Most Dems oppose the war. So why is Kerry's support for it acceptable?

Kerry's reps wouldn't even allow language to be inserted into the party platform, urging the desirability of a quick withdrawal.

Most on DU know that the war is a criminal enterprise. This is consistent with the broader findings of a recent poll --

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll found that, by a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent, people who identify themselves as Democrats say United States troops should "leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable" and not "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy."

So, why is it acceptable that on an issue of such importance, the candidate shows himself utterly unresponsive to the opinions of a majority of his constituency? This same disgraceful candidate said last Friday that he supports the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive strikes" -- which of course is simply blatant aggression by another name. Most Democrats oppose this idea, as well.

How can such terrible positions really be defended? How can the Kerry apologists avert their eyes from this utterly wrong-headed foreign policy, which is only slightly different from Bush's policy?

People sit for hours on DU writing about how horrible Bush's war is - but the plain fact is, Kerry supports almost all of it. Moreover, he is saying nary a word about the CRIMINALITY of the war. Do you Kerry apologists really suppose that support for a criminal war is quite acceptable -- as long as it's a Democrat doing the supporting?

...in this corner we have the Chimp. In the other corner, we have Kerry. Both support the war. So if I want the Chimp out and use support for the war as my litmus...then...yeah, there's no one but Kerry who can unseat the Chimp. The war is secondary to the larger goal of removing the Chimp. Sorry.

I'll put my faith in Kerry to do the right thing.

Kerry/Never Bush in 04

This election was probably the best opportunity to nominate a progressive that would make major change. We blew it.

Kucinich inhabited John Edward's body and life, he could very well be the nominee now.

If there wasn't this panic to "ABB" & get his scrawny faux cowboy ass outta the WH...then "electability" wou;dn't have been such a big frikkin deal...

I LOVE your statement about DK in JE's body & life...AMEN.

(have we always been this shallow??)

Peace
DR

and character, but TV has changes all that.

Berke Breathed was right when he drew that comic of a TV thinking, "Karl Marx, you ain't seen nothing yet" or some such thing. Surely it is the opiate of the masses now!

That story is even more humble than Edwards. Most of the candiates related their life experiences well, and most of those who did well, Kerry talked of Vietnam, Edwards talked of being a millworker's kid, Gep of being a union truck driver's kid, Kucinich talked about being a teamster's son as well, yes the older Kucinich was a teamster, and the family grew up very poor. Now on the looks thing, yeah if he had Edwards' looks, I think he could very well be the nominee or at the very least well known nationally, and we can still pursue a progressive agenda, Kerry's not perfect but I trust him, he has a more liberal record than Kennedy and has been the senate's most liberal member 5 times. Cant provide links being I am multitasking as is, with this and work.

we are so into glitz & glam and DK is just simply so wonderfully "real" :)

As for Kerry...I am reserving judgement but am NOT impressed with what I have seen...again...we are not given a choice I WANT to vote for.....Dennis was different....

anyhow :hi: :hug:
DR

give him. That's where I differ with a lot of people, I personally thought his speech to the NAACP was great. Well you know how it was, I personally think the media fucked the damn thing up, people were only believing there was one anti war candiate, and when he was mentioned, he was called fringe etc. Fucking media.

across the spectrum, right and left.

*sigh*

:(

Yeah reminds me of the Kennedy family. I thought you meant life story. Yeah people are superfical like that which is a shame.

people don't realize that conviction and boldness make one more electable. A bland, safe candidate isn't more electable imo.

if they had worked in a united and coordinated way. There are enough Greens and Green party organizations to make DK the nominee if they had put in the effort in volunteer resources and money.

I think the Greens can blame themselves for John Kerry being the nominee. When the New Hampshire Green Party endorsed DK for President one of the two national Green parties sent out a press release attacking the endorsement and calling that Green organization illegitimate. How pathetic. The limited power of the Green party would have been strongest in the Democratic primary where fewer people vote than in the General election, but they blew the opportunity.

amd as lovely as he is, he doesn't want to be the Green Party nominee. :( But if he had won the primary, I do think the Greens would have considered the possibility of endorsing him.

Then again, there are some Greens who aren't that pragmatic. :(

in our primary last Feb...he has switchd back but he wholeheartedly supported Dennis...but couldn't as an official Green....

