Is Kerry setting up his next "excuse"?

From Newsday:

The senator said he would not vote for the president's $87 billion request without some assurance that the president will seek help from other nations.

"I am unwilling to just rubber stamp $87 billion if they're not going to do what they need to do to try to put America in a stronger position," he said. He called for more foreign troops and the use of oil revenues to reimburse the reconstruction cost.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-kerry-interview,0,4043052.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Note to John Kerry:

I'm sure that bush will be glad to give you an "assurance". The question is: will you fall for it like you did the last time? After all, you did say that he lied to you that's why you voted for the IWR, right? So...you're willing to vote for this if he "assures" you he'll do what he says? Is that what you're telling us?

Kerry will have to make and live with a decision one way or the other. Howard Dean won't.

What do YOU propose we do knowing our troops are at risk? Leave? With no plan?

Kerry may have not voted in the manner in which I wanted. That does not alter the fact that something must be done.

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

I'd like him to make a statement that doesn't include an "assurance" from a known liar.

Hasn't he learned his lesson?

It IS all right to take a stand w/r/t the chimp. isn't it?

to leverage better policies out of the WH regarding UN participation (which by default forces the US to keep revising their resolution until it meets with French and German approval - which hinges on transition to power back to the Iraqis - and limits the US from setting up a long term occupation). I view it as wise politics - forget presidential politics for a moment - this is congressional/whitehouse politics - and the democrats, and Kerry, for a brief moment in time have some leverage to force the White House to act in much more multilateral way. At this moment in time that is very, very important.

The level of importance transcends presidential politics, imo.

I didn't see you posting that same message in the Dean bashing threads today...

this is politics -- it's the name of the game... sfecap isn't "spewing" "filth" "hate" and "trash" as you say... rather, he's bringing up topics for debate and pointing out faults, etc of other candidates, in this case, kerry... this is how the game works... (much like YOUR MULTIPLE threads on, or should i say, =against= dean)...

you (and so many others here) can dish it out on dean, please tell me you can take it, too... remember, two (and many more) can play at this game...

You mean "how many houses does Kerry own?" or "What stocks does Kerry's wife own?" and this invented "Kerry is going to give Bush* what he wants" which is nothing more than a hateful fantasy

as I post below - those threads make the motives of the thread very questionable.

Not to mention that sometimes there are issues much larger than the short term presidential primary campaigns (gasp!) - I personally believe the opportunity to force this administration into a position of making REAL concessions to the UN in order to get multilateral support in bringing stability and self-governance to Iraq is exceptionally important. I would bet that if Kerry were not trying to play a role in doing this - some of these same critics would throw even more mud at Kerry.

Kerry is the wealthiest Senator in DC. He is going to get questioned about his wealth and what he does with it.

They are valid and relevant questions.

I, as a voter, and a union member, am VERY interested in what investments John Kerry and his wife have. It's one thing to talk the talk...it's quite another to walk the walk.

Sorry if you and the rest of the Kerryites can't defend your candidate. It's not my problem.

You know as well as anyone that wealth alone isn't the issue - It's what you do with it. You can dance all you want about how you're just concerned about inevitable questions, but no one is falling for it. It's not helping you're already low level of credibility.

Unless you sincerely believe that Kerry is going to be questioned about the Wal-Mart stocks his wife owns!!! After lal, owning Wal-Mart stock (and Kerry doesn't own it. His wife does, and Dean own plenty of stock also) means you can't be President.

I, as a voter, and a union member, am VERY interested in what investments John Kerry and his wife have. It's one thing to talk the talk...it's quite another to walk the walk.

So then you must also be interested in the stocks Dean owns?

which is now trying to defend itself from lawsuits filed by employees that IBM forced to work with toxic chcemicals.

I guess Dean is OK with Nazis and murderers.

He'll attack competitors that "voted for war" but he has no problem cashing in on the profits made on the bombs that were dropped.

LOL

yup...evil capitalist that i am, i still wouldn't own IBM....

He owns no Wal Mart. In fact he owns few if any stocks as far as I can tell. Most of his investments are in land, cash accounts, and some real estate. But please, if you know differently, let me know.

