Kerry: U.S. must 'end the empire of oil' to win war on terror

I really hope it catches on in the media--"Empire of Oil" says so much in just three words!

He should've come out swinging like a tiger when the Swift Shitters came out of the woodwork, but he held his fire, and to everybody watching, it looked like Kerry was implicitly acknowledging their message by failing to challenge it until the 11th hour.

It was not just that but also his support of trade policies that are turning this nation's countryside into a countryside of rusting factories and empty shops with workers forced into lower-paying jobs in the service sector.

Instead of sitting back watching the Repugs imploding, we would still be in court fighting Bush/Cheney. Bush would still be in the WH and all of the problems in the world would be blamed on Kerry and those traitor DEMS opposing Bush's presidency.

The republicans made the bed, let them lie in it.

I want the utter corruption of the republican party to be exposed to all.

I am of the opinion that the Nation must have a crisis before we see any more progress.

The republicans will destroy our economy and our foreign relations, and attempt to destroy social security.

It will be painful, but the republicans will be exposed for the con-men they are.

probably becase it was a speech in front of the Firefighters Convention and media couldn't allow the public to see that Kerry was the choice for firefighters in the post 9-11 world.

Cspan was the only one who carried the speech and few in the media baely even reported it let alone covered it.

BTW - there is a research thread in the research forum that will give you all the facts on the swift defense - you will notice that it was a deliberate move by the media to ignore the defense from the Kerry camp.

from this speech in Ireland, that John Kerry does plan to run again in 08....if you read the whole thing.

its no surprise that in 1937 Hemp a staple product that had many uses besides smoking it was outlawed. It was Hearst (trees for paper) DuPont (chemicals and plastics from crude) and JP.Morgan bankers for both who was the driving force to ban and make illegal a commercial product that was environmentally friendly,renewable and in today's technologically advance world could create thousands of uses and useful products energy being high on the list.
1 acre of hemp = 2-4 acres of trees
1 acre of hemp = 2-4 acres of cotton
plus many other uses...

"HEMP FOR VICTORY" defeat big oil and put AMERICANS back to work...

and we could solve half of our problems.

Legalize marijuana and I bet we could solve the other half.

and put farmers back in the black plus legal weed would be the gravy, a taxable product used by an estimated
30 million Americans and illegals. For over 40 yrs now our POS government has put forward this myth Hemp is a curse,a killer,an addictor of kids...wrong,I recently stopped smoking weed for financial reasons and had not ill after effects nor should there be. Plus like you say,industrial hemp will solve half our problems.One more thing, it could save the Earth from that polluting crude oil..

Thanks for the feedback...

Saying that actually sets back the legalize-hemp movement greatly by taking the light off of the many uses of hemp and lumping into the "war on drugs" BS. Hemp and weed are very different plants, both in THC content and form. If hemp were legalized and widely grown in the US, it would probably reduce the ability of many people to grow weed because of cross-pollination. No one could grow marijuana plants outdoors within a mile or two of a hemp field for fear of cross-pollination from the THC-free hemp ruining their weed strains.

We must hammer home the point that hemp is nothing like marijuana if we are ever to see it legalized for farmers to grow.

Of course kids don't get "addicted" to hemp, because they don't smoke it. Different plant, though related.

But then, no one gets physically addicted to weed, either. That's just a lie (which I know you know).

That aside, I am for the legalization of both the uber-useful hemp plant and the beneficial marijuana plant.

Plants such as switchgrass produce more ethanol per acre than hemp, and can be grown as a perennial in all but the coldest climates.

Hemp has promise for fiber production, but not oil independence.

:)

There is NO war on anything as far as I am concerned. If you buy the notion that we are at "war" with something so abstract and so obsequious as a "war on terror" then you are in the wrong lane.

We are NOT at war with anyone. This so called "war on terror" is a blank nothing and was invented so that Bush and the neocons could establish their brand of fascism over their own citizens.


