Kerry on Face the Nation:

"We need a Secretary of Defense that thinks like John McCain, NOT like Dick Cheney"

Very powerful statement, stated in a powerful way by Kerry.

I just about forgot it was Sunday.

I'm tuning in now.

I am not so sure McCain fits that bill anymore. But an important statement to make on MSM despite all that.

To cook McCain's goose a bit more for 2008.

While not holding our breath. I think John Kerry has been drinking the McCain Kool aid for a long long time. Remember, he seriously considered naming him his running mate. :puke:

the last 6 weeks behind the scenes. Hayden thinks Kerry may be setting McCain up now to take him out of the equation for 2008.

And, imo, McCain would listen more to commanders on the ground than Rumsfeld would - so I doubt McCain would stick to his guns on staying. I guess that would be good no matter who ended up withdrawing - I definitely would want decisions made that benefit this country and Iraq more than for the benefit of corporate defense industry executives like BushInc and Rumsfeld are making now.

Yay Kerry! I think Kerry has been pissed off at McCain for staying loyal to his party above his country. I'm not sure if Kerry wanted McCain. I think that was Joe Biden. I think Kerry wanted another democrat who ran but I can't remember who it was right now. Maybe another Kerry supporter will know.

Is any semblance of their former friendship still there, I wonder. I used to think that was neat, before I realized what a cheap hussy McCain could be.

now because neither wants to face the other in 2008.

There has to be some part still in McCain that feels like crap about his forced siding with Bush. especially since Kerry came to his rescue every time he needed it.

didn't he sat he basically supported Bush's call for total victory? Maybe a Secretary of Defense who thinks like him isn't really all that great an idea.

He's one of them!

was maximizing profits while cutting corners.

Remember the real military advised caution on invasion but if invasion was NECESAARY then go in with full force and SECURE it quickly for quicker turnover to new Iraqi government.

The generals wouldn't have wanted to go in after weapons inspectors said war was unnecessary.

I also thiunk Kerry is baiting Bush to dump Rumsfeld and tap McCain for Sec of Defense to align Bush and McCain further at this point.

as Sec. of Defense. :puke:

*sigh* Please?

was the other half.

Of course he would support a Dem, any damn Dem in the position. But it was a bullshit, what if question.

Kerry brought it back to the important part, which was that most Iraqis want us out.

Taken out of context, it sounds bad. But hell, no matter what we think of the guy, he's still a Dem, and he did campaign for Kerry during the election.

SCHIEFFER: ...let me just ask you one more question about Joe Lieberman...

Sen. KERRY: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: ...because there's a lot of talk. Last night--over this weekend, I had four different people tell me
that the White House is thinking if the secretary of Defense goes over the next year--and a lot of people think
that he will, that the president is thinking of nominating Joe Lieberman to be secretary of Defense. If he did
that, would you support Lieberman?

Sen. KERRY: Of course, I'd support Joe Lieberman. He's a friend and he's a very capable guy. But that's all
inside Washington stuff, Bob. You know, what people really care about is how we're going to protect our
country and get your troops home in a way that is successful. Now...

SCHIEFFER: Do you think Lieberman would do a better job than Rumsfeld?

Sen. KERRY: Well, right--I think a lot of people would do a better job than Secretary Rumsfeld. But let me
come to the more important issue...

SCHIEFFER: Go back.

Sen. KERRY: ...80 percent of the Iraqi people have said they want us to leave. They want us out. The Iraqi
leaders met in Cairo a week or so ago and asked to have us set a timetable for withdrawal. Forty-five percent of
the people in Iraq believe that it's OK to kill Americans. Secretary Melvin Laird, the secretary of Defense
under Richard Nixon, broke his silence of 30 years and said in an important article in Foreign Affairs that it is
the large American presence of troops that feeds the insurgency. And he said you have to have a slow drawdown
to establish confidence in the Iraqis themselves.

more...