I do believe that Kerry will be questioned about the holdings he and his wife have. You can count on it.

As for my credibility....well please post anything that I intentionally lied about, OK? You Kerryites just can't stand a close evaluation of your candidate, it must frighten you.

Correction: Dean does own numerous stocks, including IBM and GE. (But no Wal Mart...)

and a big role in corporate media consolidation... those are two areas that have wreaked havoc on our country (and the world). If one is concerned about potential conflicts of interest - one should be so across the board. If I were to consider Kerry's wife's holdings an issues - I would have to do the same for Dean.

But until I see reason to believe that they are likely to behave in office in ways that affect their ability to put the needs of the country and her citizens first - it is not an issue for me for either.

You said Kerry owns stock in Wal-Mart. He doesn't

Kerry's WIFE owns stock in Wal-Mart

indeed am impressed with the organizing phenomenon of Dean. But reacting the exact same way to your current slew of threads. There are legit policy questions. Blind side slams and inneundo, and ignoring current roles (Kerry still is a senator), does not win new voters, and if anything contributes to those who are beginning to build an antipathy towards Dean (and his fans). That is a shame.

There is a difference of raising policy questions. Of raising "are their potential conflicts of intersts - and how do we look for them" between carrying out official duties and held investments. Crossing over to asserting there IS a problem without data - goes into smear. Doing it repeatedly in a short period of time seems to lead some folks to be more likely to not heed future messages of the messanger due to credibility. There are different ways of raising questions. Front on assault in ways that appear more attack and less substance are generally not very effective in doing anything but rallying one's own troops. They don't raise awareness of real issues (because they just lead to pointless binary bickering). They don't convert the undecided. They don't bring new excitement that brings in new voters. MAin point seems to be to build illwill between dem voters who currently are divided into different camps. Personally, i don't find that terribly effective. (and yes, I have posted similar things to folks from other campaigns who have used similarly counterproductive methods on behalf of their candidates).

Kerry is still a senator. Congress has been handed an opportunity (because bushco NEEDS them) to put REAL pressure on the WH to go back to the UN with a REAL resolution - not just a puppet show one - one that can muster support through the Security Council (and thus meet the approval of France and Germany). This is required - for the US in the short and long term - and for the only chance of stability to occur in Iraq. And as much as I opposed the Iraq action (an early voice at DU, btw), I do believe we created a mess and led to many casualties the least we can do is provide for some stability and safety for the Iraqi people. That will only happen with REAL multilateral peace keepers and investments (not just to "cover our bills" but to ensure real rebuildng of the infrastructure - rebuilding not left in the taint of appearing to be corporate donations (nobid contracts) to bush's corporate sponsors - but rebuilding meant to strengthen the country, give jobs to Iraqis and begin to put money back into Iraqi's pockets).

On a political front - forcing this would further weaken the absolutist and arrogant actions of this administration. At a party level this would be good for dems and bad for teambush.

Turning it into a political pot-shot - which this thread seems to do - seems gratuitous - and counter productive in terms of the big picture.

Unfortunately the poster - by crossing past "issue" and "policy" critiques recently - is going to be read more skeptically in motives by supporters and detractors alike.

Why don't you say this to the Kerry people who do much worse?

BTW this guy actually works for Dean and posts quite a lot about it. I don't find this anymore filth and hate than the other current threads claiming Dean is a racist or liar.

I am not employed by the Dean Campaign.

I'm an airline pilot for crissakes!!

I support Dean. I don't work for the campaign in any official capacity.

In fact, I swear you said you were right there with him when he was interviewed recently.

Oh well, I guess you're just a great supporter! Sorry, just trying to stand up for you because you do post some great info on Dean.

Thanks for setting me straight, sorry I didn't see you say that before.

:hi:

I was standing a few feet from that interview because I was at the fundraiser...but only as a donor and supporter, not an employee. :-)
(I was actually waiting to talk to the Gov...)

Another person here (Kerry supporter) is attempting to imply that I am a plant from the Dean campaign...

Sorry if I was a bit testy.

You just don't get paid for it.

OK...have it your way. I gladly work for Howard Dean! Along with a few hundred thousand others.