This invention is much akin to other "wars" we are fighting, such as the laughable "war on drugs" or even "war on Christmas"

Come on--someone has to call Bush on this farce that he calls a "war" that will last forever. Uh huh--as long as he can drag out the notion that we are "at war" with some vague parameters, he will continue to abuse his power. Because that is what he relies upon--the utter fear and the utter reaction of the vengeance upon those, even though they are vague and anonymous or defined in some broad way, of people so fearful that they lose their sense of the right thing to do.

Really Senator Kerry, can you with all honesty say we are at and in a "war" without giving we the people the parameters of this fake war dreamed up by the Bush propagandists in order to give him extraordinary powers?

I really do think, sir, that you have been in the belt way politics far too long and have failed to understand where we the people are coming from.

You are a nice man, but please, do not subscribe to this crazy notion that we are in some kind of a "war". If you do, then please be more definitive as to who it is we are at "war" with. and please do tell us how we can ever know that we won thie "war".

Who are we at war with? The Iraqi people? Nope can't be at war with them anymore. We got Saddam and the poeple have voted and they have a so called "democratic vote" How can we be at war with them? We are not. and

in Afganistan, increasingly becoming more and more violent against Americans--I thought we won that "war" Are we at "war" with the war lords, the TAliban, the opium farmers still?

Enough of this crap about "war". We need someone to stand up and say that all this talk about "war" is insane. We are NOT at war with anyone.

Isn't it about time that someone who is supposed to be a watchtower over the abuses of the executive branch, come clean and tell it like it is?

There is NO war going on. There is only the propaganda from Bush making it seem as if we are actually at "war" with someone--and the someone is the "terrorists"

Feh

and puts the use of the WoT in a different light from the light AP puts it.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2133

.
.
.

thereis no war on terror to be won militarily.

Read the whole speeh as given. His whole point is to deal with the sources of terrorism.



This January, I took a trip of my own where I saw first hand the importance of applying this lesson of hope and perseverance to the challenges we face today. I saw emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq struggling to overcome terrorism and sectarian strife as they work to create a better future. I saw Israel’s democracy persevere despite the incapacitation of its leader. I saw high-tech companies thriving in India in the midst of great poverty. In Pakistan, where tensions between a secular leader and a restless Islamist movement run high, thanks to the response of the world I saw 9,000 children emerge from the devastation of a massive earthquake go to school for the first time.

I saw open societies and closed societies, rich and poor, high tech and low tech, secular and religious. Everywhere I turned, there were disconnects. So many people desperately trying to connect to the rest of the world to make a better future, while so many others desperately cling to the past, doing everything in their power to prevent connection to anything unfamiliar.

These disconnects map the fault lines of today’s conflict and future conflicts. It is in these fault lines that radical Islamists recruit their followers by playing to stereotypes of western civilization. But it is here that the critical challenges of our time is defined: winning the struggle against terror and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Frankly, we should start by better understanding what we are up against. The war on terror – as it is so often called – even exploited — is really a far bigger challenge than the words suggest. Terror is only a tactic. The bigger struggle we are engaged in is much more than a military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it started long before 9/11. It is, above all, a much more complicated undertaking than some have made it sound. In fact, our long-term security is today as it has always been, dependent on addressing the multi-layered fabric of life which motivates those who use terror.

The truth is that we are caught in the middle of a decades-old internal struggle in the Islamic World. It is fundamentally a war within Islam for the heart and soul of Islam, stretching from Morocco east to Indonesia. In regions where the mosque remains the only respected alternative to autocratic state structures, there is no credible secular alternative. And no center of moral authority has emerged to stop those who would murder in the name of Islam.

So ultimately, this is a struggle for the transformation of the Greater Middle East into a region that is no longer isolated from the global economy, no longer dependent on despotism for stability, no longer fearful of freedom, and no longer content to feed restive and rising populations of unemployed young people a diet of illusions, excuses, and dead end government jobs.

To succeed, we must have a strategy that does everything possible to increase the internal demand for transformation in the Greater Middle East, especially its Arab core. This means we must become significantly more engaged in leveraging transformation – we must wage a more effective war of ideas and ideologies. But make no mistake, in the end, this war must be fought and won within the Islamic world. So we have a huge stake in finding partners in the Arab world who are willing not only to lead the transformation of the Middle East, but to reestablish the broad and unchallenged moral authority needed to isolate and defeat terrorists.