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf

What I see is Schieffer trying to lead the discussion one way, and Kerry kept going back to the war, about getting the troops and about how 80 percent of the Iraqi people wanting us to leave. It looks like Schieffer tried to distract by asking about Joementum. And some of us here went with the distraction instead of realizing Kerry was trying to stay on subject. I can't blame Kerry for supporting a fellow Dem, but it wasn't the point.

But what say you? What do you see in context?

which I really have my doubts he will do since the confirmation hearings (sec. of defense must be confirmed by senate) would give the senate democrats a huge opening to revisit all the phony "intelligence" and lies leading up to the Iraq war. I agree that if Kerry had said he did not support Lieberman it would have been big news. I was just reacting to the thought of Joementum as Sec. of Defense, not so much about Kerry's hypothetical support.

He said ANYONE would be better than Rumsfeld. He did not say he would personally support Lieberman. Please report correctly, its bad enough with the whore MSM, we surely don't need a whore blogosphere too.

but to be fair, he was asked the question by Shieffer and did not bring it up on his own.

Lieberman would have been sincere about succeeding long ago and not using war just as a means to enrich corporate executives.

Unless I heard him wrong.

Schieffer: ....Last night-over this weekend, I had four different people tell me that the White House is thinking if the secretary of Defense goes over the next year-and a lot of people think that he will, that the president is thinking of nominating Joe Lieberman to be secretary of Defense. If he did that, would you support Lieberman?

Sen. Kerry: "Of course, I'd support Joe Lieberman. He's a friend and he's a very capable guy. .....(snip)

(bold emphasis mine)

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf

page 5

Lieberman is, like it or not, a Democratic senator. He was elected VP in 2000. Sec of Defense would put a Dem sixth in line of presidential succession. That's our best shot, unlikely as it is, until 2008.
He may not be the best choice, but he's probably the best choice bush* is going to make.
Why wouldn't Sen Kerry support him? Can you imagine the headlines if he had said he would not? What are the chances of Lieberman supporting any Kerry legislation if he slams him on national TV?

IMO, it was the only good answer. What would you have said?

a better job as Secretary of Defense, Kerry says a lot of people would do a better job.

Said he would support Lieberman, but that is not the issue. The issue is that 80% of the Iraqi people want us out.

Kerry also says US should not establish permanent bases in Iraq.

And yes anybody could do a better job than Rumsfeld. I'm tired of his "who knows?" nonsense. You're supposed to know!

in a whore house that had no traffic.

That explains it. A flying monkey on a stick would be better than Rummy.

But as Kerry said, it wasn't the issue. It was kind of a bullshit "what if" question. The issue is that 80 percent of Iraqis want us out.

Thanks for putting it back into context.

.

Why would Kerry "eat our own" on national television?

And even the worst Dem has to be better than Rummy in the position.

Kind of odd to think of Bush appointing Joe though.

Except Zell, of course. If Lieberman is the only one with a shot, then he's da man.

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff

:puke:

I didn't find anything powerful in this interview. Kerry had a big opportunity this morning. I could be wrong, but I don't think he will even get a mention in the major papers tomorrow. Nothing strident, nothing courageuous & nothing newsworthy in my opinion.

:eyes:

:eyes:

Why TF would you think "we" means republicans?

You think it isn't AMERICANS who are affected by what the administration does, no matter which party is controlling it?

AMERICANS need someone competent at SecDef.

Actually republicans probably think themselves better off with incompetence, otherwise why do they keep appointing incompetents?

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

???

A 'yes' vote on the IWR was support for American Nationalism - Fascism. The specious 'defense' that some weren't really evil, merely stupid and misinformed doesn't wash. (See sig.)

I'm sorry I can't see past your convoluted logic.

Are you saying that people like John Edwards are fascists?

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

Is *everybody* who voted for the IWR a fascist, or not? It's a simple question.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

A 'yes' vote on the IWR was unconstitutional and supporting or enabling Fascist America - Global Hegemony. I don't give flying fuck whether it was based in stupidity, 'patriotism,' or deliberate fascism. The result is the same.