Peace
DR

If everyone who voted Nader in 2000 had voted for Kucinich in the early primaries then DK would have been a frontrunner. If Green party organizations had put real coordinated effort it most certainly could have made the difference because so few people vote in primaries.

But, like you said many Greens aren't that pragmatic and the Party has never been united and organized enough to do something like that.

I remember how hard it was to find stories about him in the paper.

or his diet, or his height...

who now seem to resent the Green party during the primaries. Such an opportunity squandered, and at such a critical time...

But the DLC went out of their way to sabotage him with the "electability" lie. It's clear from the start that those treasonous bastards WANTED a pro war candidate and a pro war platform.

So for all you optimistic folks who think you'll get Kerry to act like a real Democrat after the election, I believe you'll be disappointed. The only reasons I'm even bothering to show up in November are the Supreme Court and possibly some REAL economic recovery. Other than that, I expect very little to change in a Kerry administration.

We could have done so much better :(

Hopefully Kerry will actually do something about it.

our collective insistence that image is paramount has cost us dearly.

There will never be a more progressive on any ticket than Dennis.

Can't put in much more effort than that.

Anybody but Corporatists.

It was TPTB in the Democratic party, aided greatly by the media that blew it for us.

When one state can nominate a candidate for president, democracy has no chance. (Keep in mind who set up the front loaded primaries.)

What a choice we have! We can either vote the repug party or the apologist party.

But this time around the progressive movement can kiss my behind. I'll be voting for Kerry even if Chimpy produces a signed contract between Kerry and Satan. Eternal damnation seems a small price to pay for getting rid of the Chimp.

Everything is so polarized, the Dems could literally take the same approach that the radical Republicans take: just appeal to the base in a big way, and to hell with the other side.

I remember back when the race was just barely beginning, people were already talking about who was "electable". It was pathetic. They ran to the moderates right out of the gate.

Even if they didn't think the more left-leaning candidates had a shot, it still would've been worth backing them early on. It could've steered the corporate-approved moderates leftward or- god forbid- actually gotten a progessive elected.

People buy into this BS that we have to pretend to be something else to win votes from supposed swing voters. We nominated someone who won't represent the massive anti-war movement. We're risking losing the election because we nominated someone perceived as more electable. If Kerry does what he says he'll do he'll be another LBJ. People will start protesting Kerry and in four years he'll be out of office if Iraq is still going on.

Just wait and see Eeyore, another glummy day in liberalville....
:bounce:

If Kerry didn't do it during the primary I can't see him doing it now.

Why would a candidate who won't take risks during a long campaign and Senate career suddenly become Paul Wellstone after being elected? He still has Congress and re-election to worry about. Keep dreaming.

like he'll do anything to rock the boat if he gets elected.

same ol' stuff...only a bit slower paced ...will throw out a few tiny bones to make us think we are gonna be OK...

but ultimately...not a lot of difference.



Peace
DR

woohoo!
Oh wait, I'm supposed to be happy about that because its better than Hitler.

Or, because he can!

That's a highly unqualitative analysis stemming from the hell-bent desire to lump the "corporatists" in all together, if not to just trash Kerry.
As a clue, there is a very good possiblilty that pre-emptive wars are the right thing to do when the facts actually support it.

"Pre-emptive war"...oh please...you are just spinning words here...like "collateral damage"...whenyou really mean innocents being killed.

and really...Kerry is basically a corporate elite....its all about the money, honey.

Peace
DR

It is an attack to prevent an attack- a defensive measure.

right?? If they have not attacked you...and you send troops& bombs and kill people in their country- soldiers & innocents alike...maybe you can justify that by calling it "pre-emptive"...not so sure I can....

so....you may stop their next move, but bottom line , YOU are the one who started the violence,right?

So how do you justify that? Oh wait...I forgot...we gotta get them before they get us...as if we can read their minds & know thats what they are going to do?

Oh right, I forgot...we had **INTELLIGENCE** that told us that...(even though many could see through all the lies...still.....)

oh right......its OK cause the US is always right and righteous.

DR

a good thing to have but you don't want to have to use it.
The right to pre-emptive strikesis something we hold in reserve.