We must also, finally, liberate not only ourselves, but the Middle East itself from the tyranny of dependence on petroleum, which has frustrated every impulse towards modernization of the region, while giving its regimes the resources to hold onto power. The international community of democratic nations cannot afford to continue funding both sides of the war on terror. We must end the empire of oil. And these efforts have to be truly international — all linked to the rapid emergence of new energy technologies, in order to ensure that growing economies like China and India don’t just replace us as the enablers of Middle East despots.

These are daunting challenges. To wage this war with any credibility in the Muslim world, we must work to address the impression that we have done too little to achieve real progress in bringing peace to the Middle East. The victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections makes the prospect of establishing a democratic Palestine at peace with Israel seem even more distant. But we must not lose sight of the fact that lasting peace there is key to denying Islamic extremists a recruiting tool and denying repressive regimes an excuse not to address problems at home.

History is replete with examples of conflicts that at times seemed endless and intractable. But history also teaches us that if the desire for peace stays strong, it is always possible to prevail. There are lessons of perseverance and determination for peace to be learned from your experience here in Northern Ireland. You know better than anyone how long and arduous this process can be. The citizens of Northern Ireland have proven that progress is possible for those with the courage to seize it.

We have also learned from experience that successfully meeting great challenges like winning the war on terror requires more than just one nation changing its policies. Great American presidents from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy understood that success requires a community of nations working together, drawing strength from shared sacrifice and steadfast commitment to our shared ideals. We must once again forge great alliances of common purpose that increase our collective strength and amplify our collective voice, so that we defeat any form of tyranny in a battle of ideas. That means strengthening and reforming not weakening and walking away from the ability of the U.N. to play a forceful role in troubled places like Iraq and Darfur.

Literally, the west must reclaim its moral leadership. To be successful in this battle of ideas, we must undermine the jihadist propaganda about the west. All allied nations have to pay greater attention to how our words and deeds are understood in the Middle East, because our good intentions are doubted by the very people the terrorists seek to turn against us. And these efforts must be bolstered with tangible investments, not just in foreign aid, but in the Arab people themselves in the form of schools, hospitals and other institutions that give people a voice and a stake in civil society.

All of the allies, from Europe to the Americas to Asia, must work harder to strengthen our commitment and enhance our efforts to integrate the Middle East into the global economy. This is the only way to stop economic regression, spur investment beyond the oil industry, and spark trade, investment and growth in the region. It’s the only way to turn young minds and energy away from terror.

In addition, all our allies must join together to counter the teaching of hatred in Madrassas throughout the Middle East. We must press regimes more consistently and effectively to teach tolerance in schools and broaden educational opportunities throughout the region. And we must work with moderate Muslims, especially clerics, to permanently discredit the belief that the murder of innocents can be justified in the name of God, race, or nation.

This will be difficult, but it can be done. There is a serious fight going on right now for the soul of Islam. As is so often the case, an extremist minority has captured the attention of the world. But despite what you see on the news, this isn’t a one-sided fight. In 2004 in Amman, Jordan, senior Islamic leaders and leading moderate statesmen like King Abdullah of Jordan came together to preach religious cooperation and non-violence. In July of 2005, moderate Muslim clerics again came together in Amman and issued a formal fatwa, or religious edict, against terror.

That may not sound like much to us, but the terrorists apparently took this threat from moderate Muslims very seriously. In the weeks and months after the 2005 Amman fatwa, Muslims were attacked from Amman itself to Sharm el Sheik to Pakistan. In fact, the overwhelming majority of recent terrorist victims have been Muslims. And the voices of moderation responded again this past January at the Hajj pilgrimage, where Saudi Arabia’s leading cleric condemned the use of terrorism in the name of Islam.

Obviously, the struggle for the future of Islam isn’t a fight the west can win alone — but we can offer critical support as we spread our democratic message. To do that, democratic values and openness should be championed not simply as western values but as the universal values that they are. Democracy spreads with patient but firm determination, led by individuals of courage who dream of a better day for their country. Viktor Yushchenko had that dream in Ukraine. Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. And Lech Walesa in Poland. We need to create the conditions where this dream can become a reality in the Arab world.

