So Kerry speaks out against Bush policy in Iraq, and just as he raises DSM

and his voice on the Senate floor, the antiKerry squad starts posting threads nitpicking him to death for every word or missed word.


Is the goal to tear down Kerry's credibility on Downing Street inquiry right at the time he's working to get an official investigation in the Senate?

I don't believe in coincidence. The ramped up urgency in tearing down Kerry today is pretty obvious.

And THAT is so typical of the rightwing's tactics against us.

some of them are Nader people

and thatsthetruth!

investigation to go through if they are nader people?

Surely they are seeking to keep Kerry from getting the support of DU for that senate investigation.

The timing of their assault certainly pinpoints their actual goal.

well, like I've said before

attacking from the left is good cover

some research on Nader and he had a book out that was published by a rightwing company! And don't forget how hard the rightwingers fought to get his name on last year's ballot. Not because they like him but because he would take votes away from Kerry. He's totally sponsred by rightwingers.

Nader was the first to call for Bush's impeachment so wouldn't these "Nader people" be doing the same? Nope, not Nader people.

Yeah,...it's way WAY obvious.

He may have been out for vacation on a paid leave, but now that he's back I support him. He's got to take charge and leadership over this proceeding since Conyers has already tackled this damn quagmire in Congress. There has to be full accountability, and frankly Kerry has the leadership.

:patriot:

It is ok to criticize when criticism is constructive.

But some people rarely leave the Kerry-bashing level, and interestingly appear (or become vocal) when Kerry tries to bring something to light. It is not unreasonnable that some are RW shills.

True left-wing people opposing Kerry (or other democrats) because they want the US out of Iraq, for example, are easy to recognize because you can talk with them, sometimes even agree with them on some issues, and you see them in other threads. But some people seem to be here only to trash Democrats and I imagine these are the people the OP is writing about.

They aren't good for the Democratic party. Are they even Democrats at all? One particular "truth sayer"-not, always posts nothing but negatives. There is never anything positive in any of his posts. What gives? Can someone be that angry about everything and everybody?

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

with security. Biden said we should get NATO to cover the borders.

Why don't you focus on building up the people and ideas you support instead just continuing your campaign of hate against John Kerry.

I totally oppose this idiotic and criminal war, but now that we've shattered a fragile country, it would be irresponsible (and, frankly, dangerous) to abandon the wreckage now, no matter how murderous the lies that took us there in the first place.

There is a difference between invading a sovereign nation without provocation and abandoning a nation after we've crippled it.

I hate to use the "Pottery Barn" analogy, but we've clearly broken Iraq. Who should fix it?

Vietnam.

if you really want to fix things you pull OUR military out of Iraq asap and then let the Iraqi's fix things themselves. Provide them money curtosey of Halliburton (take it back that they stole) and all the money that was supposed to go to rebuilding Iraq and give them jobs and pay them so they can take care of their families. That is what I think should be done. Take down all the military bases and leave for good. Never go back to Iraq. That's what we should do.

long as possible to maintain control in Iraq and over it's resources. You either get it or you don't want to because your goal is to attack Kerry no matter what as evidenced by your many threads posted against him.

Kerry put forth a plan to END the war as quickly as possible through SECURING measures that would put forces where needed at the border and not the pipelines and Halliburton employees like Bush is doing, and quicken the training of Iraqi troops by other countries so ours can leave.

Kerry: "Look at the borders, the borders are porous. We don't have enough troops in Iraq and the President has never done the things necessary. We did not send enough troops in the beginning to do the job."


What is in error??? Or maybe you are reading into it and reacting to things that Kerry DID NOT SAY.

Maybe you missed the part during the Campaign where Kerry suggested training Iraqi forces outside of Iraq or by maybe you missed the obvious that the UN hates Bush and would be there in a hurry to help if Kerry was president.

Sychophants, not apologists.

But it's the Kerry idolatry and it's the syncophancy to Kerry that drives many here to compare the critics out of frustration to RWers or to say that they are using RW talking points. Childish.

but I would do the same for Dean or Clark and I have.

Does that make me an apologist for them as well, when Dean is accused of being a false populist or of not being as far to the left as he pretended, and when Clark is accused of being a Republican in Democrat's clothing?

If something that I know is untrue is stated, I am going to rebutt it. Criticism is one thing, bashing is another. I may not be pleased with the criticism and I may have an alternate opinion, but certainly folks are welcome to disagree. It's when someone is being smeared or bashed that I'm going to jump in most vehemently. Often what is being said is either not fair, not true, or both.

And yes, sometimes they sound just like RW talking points. That doesn't make the author a RW plant. It appears the farther left one goes, for instance, the more they sound like the far right. I'm thinking of certain online publications as an example. Just because the far left and the far right agree that Kerry is a billionare elitist, doesn't make it fair or true.

Neither is it fair to label someone who disagrees with someone an "apologist."

What part of that isn't true?

both are true.

Sure it would have been better not to start this war, but if it was started, they should at least have made sure there were enough troops, which was prevented by the fact that Bush did NOT want any allies.