"As a clue, there is a very good possiblilty that pre-emptive wars are the right thing to do when the facts actually support it."

There is never EVER a need for a pre-emptive war friend, and they are never the right thing to do. I don't care how much evidence you have, striking some country before they attack us is immoral, period. All you do is bring about a self fullfilling prophecy, and get the whole world pissed at us. Or did you learn nothing from such pre-emptive follies such as Iraq, Vietnam, and Gulf I?

Sheesh, and people think I've gone around the bend:eyes:

Gulf I wasn't pre-emptive at all. Vietnam was a whole different scenario, but the increase in troops came after the supposed Gulf of Tonkin attack. Iraq is the only pre-emptive war I can think of and isn't what anybody is talking about. We're talking about something more along the lines of the Cuban Missile crisis. Do you think we should ignore N Korea if that situation gets worse than nuclear missiles pointed at us and we have trust-worthy intelligence that they're truly ready to fire?

I would rather work with diplomacy and negotiation to get the bombs from N. Korea. Sad to say, those to qualities seem to be a dying art, on both sides of the aisle.

I can't believe what I am reading here either. No, I just can't believe it.

Two different scenarios. Kerry is talking about pre-emptive strikes in the kind of situation I presented. You're twisting it into something else. He's repeatedly said it is a disgrace that this Administration isn't talking directly to N Korea and has said that he would.

With or without some attempt at diplomacy?

Does North Korea have nuclear weapons pointed at us? Do we have intelligence that they're prepared to launch nuclear weapons? That's a pre-emptive scenario.

Has Kerry said we should resume direct talks with N Korea? Yes. Diplomacy. I guess you're happy with him now, right?

on terrorist cells. That if we had good intel that terrorist cell planning 9/11 part 2, kerry would act to prevent it. Wasn't about invading countries so much . . . but AP was misleading w headline

As to the other, people complain all the time about kerry going on endlessly about re diplomacy, diplomacy, inspectors, pressure from UN, etc etc etc

What does it serve for you to distort the platform or Kerry?

The platform says remove troops as soon as possible, Kerry has said he plans for a significant decrease in troops in Iraq, and has also said his goal is for stability, not necessarily an American style democracy.

We've always had the right to defend ourselves if a country is planning to attack us. That's just common damn sense. He has never said he supports Bush's pre-emption doctrine of going to war with countries because they maybe might do something some day.

What are you really trying to accomplish with these lies?

So we can go to war with Iran and Syria.

Just because we don't all fall lockstep behind Kerry & the DNC...you have the gall to say we want Bush to win? How the hell do you come up with that one?


...all this ABB crap is what got us where we are..too bad the repubs have us running in fear that we can't take a deep breath and just look at the truth instead of the spin.

So by your post I gather you are able to read minds and know what the original poster wants? Thats pretty impressive when you can't even get what he is really saying.


DR

if they are all hyperbolic unsupported rhetoric about how Kerry is just the same as Bush (misinterpreting Kerry's position based on misleading AP headlines, etc), and then add in some attacks on Kerry supporters, w the implied solution being either staying home or casting a 'protest vote' then what is the logical assumption?

I hear you Rich, and I've been saying the same for months now. Yet all I get in reply is the "lesser of two evils" arguement.

The sad fact of the matter is that Kerry's position on the war is only slightly better than Bushco's. He probably won't invade another country if he gets elected(whereas Bush probably will), but that is about the extent of the difference. He has already stated that he will continue to pour more men and money into the Iraqi quagmire, with only a vague promise to pull out of Iraq at somepoint before his first term is up. And a large part of me doubts even that promise.

I think what Kerry is going to do is similar to what LBJ did. He will gradually enlarge the war at the behest of his corporate masters, and then blow it wide open as '08 approaches in a political move to outhawk the chickenhawks. After all, he can't appear to be "soft on terror" with an election coming up. And as his unrelenting prosecution of the is made clear to even his most ardent supporters, they will stay home in droves out of a sense of betrayal, and thus Kerry will lose.