I'll receive my payment in November of 2004!

Geez!

.

Yesterday you posted a thread asking if Kerry would vote for it and saying it would be a bad thing for Kerry to do. Now that he says he might not vote for it, you attack him for that.

It seems he can't win with you, damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I see his statement as "I will vote for it with an assurance..."

You see it as "I won't vote for it..."

Interesting. :-)

He doesn't have a Senate seat or a seat in Congress. How is he supposed to vote for against it?

Oh, wait, I forgot, we're holding Dean to a different standard than a war hero who should have known better. My mistake, carry on with your mindless, impotent bashing of the better candidate.

"we're holding Dean to a different standard than a war hero who should have known better"

He absolutely should have known better. I knew better. Everyone with half a fucking brain knew better. The amazing and great war hero was just too much of a wimp to stand up for what he knew was right. He was too worried about his popularity to give a shit about that. No I don't support Dean. No I don't think Dean should be held to a different standard. But I don't think Kerry's bending over for shrubby should be looked at as anything other than what it was.

What you are saying is exactly what I was trying to put across, though I apparently did it in such a ham-handed, confusing way as to make you think I was apologizing for Kerry. I most certainly wasn't. What I was trying to say is that it's bullshit that Dean gets shit on for not having a vote and Kerry supporters act like if he had, he would have voted for it. God forbid someone vote their conscience and their brain, instead of according to what their pollsters tell them would be the "popular" choice.

Kerry, of all the candidates, including my man Dean, should have known better than to vote for this hollow, bullshit war. He should have stood up for us. He didn't, and I'm not about to forgive and forget, no matter how many times you wave his medals in my face. I wasn't alive during Vietnam. I'm alive now, and my friends are being shipped off to die for Bush's oil war, and John Kerry didn't have the guts to stand up against it. His medals mean DICK to me right now, kids.

Sorry. I should stop talking on the phone when I respond to posts.

He is one of many Democrats Bush can count on to bend over.

what are we reconstructing?

why not a full accounting?

why more foreign troops?

I say fix the water, turn on the lights and come home.

It's a boondoggle.

what are we reconstructing?

Water, lights, etc. Actually, schools have an extremely high priority as we want to see that the populace is reeducated. We did the same thing for a couple generations in Germany and Japan. A decade ago the military would have been given this task. Today, all of this is privatized which means (1) it takes longer as even the best construction firms are not trained for rapid deployment, etc and (2) it will cost more as it is being done on a for profit basis.


why not a full accounting?

There will undoubtedly be one in time. But it will take time. And it will include many examples of both "government waste" and "crony capitalism" which will fail to excite.


why more foreign troops?

(1) Convince the Iraqis this is not a US attempt to colonize Iraq, but rather an international attempt to help them build a stable, democratic nation. (2) Defray the costs.


I say fix the water, turn on the lights and come home.

That is, I am sure, the long term goal.


It's a boondoggle.

This is, I am sure, the short term goal.

The two issues are not at all dependent upon each other.

There are more than a few raw nerves around here and this kind of stuff "just ain't helping".

position he takes? What is your position on the matter? I don't think it matters what he does you are going to create problems with it.

Why can't he simply say: "No, I am not voting for it, because bush can not, based on his past actions, assure me that he will do what he says...."

That would be a much stronger statement.

To me, Kerry represents DC politicalspeak at it's finest. (Always leave youself an out....)

And besides, I don't think sfecap is running for President, so his stance on the issue isn't really relevant. John Kerry's constant shucking and jiving is, however, very relevant, since he seems to have the mistaken impression that he's going to get the Democratic nomination and be able to beat Bush. He's not, and he can't, because he's abused the trust of a big portion of the Democratic base. Like it or not, that's the truth.

Until such time as I declare my candidacy for President.

I think I read Jim McDermott suggested he'd never vote for the money, anyone else?