Byron York's cheesy analysis that the only problem with the Dems was Kerry. But, York is a rightwing operative. Was \he trying to say that Bush was such a bad president that any Dem could have beaten him BUT Kerry?

York's goal was to try and destroy Kerry using the media and within the Dem party, much as they tried to do with Gore after Bush took office. They do it to ALL Dems who become prominent within the party to prevent any continued leadership or credibility.

Did you ever hear ONE of them say Bob Dole was the problem?

some are not Dems. And that's the problem in a way. The Dems won't be Green.

What do they say? I too was pissed at the everything with the election but he's doing what he can now with the DSM and being a leader now.

Of course, he wants an invistigation into the DSM so he can claim (again) that he was dumb enough to be "duped".

NT

of my thread.

Obviously you hate Kerry and any hope for a DSM investigation more than you hate BushInc, so you join in the tearing down of the one senator who is pushing the investigation through.

You don't want the investigator who uncovered IranContra and BCCI to get a DSM investigation so you tear at him incessantly.

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

You are carrying the RW memes (same as Rumsfeld : we do need more troops), so more like Karl Rove.

The United States currently has (by the best of my quickie research) 3.8 law enforcement personnel per 1,000 population (that includes federal, state, local, and civilian personnel). Based on Iraq's population of 26,000,000 it would require nearly 100,000 bodies to simply maintain policing efforts on the same scale as here in the U.S.

Please note that we don't have an armed insurgency in America (yet) and our police departments aren't trying to put out fires (literally and figuratively) as are our troops in Iraq. Combine that with the need to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and provide security against insurgent attacks (a different effort from actually hunting down the insurgents), and you can see that there's simply no way that 135,000 U.S. troops could adequately maintain control in Iraq.

It would take twice that many troops to do the job, but the U.S. simply doesn't have the manpower to do the job -- and during the past year, the Bush Administration has done virtually nothing to draw more nations into the coalition. We're now trying to rely on the hastily-training and loyalty-challenged Iraqi Security Forces. And you can see how much good that has done.

he does a good enough job all by himself.

corruption so you think he needs to be torn down constantly.

You don't want a senate investigation into DSM, do you?

Not jack shit...his prior record of exposing government corruption isn't exactly stellar either. A lot of the same crooks he exposed are...drum roll please...in the current Bush's administration.

So please, let's not use that as a barometer of how good Kerry is.

And do you think it's not a good thing for the history of government corruption to be recorded, even though the results weren't perfect?

Do you want Kerry to not get the support necessary from other Democrats on DSM the same way they failed to help him during IranContra and BCCI?

Because the more you dump on Kerry, the easier it is for the media and other Dems not to give him the back up he needs. Why bother, they could say, if the base won't even support him on DSM?

Results are what should matter to us...not useless political grandstanding.

what BushInc said, too, in their efforts to smear Kerry and prevent the investigations.

Seems their tactics never change from scandal to scandal.

What exactly resulted from those two investigations? Not a whole hell of a lot...

and those who fought him every inch of the way.

Why do you think YOU have access to so much of what the BFEE has done?

Did it ever occur to you that we would be in the dark to most of their crimes and their methods of operation if Kerry had left IranContra and BCCI alone as most of DC begged him to do?

At least history has been recorded for future generations.

Do you want DSM to go away because most of DC doesn't want to talk about it?

Obviously you are a Kerry fanboy so there is no point in carrying on this conversation.

to mock the thankless work they entail.

I'd rather be a fan of honest government than to be one who MOCKS those who do the heavy lifting.

Ok...whatever...

any other senator who has talked about the DSM besides Kennedy?

His credibility in 2008, maybe.

And then there are those who are just in the habit, so that as Kerry appears in the news it's like a red flag.

It would be nice if those folks would let us disagree without calling out apologist, operative or sychophant. It seems awfully Republican to label your opponent so that they will seem to be in the wrong.

Next thing you know, they'll be calling us haters and asking why we hate America.

But you're coming damned near to saying that they're Repubs in disguise. No, I don't think so. But I think that they do damage the cause of things like DSM. Whether they like Kerry or not, he's one of the few, the proud, the ones who've said "Downing Street Memo" out loud.

Of course, some are so far to the left they're waving hello at the far right coming around the other side of the spectrum. Some of those dislike Kerry for the same reasons the RW gave: that he's a windsurfing, flip/flopping elitist. Except that this was essentially RW spin. They were just saying that because it would sound good in Kansas. But there are those on the left who actually believe it. And no amount of factual information seems to budge that skewed perception.

Interesting to see folks, like one of the editors of CommonDreams, agree and even quote from RW publications when they find a distortion that matches their skewed perception. Suddenly the Boston Herald doesn't look so bad as a source. Until they agree with the president again, of course. Then the Herald is back to being wrong until they bash Kerry the next time.

investigated and they certainly don't want Kerry to be part of any call for investigation.

The telltale sign is that they start posting antiKerry threads whenever Kerry gets any media at all for questioning Bush and his policies.

there were anti-Kerry threads for every step he took toward getting involved in the Glib lawsuit in Ohio. We'd get the news, and the same day "Kerry abandoned us! Fuck Kerry!"