We as Democrats need to hold Kerry's feet to the fire NOW, and force him to come out with a firm plan and timetable for getting out of Iraq. Waiting until Kerry is already in office is foolish, for once there, he will have what he thinks is a mandate and doesn't have to listen to dissident voices. Now is the time to do a deal with him, when Kerry is needing votes and support and is willing to negotiate to get them. This type of negotiation and deal making is a standard and time honored political practice, but you wouldn't know that hanging around here. People are more than willing to forgive the blood on Kerry's hands, just to get ABB into office.

a more accurate portrayal of Kerry's/Dem platform than Rich's/

And little of it is good. Certainly not anti-war, that's for sure friend.

Nobody ever said he was a peace candidate. Most people don't believe war is always avoidable. It's fine if you do, but that doesn't make John Kerry the equivalent of George Bush because he isn't willing to risk US security under the delusion that there's always a peaceful solution.

Don't tell me that you actually think that Iraq is still a threat? Or that pre-emptive strikes are the answer to the "war on terra"? No, there isn't always a peaceful solution, but goddamnit, I would at least like to see somebody in this day and age at TRY to come to a peaceful resolution.

What puts Kerry on the same footing as Bush is the fact that he is willing to further the prosecution of this illegal, immoral war. With the majority of people now thinking that the war was a mistake, it is a prime opportunity to come out with a plan for peace. Instead, Kerry is promising to pour more money and resources into the Iraqi quagmire. The only thing that is seperating the two on this issue is that Kerry probably won't widen the conflict to other countries, but given his corporate masters, that isn't even a certainty.

I have to wonder.

You made a post that Kerry wasn't anti-war as a blanket condemnation of him as a candidate. Which is silly and unfair because most people would acknowledge that people aren't such that you can always conclude you won't need to protect yourself through violence. I wish people always acted reasonably, but they don't.

Now you mix terror and Iraq into the anti-war equation to further obscure the issues, the same as the Bushies do. They aren't all one issue and Kerry has never said they were.

Dealing with terrorism is an issue separete from Iraq. Or are you one of those who think al qaeda is a CIA operation?

Iraq has terrorists today. That's just a fact. What do you propose to do about that? Vote for Nader? He says Iraq should be secure, have elections, and be rebuilt. That he can turn around and say he's going to bring the troops home, while having the similar goals as Kerry in regards to Iraq, shows what a liar he is. Because Kerry doesn't even insist Iraq have an American style democracy.

I think you people on the way left need to stop listening to the teevee yourselves and start reading what your peace candidates actually have to say. You can't spout bring the troops home one day, and secure democratic Iraq the next, and have no plan for both of them to happen. And UN in, US out, isn't a plan, it's a slogan. The UN doesn't want to go in and won't want to go in until we have a viable plan and take our own share of responsibility. That includes our own troops, like it or not.

The DNC has fought the "radical activists" in the party since before the primaries began and before Kerry began to take the lead they worked hard to minimalize the progressive and green wings of the party. I'm not surprised they've encouraged that platform to lean moderate.

But I think Kerry's intentions are relatively pure. At this point I doubt Kerry would do what you describe on his own, but with the corporate whore DNC standing behind Kerry and Edwards jingling millions of dollars of change in their pockets, I can believe it is possible we will at least begin to go down this road you describe, if he doesn't reach the end you predict.

Bush has halliburton and british petroleum etc etc. . .it is pretty clear.

Kerry's?

They're about the same as Clinton and Gores were. Wall St investment firms, trial lawyers, lobbyists, BP-Amaco, etc. etc. Not to mention the fact that many of Bushco's corporate masters are the very same as Kerry's. Double donating is standard practice for most corporations, the better to buy influence with. In the '00 election cycle, over forty corporations donated $100,000 or more to each election campaign, with Phillip Morris topping the list at 2 million plus to both Bush and Gore.

issues, for example. Look at his contribs, sure, but look at his endorsements too.

I hope w all my heart for the day when there is real election reform and this stuff is 100% public financed.

But I am still not seeing the kind of tit-for-tat conflict of interest of Bush/Cheney. For goodness sake, Bush is clearly owned by Saudi Arabia/Oil interests and Cheney is clearly owned by Kellog Brown and Root.

:evilfrown:

has alot more to do with then just Kerry's position on the war. I am not fond of his position, however, I am capable of finding reason in his assertion that we must stay until it is stable. I don't pretend to know how long that will be but I don't like the odds of us leaving and having the nation break out in a civil war.