Above all, we must remember, democratization is not a crusade. If it is seen as the result of an army marching through Muslim lands it will fail. Perhaps more importantly, that’s not the way democracy works. Creating a democracy requires more than an election, as the defeat of the ruling Fatah party by Hamas in the Palestinian elections further illustrates. The challenge requires building transparent, accountable and functioning democratic institutions that will enable democratically elected governments to provide basic goods and services to their people.

In the end, these steps can open a region that for too long has been closed to opportunity and progress. And they will help to modernize governments and create societies that can better meet the needs of their citizens, respond to their grievances, and provide a more hopeful alternative to the dark ideology of terror. That would be a real battle of ideas—a battle I believe we can win if free nations fight together.

Taking these steps is the key to effectively addressing the root causes of terror, and beginning on a path toward long term victory. But terrorism is not the only threat to our security. We must also do a better job stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and preventing the transfer of those weapons to terrorists.

It was a notable moment in the 2004 presidential campaign when President Bush and I agreed that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons posed the greatest security threat of the 21st Century. To meet this challenge, we are going to have to be strong—but also smart. The most obvious example of this potentially devastating nexus is Iran, where the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism has defied the world by moving forward with its nuclear program. A nuclear armed Iran clearly poses an unacceptable threat to global security. To make sure that never happens, America must lead an unrelenting collective effort that matches the urgency of the threat.

To be smart, however, we must also correct the inherent flaw in the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty that allows nations such as Iran to advance their illicit nuclear weapons capability under the cover of permitted civilian nuclear programs. The fact is that once a country can create its own nuclear fuel, it can probably build a nuclear weapon. To prevent this, America and other nuclear powers must establish international control of the nuclear fuel cycle by creating a reliable, affordable, and accessible bank of nuclear fuel. This will allow us to provide reactor fuel to states that conform to non-proliferation agreements while keeping that fuel under strict international safeguards.

America can also provide more determined leadership in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons by setting the right example ourselves. By advancing negotiations on a global fissile material cut-off treaty; foreswearing the development of new nuclear weapons; and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we can send the right message to the world about our commitment to creating a more effective global non-proliferation regime.

To meet these great challenges of terrorism and proliferation, we must reinvigorate alliances so we can marshal the collective will and resources of America and our allies. The United States has been at its best when working together with other countries in an international system of global reach and power that links the security and welfare of all free nations around the world. It was this system that won the Cold War and made possible the incredible progress of the last 60 years. It is an approach that restores traditions that have passed the test of time — and that is the message I take home with me after traveling the world from India to Pakistan to Iraq to Israel.

So as John Hume once said, “The challenge now is to grasp and shape history: to show that past grievances and injustices can give way to a new generosity of spirit and action.” We have a long way to go before we have met the great challenges of the 21st Century. But with inspired leadership and unwavering commitment, I believe that together we can create a world in which wars are rare; a world in which America and her allies are protected by alliances forged in common interest and purpose; and a world in which order is preserved by the will of democratic nations who understand that all ships rise on a rising tide. And as we have learned from John, even though it may sometimes feel like we should have our heads examined, we must never stop believing that day will come.

Thank you all for coming tonight.

"We have also learned from experience that successfully meeting great challenges like winning the war on terror requires more than just one nation changing its policies. "

I submit to you that the honorable Senator clearly states that we are in a "war" on "terror", (the Bush meme which he apparently has accepted and adopted), and that we can possibly "win" this trumped up, so called, Bush war on terror.

and that is what I object to. The adoption of the Bush propagandist notion that we are at "war" on some noun.



The whole thing seems nothing more than a manipulation of the fearful and vulnerable American people that , indeed, we are in some sort of a "war"when we are not,-- when we cannot possibly be in a "war" given the normal definitions of "war" as I stated in my first post.

Kerry, imo, is repeating this crap for reasons that are not exactly clear to me at this moment.

I maintain that we are NOT engaged in a "war" and cannot be engaged in a war on something so vague as that which Bush insists gives him extraordinary powers and which he insists he needs MORE extraordinary executive powers.

That is a con game.


