senator John Kerry Lays Out Path Forward in Iraq
If Administration Acts Responsibly, We Can Stabilize Iraq and Reduce Combat Forces With Successful December Elections, Draw Down 20,000 Troops by the End of 2005
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764&

Senator Kerry has demonstrated honesty and has consistently stands on principle:

What’s the Best Kept Secret About John Kerry?

Voted against the Defense of Marriage Act
Got the endorsement of Lee Iacocca
Spearheaded probe of BCCI, the CIA’s favorite bank
Vowed to filibuster ANWR drilling bill
Founded VA watchdog group Vietnam Vets of America
Was Time Magazine’s ‘Honest Man in Politics’ in 96
Has a 0% rating from the Christian Coalition
Gets an F-grade from the NRA
Led Senate hearings on Iran-Contra scandal
Sponsored Clean Money bill for Congressional races
Gave others credit for legislation he wrote

http://www.redefeatbush.com/modules.php?name=Surveys&pollID=20

In fact, Senator Kerry was pretty much right about everything he advocated during the campaign.

Kerry's ideas are at the forefront in the Democratic Party.

Improving benefits for troops and their families. With the recognition that the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have placed a tremendous strain on service members and their families, Democrats have worked to ensure that the government provides adequate support to them in this difficult time. Senator Kerry introduced one amendment to extend housing allowances for families of service members killed during their service, and another amendment to increase the death gratuity for families of all troops killed in active duty from $12,000 to $100,000. Both amendments passed in the Senate.

They also attempted to table Senator Kerry's amendment to increase the death gratuity for all personnel killed in active duty, claiming that providing an increased death gratuity to families of fallen soldiers "does not give us the opportunity to recognize those who put their lives on the line. We oppose this amendment because of that fact." Senator Stevens, speaking on behalf of the Republicans, signaled that the Bush Administration also opposed the Durbin and Kerry amendments. Finally, Republicans opposed Senator Bayh's amendment to address longstanding shortages of up-Armored Humvees in Iraq.

Seventeen Republicans repeatedly voted against measures to support our troops. Republican Senators opposed four key amendments that were intended to provide much needed support for the men and women in our nation's military: Senator Durbin's reservist pay protection amendment, Senator Kerry's death gratuity increase, Senator Bayh's effort to procure additional up-armored Humvees, and Senator Murray's amendment to support veterans returning from Iraq. In each case, no fewer than 25 Republicans voted against the amendment. However, there were seventeen "worst offenders" in the Republican Caucus that voted against every single one of these amendments. These worst offenders, which include the top two leaders of the Republican Caucus, are: Majority Leader Frist, Majority Whip McConnell, and Senators Allard, Bennett, Bond, Bunning, Burr, Cochran, Cornyn, DeMint, Grassley, Hatch, Inhofe, Sessions, Shelby, Stevens, and Voinovich.

Republicans flip flop on key provisions to provide support for our troops. While Senate Republicans put aside their opposition to some key Democratic initiatives in the Senate version of the bill, they joined with House Republicans in conference to remove these provisions from the conference report. Republicans removed Senator Reid's amendment addressing concurrent receipt for disabled veterans, Senator Kerry's amendment providing an increase in death gratuity for survivors of all deceased service members, and Senator Durbin's amendment to provide income security for reservists. Republicans also reduced funding for Army Reserve tuition assistance provided by Senator Landrieu's amendment from $17.6 million to $5 million, and reduced funding for up-armored Humvees provided by Senator Bayh's amendment from $213 million to $150 million.

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-1-31

Democrats have a strategy to secure Iraq and bring our troops home.

While the Bush Administration has vacillated, misjudged, and floundered in Iraq, Senate Democrats have consistently called for a stronger, more coherent set of policies to turn the situation in Iraq around. If proposals from Senate Democrats were adopted, the United States mission to Iraq would:

Accelerate reconstruction efforts. At a recent hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden joined with Republican Senators Lugar and Hagel to urge Bush Administration officials to correct the errors the Administration has made in its reconstruction efforts. Senator Biden stated that accelerating progress in reconstructing Iraq's infrastructure "is our single highest foreign policy priority right now in the next weeks." Senator Kerry has noted that correcting past mistakes means that "we have to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability, and...use more Iraqi contractorsand workers instead of big corporations like Halliburton." (Remarks at New York University, 9/20/04)

Expand and improve training of security forces. As Senator Kerry has suggested, the President should "urgently expand the security forces' training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries." (Remarks at New York University, 9/20/04)

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-269

"We are joined by governors from across the country in urging Congress and the White House to wake up and help families cope with record-high heating prices this winter. We refuse to abandon families, especially seniors, who won't be able to afford to keep the heat on. The administration's own Energy Information Administration knows this problem is real. Governors across the country see this. So why are the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress going out of their way to do nothing? What's it going to take for the White House to act? If Katrina showed us anything, it's that we can't afford to wait until the crisis is here and it's too late. It's time Washington stop playing games, get with the program, and start figuring out how we're going to keep the heat on for American families this winter," said John Kerry.

http://democrats.senate.gov/energy/news/101905.html

At another June 15 Social Security event, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) released a report stating that Bush's proposed changes in Social Security would create increased administrative requirements and costs for small businesses.

"This is bad for small business. It is a burden for small business. It is not implementable efficiently," Kerry said at a news conference. The report, titled President Bush's Social Security Privatization Plan: Benefit Cuts, Red Tape, and Increased Costs for Small Businesses, said that Bush has underestimated the cost of individual accounts for small businesses. It was drafted by the Democratic Policy Committee.

http://sbc.senate.gov/democrat/record.cfm?id=239131

Kerry is responsible for forcing the debate on withdrawal from Iraq

April 5, 2006
Two Deadlines and An Exit
The New York Times
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0405.html

Support for John Kerry's Resolution:

Gary Hart
Max Cleland
Retired Air Force Colonel James Callard
Barbara Boxer
Tom Harkin
Russ Feingold
Ted Kennedy
Former Army Captain Jeremy D. Broussard
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0426c.html

Statement by MoveOn.org Political Action on Senator
Kerry’s Proposal for Iraq
The following is a statement by MoveOn.org Washington
Director Tom Matzzie on Senator John Kerry’s proposal
for Iraq:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0405f.html

Right and Responsibility to Speak Out
On 35th anniversary of Senate testimony, Kerry says
history repeating itself
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_04_22.html

June 13, 2006
John Kerry's Speech to the Campaign for America’s
Future
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_06_13.html

Excerpts of S.2766 introduced in the United States
Senate on June 12, 2006
Purpose: To require the withdrawal of United States
Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an
Iraq summit.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0612.html

Senator Kerry is a fighter with intelligence, integrity and common sense, and that's what I look for in a leader.

He's got my support!