I guess it is the difference between looking at the entire platform vs. looking only at a single issue. Who would you rather have appoint SCOTUS judges? Who would you rather have shaping policy for jobs, healthcare, the economy? Who would you rather have shaping foreign policy?

Look at the big picture, not a single issue. I don't like one issue voters (pro-life) on the conservative side and in order to not have a double standard, I will say one issue voters on the progressive side are just as bad.

.

because it encompasses way too much. It has direct bearing on America's entire role in the world; on the justifiability of military spending; on the influence of the military-industrial complex in policy-making; on the integrity of the media; & on the credibility of the US government -- just to name a few closely-related topics.

Therefore, your calling me a "single issue voter" is a semantic distortion. The issue of the Iraq war is an extremely "Macro" issue, which subsumes many other important issues -- so many, in fact, that it has direct bearing on whether or not our country is overtly going to become a war-mongering aggressor & propagandizing liar on the world stage.

To look at it another way: DU was originally founded because of anger that Bush had stolen the 2000 election. Suppose a Republican tried to defend Bush by saying, "OK, maybe he stole the election. But look - that's just a single issue! Nothing to get all steamed up about!"

Iraq is not a "single issue," any more than Vietnam was a "single issue." It's huge. Don't minimize it.

All issues encompass plenty of complexity. They are still one issue.

"The death penalty has a direct bearing on America's entire role in the world; on the justifiablity of our justice system, on our influence with our allies in the fight against terrorism, the influence of the corrections industry on policy making, the integrity of the medai, and on the credibility of the US govt -- just to name a few closely-related topics"

You are a single-issue voter.

Each and every day that we are there?

Have you stopped to consider how maybe, just maybe, those deaths are due to the poor planning of the war? The poor planning for post war? The fact that the policy in Iraq, established by this administration is for Bush's gain rather then the Iraqi's well being? Like it or not, this is Bush's war, not Kerry's. This administration micro-managed everything from the intelligence to the no-bid contracts. It will be Kerry's mess to clean up should he win in November and I have the confidence that he has the intelligence, the ability and the diplomatic tact to correct the piss poor job Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfie, et. al. have created. Innocent people are dying as a result of Bush's plans, not Kerry's vote.

For pukes it is all about the money.

Kerry has actually been to war and protested a war.

Kerry isn't a war profiteer.

The pukes won't end this war and now they want to start another.

With trillions of dollars in war profiteering at stake, the pukes couldn't care less what we or the world may think.

Kerry cares about what the world thinks. Kerry cares about what we think. Kerry is actually capable of thinking for himself.

I know life-long Democrats who think we shouldn't pull out of Iraq. They tell me that if we pull out there will be a civil war there. I ask if that is any worse than what's going on now, and point out that the opposing sides in Iraq have never been as united as they are now against us. They say we need a sensible plan in order to leave Iraq. I say we didn't have a sensible plan going in, so why do we need one going out? But it doesn't matter what I say, Kerry needs their votes.

ABB which I always thought was a completely destructive attitude, has became a self fullfilling prophecy, now I'm trapped in it because there is no doubt in my mind Bush must go.
Sure I feel betrayed, not just by Kerry but by the ABB pushers who got us here. I'm pissed off, disgusted, you name it.

Bush & Co still have to go! And you can bet we'll be on Kerry's butt from day one!

"Sure I feel betrayed, not just by Kerry but by the ABB pushers who got us here. I'm pissed off, disgusted, you name it."

Yup..well said.....


:hi: :hug: :loveya:
DR

I find it all very disheartening, but I won't give up. That is what I find refreshing about Kucinich who hasn't abandoned his heart and principals even though the ABB kool-aid crew insisted on branding him "unelectable" from day one.

I find a bit of inspiration in just knocking down a notch the RW arrogance and ego by voting their boy outta there.
These folks hate to lose so I will certainly find some pleasure in watching that. Then it is business as usual: the voices in the wilderness pleading for peace, compassion, justice and freedom.


great to hear from ya DR
G_j
:hi: :hug: :loveya:

then I agree ....back to biz as usual- voices in the wilderness pleading for peace, compassion, justice and freedom. We just have to gather more voices...and we will...we are :)

:hug: :loveya: :hug:
DR

It requires compartmentalization to leap over that void accompanied by hostility directed towards anyone who strays from the ABB battle cry. It requires blinders.