If the honorable Senator wants to go down that path, I am forced to seriously consider why he choses to do so.

:toast:

"Frankly, we should start by better understanding what we are up against. The war on terror – as it is so often called – even exploited — is really a far bigger challenge than the words suggest. Terror is only a tactic. The bigger struggle we are engaged in is much more than a military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it started long before 9/11. It is, above all, a much more complicated undertaking than some have made it sound. In fact, our long-term security is today as it has always been, dependent on addressing the multi-layered fabric of life which motivates those who use terror."

Kerry is aware from this that the words "war on terror" have their problems. He later uses it - because that IS what everyone is calling it. He can't just make up a new name or avoid it. Read the NYT magazine section article by Matt Bai.

the issue of terrorism over a DECADE before 9-11.

He understood it for it what it was and always acted to pursue it and its financial sources through laws and their enforcement.

You act as if he's adopting Bush's words, but, there are a few Democrats who took that battle on through proper channels and directed their attention at thefinacial backers of terrorism long before Bush took the oval office. Kerry's book written in 1996 warned of these global networks and how they are financed - The New War. It ws released in 1997 just as Al Qaeda was forming in Afghanistan. Too bad no media thought it was an important issue - neither did most of DC at the time.

Kerry's purpose has always been clear - you make the mistake of seeing terror as Bush's issue - when he is only taking advantage of the issue as a fascist powergrab.

No one in government has been more serious about pursuing terror, its funding, and dealing with its sources more than John Kerry has over the last 20years. Unfortunately the media won't discuss it because it proves how they ignored the biggest story of our time throughout that same period.

I don't know why you let yourself get hung up on a phrase without comprehending Kerry's overall view of dealing with terror at its source INSTEAD of seeing it as a military issue like Bush does.

:yourock:

-esp. the right wing laughed.


.....there is no war on terror to be won militarily.

Read the whole speeh as given. His whole point is to deal with the sources of terrorism.

There is no battle for the hearts and minds of Islam. Islam is a religion. It has it's rules. It uses religion to control the masses. It supposes that the masses without religious guidance would descend in decadence. We in the capitalistic west on the other hand worship consumption and self pleasure in many forms that Islam finds sinful. Our leaders convince us, just like the Mullahs in Islamic cultures do, that our way is the best way. In both cases a few lead the blind masses. As the world burns through it's finite sources of mechanistic society like energy and minerals we will see all forms of total control exert maximum pressure for society to conform to the rules of the elite few. The real game is who, when it is all over, is left standing. Bob

Exactly right Malva. The other absurdity is the phrase "Empire of Oil" What the hell does that mean? Is that a reference to Middle East oil? Or Muslim oil? Doesn't Kerry know that we import almost all of our *foreign* oil from this hemisphere and Africa? And what the hell is he doing about our dependence on *foreign oil*? Riding that big Harley road hog that gets maybe 30 mpg? This guy is just another tall suit plugged into the Washington bullshit machine. Shame on him. The world hit Peak Oil in the last few months and the slide down the backside of the depletion curve is going to be the ride from hell. Bob

Even if the US was to embark on an agressive alternative energy and conservation program, this would not change the fact that oil will be a valuable strategic commodity for the foreseeable future -- and the major source of income for oil-producing states in the Middle East.

I agree with most of what Kerry said, but I can't say I understand his "empire of oil" concept. Is he talking about Western influence over the oil-producing states?

have spent the last 40 years at least supporting terrible and very unpopular regimes (or even installing them) in order to make sure they have access to oil.

We should get the f out of the ME. We can't fix it. Kerry knows this. Heck we knew 30 years ago. I used to ignore the critics of the Dems, but the Dems truly have nothing to offer as America crumbles.

that stole our freedom? I won't take any Dem serious until they buck up and expose those who stole and fight for my right to vote and know it's not being stolen!

.....The "war on terror," Kerry said, was not principally about the U.S.-led military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but was "fundamentally a war within Islam for the heart and soul of Islam, stretching from Morocco east to Indonesia."

'War on Terror'.