1. There is not going to be ANY oil revenues for the foreseeable future. Every time oil starts flowing, the pipelines are sabotaged, and the flow stops.
2. Likewise, there will be few foreign troops added. Even those countries currently participating in the coalition of the killing are going to balk at sending more troops without specific UN approval, while France and Germany are driving a very hard bargain in this respect.
Bush's "assurances" on this matter are no more credible than his assurances that Saddam had WMD, that we would not run the US government on a deficit, or that he would restore honor and integrity to the White House.
Given that HE is underfunding the government, the Senate should make him state where he will raise $87 B in new revenues to cover the cost of this. Assurances are not enough.
TAKE AWAY HIS CREDIT CARD!!!

At least Kerry can now say, if he wants to, that Smirk let him down and didn't do what he promised to do with the war resolution. So now, no new promises. Put absolute audited restrictions on where the money goes and start holding hearings on the war profiteering going on with Halliburton et al.

At a minimum, although the occupation will be a fiasco and a disaster regardless of who tries to do it.

All hail CoffeePlease1947! He has come up with the perfect formula for dispelling all these negative campaign threads! All you Dean-bashers, Kerry-bashers, any-Democrat-bashers, please repeat after me: “MY CANDIDATE SUCKS SO BAD THAT I HAVE TO ATTACK YOURS.”

If I were a Bush supporter, I would be ROFLMAO to see all these Democrats ripping each other to pieces. My candidate in the general election is Anybody But Bush. As for the primaries, I haven’t decided yet. Amazing, ain’t it? Considering that the primaries are only six months away.

Come on, ladies and gentlemen! Unity, please! Eyes on the prize! BUCK FUSH!

I'm not bashing John "Bush rubberstamper" Kerry in favor of anyone else. I haven't settled on a favorite candidate, either. However, Kerry is misrepresenting ME and all his constituents, so I'll continue to berate him for his actions. If pointing out that he voted for Ashcroft, Olson, Negroponte and Bush's war is "badmouthing" him, take it up with Kerry himself for doing all that in the first place.

Sounds like a pinball machine.

The one and true.

How dare anyone else exist.

Be wary of Kerry.

Booga booga booga.

How dare I say this about Dean! What persecution.

Excuse me, but I must go now and catch up on bayonetting Iraqi babies...so little time...

What Kerry did, and seems wants to do, is the equivalent of breaking into someones house and murdering their children, then selling their car to pay for the clean up costs!

The US made this mess, the US has to clean it up - stealing the Iraqi oil to pay for it is almost as bad as invading their country in the first place.

If people like Kerry are not willing to pay the billions it takes to reconstruct a nation they themselves destroyed, they sure as hell shouldn't vote to go to war!

I'm going to be so sad when this puppy and kitten hater is in the White house.

And you probably will be sorry if he gets into the White House - this guy seems likely to sell anyone down the river to benefit his career.

Dean owns stock in GE, which makes the bombs that blew up those children. He doesn't like the resolution, but he has no problem with war profiteering

I don't know why you felt it necessary to try and change the subject, but, I agree that Dean doesn't sound too much better than Kerry.

What has that got to do with authorising a war crime, then getting the victim to pay the costs of repairing the damage?

Are you on something? I just don't get this reply...

There are probably satanist rituals involved in that also. Scary!

:silly:

Oh, yeah, right. He won't rubberstamp the $87 billion? Well, there's a first time for everything!

Kerry's going to be performing with Moby later this week. Maybe I'll go and thank him for giving us Ashcroft.

Kind of shoots that down, huh.

John Kerry voted "No" when the drug-addled turd was nominated by Reagan for Chief Justice. Might've made a big difference in December 2000 if more people had listened to Kerry then.

What a bushite ;)
Real sorry to see him being attacked lately. Although hes not my candiate, I think some attacks are unfair on him, like when he said Bush was a good guy, some of the Dean supporters jumped on him, but I recalled Dean saying something simliar before this, I pointed it out as did a fair minded Dean supporter. I have my reasons for having Kerry as a second choice.

I'll look it up, though. Thanks.

... I mean, come on, look at the signs: he sits in the Oval Office, he rides in Air Force One, and he give lots of speeches with the Presidential seal near him. A Senator cannot lightly refuse the spending of additional funds on our troops in a hostile area. I think you need to realize that, and stop these childish games. What is in the past is in the past, and nothing can change it.