It concerns me because it is a very real liability for our side. As time goes by, more and more voters recognize the sham. There is no vehicle to express outrage or hold anyone accountable because our candidates are so compromised by complicity or need to appear strong militarily. Who are they playing to? Maybe during the Primaries, they felt, or measured, that in order to be "more electible" they had to sell themselves as competitors of Bush--on what was seen as Bush's strengths--but that is rapidly changing.

point is we shouldn't vote for Kerry, go elsewhere.

the savior and perfect candidate amny on here want us to think he is.

He was my last choice (Dem)...and now here it is that he is my only choice.

It pisses me off.
It f'in really disappoints me too.

and yet to get the moron outta the white house, I have to cast my vote for a man who doesn't stand for anything I stand for.....wouldn't you be kinda pissed too??

It would be sweet to get to elect a candidate I could really get behind....(there actually was one but he was not the chosen media/DNC one...so there ya go.) I'm left with another corprate interest guy. Well whoop de doo....do I expect much will change...no. Do I get all warm & fuzzy cause he's a DEM? Hell no...cause it is no longer about D or R and most people still don't have a clue how we are getting screwed by both of em.

sigh.....

DR

or vote Nader.

why would you even imagine I would consider it?


I find that is really very childish. I express that I am not enamored of the candidate...he ws not my choice, but that I also share the desire ...the need ...to get bushie out and you counter with that real intelligent post.

Great way to just get voters- potential Dem voters -to stay home... a very adult & intelligent comeback. Wow....great attempt at unity.

:eyes:

DR

I see RichM basically starts a flame bait thread on something he says is soooo important to him, then runs. What other purpose except division could there be?

Enough already.

Hasn't this topic been run into the ground enough already?

Jeez!

on a democratic board, should be a given.

after his name...doesn't mean he's perfect.

We can and should be able to discuss this....its really important to keep grounded in the truth. One of the things I love about DK- he tells it like it is & we should be able to do that about Kerry, too.

I'm sure most will vote for him as we are backed into a pretty tight choice, but still..this is a *discussion* board.....

Peace
DR

I acknowledge he's far from perfect but people act like he's the worst ever, it doesnt take a blind man to realize that he's not a right winger, i cant research his record at work but I think its obvious that he's not a republican lite. Kerry isnt perfect but people act like he's horrible, thats what pisses me off. Of course no one is perfect because he has a D after his name however just because Kerry voted for the war resolution doesnt make him terrible either, I dont think Kerry is perfect I disagree with him on the war, I thought it was all wrong, disagree with him on how to handle Iraq, disagree with him on trade, and other stuff but mostly we agree, like the man has opposed the death penalty, voted against the bs DOMA, and has been the most liberal in the senate 5 times, I know he's not perfect but some are irrational and act like he can do no good.

president. That is first and foremost.

nominee here, as well as fantastically unsupported claims made about Kerry designed to influence fencesitters to stay home or vote against the Dem nominee.

Criticize, discuss issues, etc etc. Super!

Actively work to defeat, sorry, don't like it. Will criticize it.

Save it for after the election, OK? I can understand you railing about the war and why don't we listen to the people of this country, but not personally attacking Kerry about it.

You do understand politics right? That corporations, the MIC & TPTB have a lot of clout? Is it inconceivable to you that he's playing a game while getting elected, and that even if he's not, now is not the time for this? I mean, unless you want bush back in office for four more years.

called Kerry's corporate tax thingie he made just playing politics. He could be playing the moderate label to win, if he gets a democratic congress, he'll be more in tune with what we want, thats why we need to support him and congressional democrats. We have a very liberal minority leader in Pelosi, and Daschle can be decent as a majority leader, though I'd prefer someone else as that job honest.

Kerry's constituency now is the American people, and the American people are more closely divided on this issue than the Democratic Party.

After he is elected (and even now, just like this) we can push Kerry on this issue. Nobody is going to be able to do anything about this situation between now and November anyways. Having Kerry wave his arms around and rant about Bush might make some of us feel better, but it will do nothing for the troops.

The simple truth is that in 2005, either Bush or Kerry will be President, and there is no argument you can make to me that will make Bush more attractive.