One more time, for those (senators) who appear to have missed the lecture on what a 'war' really is: YOU CANNOT FIGHT A 'WAR' AGAINST AN ABSTRACTION (like terror or drugs). To give credibility to the idea that you can is nothing more than reckless folly, IMO.

As long as people continue to say 'we can win' this so-called 'war', we are not going anywhere. There will be nothing but heartache and misery brought to you by self-righteous pols. :grr:

this is NOT what Kerry said.

that is enough.

The "war on terror," Kerry said, was not principally about the U.S.-led military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but was "fundamentally a war within Islam for the heart and soul of Islam, stretching from Morocco east to Indonesia."

Kerry, who lost to Bush in the 2004 presidential election, said today's myriad terrorist threats to security in the West and within Muslim nations themselves exist in part because "no center of moral authority has emerged to stop those who would murder in the name of Islam."


Gee, how about those who murder in the name of Jesus? Why are those people okay?

And how will we act as this 'moral center' when we're murdering more people in the name of 'God' and 'Liberation' and 'Democracy' then all the radical islamic whackos put together?

Why is that okay?

Why should I bother talking to you.

"no center of moral authority has emerged to stop those who would murder in the name of Islam."

This sounds like a "sane Muslims, police your own" comment.

Oddly enough, many Christians will instantly agree with this idea...and then shirk off that duty when it applies to them policing the Dobsons and Falwells in their religion (and yes, if they SAY they're Christian, they ARE - just as if a LIBERAL says s/he is a Christian, s/he is).

Not laying that on Kerry, just noticing that double standard again.

and has always been supporting the powers to be...

Because he said that this is not a military problem? Or because he said that we have to be more independent of oil? I am not sure exactly what you reasonning is? Or because he said this is a problem between Muslims? or because he wants to reinforce the UN role?

May be you can explain that because I dont get it at all?

I predict vote for the war with Iran...

we will have to see which way he votes next won't we...

thats my reasoning...

It sure is fun to use Rovian talking points while eating our own. :sarcasm: :rofl:

Don't bother answering. I am not interested.

I'm fairly certain that when Congress voted to abrogate its duty to decide when/if to go to war, b*s* got (or believes he got) carte blanche for whatever war he wants.

for your reading comprehension. As to supporting the powers that be - not really. There is nothing he said that suggests attacking any country. You don't win a war of ideas by bombing people - that's the opposite of what he is saying.

you are so off base it is pathetic. Do you spend this much time tearing down Republicans.

So you don't like Kerry, he wasn't your guy, but why spread mistruths? just to make yourself feel better? Lame.

and is intended to deal with the sources of terror and as a law enforcement issue, not a military one.

No way could it be comprehended as a militaristic speech supporting Bush. No way. A person would have to be completely devoid of comprehension skills to come to that conclusion.

There were people who said that Bush's vision (spreading democracy) was more idealist than the Democratic message which they characterized as simply pragmatic. This is a losing frame. What Kerry has done is expressed a vision where we reach out to other countries and win a war of ideas, encouraging their cultures to rid themselves of factors that bring terrorism about - while working with the international community to control terrorism.

This is a vision consistant with Kerry's past. The tolerance, acceptance and respect he has for other cultures is embedded in his solution. This is not the least bit hawkish - though like the prosecutor he was he will stop people who try to hurt us.

I personally wish Dems would drop the "war on terror" line, though, as it reinforces the idea that our current wars are the way to approach terror (since we're in two wars obstensibly against 'terrorists', people could be assuming that when Dems mention the WoT, they're somehow supporting the wars).

What does the Bush Administration have to do to get explicit criticism??

to not get any criticism...

stated you could not be bothered reading the speech and anyway you would not change your mind.

That is all/

government to directly attack the country overseas. Kerry made his points without explicitly pointing out that Bush is doing the things he warns against and not doing things he says are essential. This was a serious scholarly speech in keeping with the speakers series. It was not a campaign speech.

Kerry has made good use of many opportunities to castigate the Bush administration - this wasn't one of them. He makes many serious interesting comments that should generate thought.

:boring:

But in the meantime, we're in a fucking state of emergency.

Wake up!

What purpose would be served if Kerry, rather than giving an insightful speech, likely what his hosts expected when they invited him, had gone ballistic about how Bush was ruining the world. This would not convince anyone and would likely destroy Kerry as an effective Democratic spokesperson.