You mean like that?

Someone interupted him last night too with some amendments to vote on. :shrug: Don't know if it was a time thing or what, but Kerry was on a ball last night and someone just interupted him. :(

CSPAN was just filling time until the vote, I reckon. I was going to stay up for the 3am replay, but fell asleep.

:freak: There are no anti-Kerry folks posting here :freak:

:freak: There are no moles in DUer costumes :freak:

They really do LOVE this country and respect us Democrats too much to do something like that.

have tendencies of paranoia due to low self esteem manifested during your early childhood years due to being deprived adequate quantities of hostess snack products.

:freak: Now take this pill and you will feel better by 2006, just ignore the truth and learn to hate the dems. :sarcasm:

better job of killing Iraqis.Remember he boasted about killing Vietnamese on his Swift boat assignment without any remorse.

He is setting himself up as a more palatable and efficient killer, a meme that will find a receptive audience even among Democrats who have not found the balls to question the legality of this war in the first place.Until Kerry finds it appropriate to question the very basis of this war, don't confuse me with his workable plan for 'withdrawal'.No such thing is planned or possible.With or without the increase in troops he contemplates, it is a war that is going to be waged against the entire Iraqi people. If and when Ali Shistani or Muqtada al Sadr gives the green light to the Shiites, no amount of troops will be enough.

What is the number of troops Kerry wants to have to achieve his goals?
250,000 or 500,000 or 1 Million?

plan is to stay in Iraq for a generation and assert control over its resources. Kerry's plan is to secure it, train troops with other countries and get out with no claim on anything that belongs to Iraq.

Ali Shistani and Sadr will sit on the sidelines content to watch more and more killing of Iraqis. What would Kerry do if the Shiite militias join the struggle against the invaders? Ask for more troops?
How does he plan to withdraw the troops if the war widens to include the entire Iraqi population instead of the 20% of the Sunnis actively participating.What makes you think that we will not need in excess of one milion troops?

For man who voted to give Bush unlimited authority to wage war on Iraq and hasn't found the political will to condemn the entire enterprise, he certainly knows what will be palatable.

First page lists 25 threads. Out of 25, 1 is anti-Kerry.

This thread is flamebait.

posters was tombstoned as a troll. The threads were locked or removed.

I do not play the flamebait game.

focus on "going forward". Dean and Kerry won't let go of the DSM.

I advise all Dems to stay on the same DSM page. Take the cue from these two Dem leaders. This issue will be gaining momentum.

withdrawal, I don't know what does.

away at my GOP foes along with my Dem leaders, Dean and Kerry. Rangle brought up the DSM on Hannity yesterday.

The DSM bud will blossom with the help of rank and file Dems.

Very good to hear, even if Tweety was trying to force wedges wherevr he could. Dean stayed on message.

that's why I had a gay ol' time defending Dean against those who didn't seem to realize that his stance never was all that different from Kerry's. They may have expressed it differently, but it was pretty close. A while back, some folks seemed to think that Dean had backed off and was being a coward. Neither was true.

Gee, does that make me a Dean apologist?

much different and that both campaigns exaggerated the differences between the two because they really weren't that far apart on Iraq to begin with.

I think they are both sincere about wanting to fix the mess Bush has made here and around the world.

Islamic fundamentalists. The solution won't be easy or guaranteed but we can't leave this open wound in Iraq.

additional troops will be needed and for how long? What happens if all Iraqis join the battle?

I think the real problem is that after having given carte blanche to Bush for his splendid little war and now knowing the deceptions that led to that war, the Democrats are unable to develop the spine to say we were misled by this con artist.So, they will continue the quagmire with their own 'plan'.We just do not have any one asking the right questions, Democrats or Republicans.That is the tragedy.

you, I will trust in my leadership to handle the mess from here.

Edit to add: Your proposals have merit but they are not in the Dem strategy. Sometimes we have to look at the big picture.

How long? With how many troops?

What is the point in saying you trust the leadership if their plan is no different from the one we have, except with more troops so as to increase the killing.Remember 80% of the Iraqi population is not involved in the fighting as yet.As their desperation grows, and their hostility to American outrages grow, all hell will break loose in Iraq with the blessings of Ayatollah Ali Shistani.

and his neocon cronies. As soon as the Dems come to power, the healing will begin. The world recognizes that.

Democrats won't get back into the driver's seat by advocating that we leave Iraq in a mess.

1. A statement repudiating the legality of the war per DSM.
2. A time table for the withdrawal of our troops. Gradual minimization and elimination of the violence.
3. Removal of the American puppet government.
4. Annulment of all laws put in place by the illegal Coalition Provisional Authority.

Turning over criminals like Chalabi and Allawi to the new Iraqi authorities for trial.

If these elements don't exist, that plan will be a sham.

Dean, Kerry, Hillary and Biden. Our people are too savvy to go for that old tired stuff.

I've seen it with every major push by the dems, especially with the Estrada filibuster, which coincided with a LOT of dem-bashing.

And with the 9/11 investigations too, every step of progress was met with a wave of criticism.

Funny, huh?