He also would have lost an opportunity to speak at a deeper level of his views on an issue he has studied longer than most. I found it interesting. It clearly informs what he recommends in Iraq, on the War on Terror and international relations itself. He is a thoughtful person who shows genuine respect to other traditions and cultures.

I hardly think Kerry would need to feel constrained from pointing out the very real criminal nature of the b*s* administration to people already very aware of that fact.

It's not like they can't handle the truth. Heck, they know more about the truth than most USAmericans know.

The reporter chooses to spin it some how as if it has less teeth tha nit does, when it's actually a powerful, common sense path Kerry takes.

A little fiber just may go a long way.

He's not a walking flaw in the fabric of space time like Bush, but Kerry definitely does not swing. "Empire of oil." Ouch.

And "Muslim lands?" Who does he think he is, Dubya? Let's rewrite that. "We'll lose if they think we're trying to shove our way of life down their throats."

I assume that there are things you've said that others have repeated years later.

Even last year as people said he can't speak in a sound bite world, Kerry's words have been taken by others. All of the following would have been heralded as clever if said by McCain, Dean or Clinton:

- "Outsourced the war to Afghan warlords who were allies of the Taliban only weeks before" Outsource is not the normal word here and many now use it

-"Katrina pulled back the curtain on (Bush) incompetence". later updated to " Katrina pulled back the curtain and there wasn't even a wizard there." (There are many now using that Wizard of Oz comparison - but Kerry has used it sense the beginning of September.)
(
-"Enron budget that doesn't even include the interest paid on the debt"

He wasn't at a campaign rally or talking to Chris Matthews.

Amazing how even some Democrats now want their politicians dumbed down - the corporate media can claim "Mission Accomplished" now.

imposing democracy

1. By definition, it's impossible.

2. The last thing Americans, and most especially the US gov, want, is any democracy in the ME, or anywhere else where the majority of citizens dislike us. THINK about it; democracy = representative gov...citizens hate the USA = representative gov who hate the USA.

3. People don't like other nations imposing anything on them. People are funny that way. People REALLY hate other nations killing their men, women & babies while imposing anything on them. People are really funny that way.

I hate this shit, I really do.

Vote for the Patriot Act again, yadayadayadablahblahblah, send out some emails, yadayadayadablahblahblah, still a member of Skull & Bones? yadayadayadablahblahblah, vote for the patriot act AGAIN, yadayadayadablahblahblah, send out emails, yadayadayadablahblahblah, VOTE FOR THE PATIOT ACT AAGGAAIIINNN, yadayadayadablahblahblah. Jumped the shark? yadayadayadablahblahblah, vote for the patriot act again, yadayadayadablahblahblah./end/ cd/ find another candidate/ close/end//

You win the stupid post of DU award for today.

Congratulations...

"The war on terror," is being waged at the expense of the heart and soul of American Democracy.

And, especially, their influences on a country's culture and governance.

I first read about it in a 1997 interview in Windsurfer magazine.

and still lost the election...

So tell me how great he is again???

and I will predict that if a draft comes up...

He will vote for that too...

and yes he places his vote and stamp on the Unpatriot Act every time...

Vote Mao Zedong!


No Compromises!


:sarcasm:

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SALAZAR, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. OBAMA, and Mr. KERRY ):

S. 2369. A bill to require a more reasonable period for delayed-notice search warrants, to provide enhanced judicial review of FISA orders and national security letters, to require an enhanced factual basis for a FISA order, and to create national security letter sunset provisions; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

This bill will fix remaining problems in the Patriot Act. I think it makes sense that they let the revision pass. The alternative would have only been to extent the original bill (which was worse) and to keep working on it. What is happening now is that the better (but still problematic bill is in place) and when they can get sufficent support they will push this.

When someone like Kennedy is saying that they had as much as they were going to get, I believe him.

As to the debates, your correct he did an utterly brilliant job - and that is the only thing that kept the election close. It was the only time (other than the 3 hours of the convention) that people could see him without the filter of people like Candy Crowley.

It's that simple.