One thing can be surely said: If, even in hindsight, a politician takes a continuing stance in favor of the IWR, the thin refuge of "stupidity" is even more specious.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime!! It's a crime against peace and a crime against humanity and a crime under law, both domestic and international. There is no weasel-wording this!


On edit: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Good_German_Syndrome.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/GoodGermanAmerican_Today.html

According to the War Powers Resolution

Bush could have gone to war after consulting Congress, which is what the resolution was, even if it did not pass. The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. He would still be in violation had he acted without Congress, but he didn't need Congressional approval. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to to use force providing specific conditions were met. Under the WPR, a similar condition exists, but does not preclude the president from going to war without prior Congressional approval. He only has to report back.


Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

snip...

Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

snip...

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpo...


An article from John Dean:

Snip...
The last great debate over presidential war powers

Truman's decision became the precedent for the unpopular Vietnam War (1961-1975). By 1973, the war-weary Congress challenged the President's war powers, concerned it had lost all power over the unending war in Vietnam, by introducing a sweeping War Powers Resolution

This resolution, designed to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" are involved in decisions to use American military forces, acknowledges that a President can start a war without Congress -- so long as he advises Congress he is doing so. Then, if Congress does not either declare war or otherwise authorize the use of the military within 60 days from the start of the hostilities, the President must terminate such use of the military.

Over the veto of a Watergate-weakened Richard Nixon, the War Powers Resolution was adopted. But presidents have largely ignored it.

The War Powers Resolution, moreover, seemed to have pleased no one. Liberals, for example, criticized the resolution for permitting the president to unilaterally initiate hostilities for 60 days, before Congress can exercise its constitutional powers.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.war... /

Absent an amendment to the Constitution, it's a spcious abdication of Constitutional duty. Above and beyond that, Congress has not even enforced the War Power Act!

Let's try to get the basics correct. :eyes:

And they were AGAINST this war. They were- dare I use the word- the patriots.

:shrug: It comes not from nationality, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. It certainly doesn't come from some (proclaimed) political party membership.

that torture should stay banned.

Watch by Monday or Tuesday Kerry will doing a 180.

Get your freaking story straight JK.

(Out.)

his words on Iraq going back to 1998 where he is sure we need to deal w/Iraq because he seems sure they had WMDs then, reiterated in his IWR speech, have been used in the current counter-offensive by Bush. Even as those who held similar views backed off in the intervening years like Levin of MI and Scott Ritter, he still held that view in 2002.

apart ourselves?

Half of what they said about Kerry in the last election came from our own side during the primaries.

They are all to easy to pick apart if we help.

Like when people pull quotes out of context. Like when people don't finish Kerry's sentence, where he said that Leiberman wasn't the point, the point was that 80% of Iraqis don't want us there.

It's not fair to pull half quotes out on anybody.

As is so clear in another thread here, everyone knows he failed on the swiftboat matter. I think that it has stuck with the voters he seems to seek above all others: independents or people in that middle ground. Therefore, he 's not a good candidate. If he's going to borrow Murtha's talking point that 80% of Iraqis dont want us there, it only looks like coopting it for his own purposes (Kerry 2008!)--even though he says he disagrees w/ Murtha--if he doesn't support the biggest point that Murtha made: that we cannot productively stay there and that there is no success to be had there. So even in sticking with an unspoken proscription here at DU against calling attention to the fact that this war is illegal and immoral and further that no big Dems will get within a mile of acknowledging that, the man falls short.

Not talking about Kerry at the moment. The reaction I see to him just brings up a larger issue in my mind.

How hard or easy is it for us, come election time, to stand up for someone who isn't exactly what we were looking for. We may have to do that with Warner or Clinton. Over here in the Dem Party, it is a good thing we are so critical. It keeps us honest. And yet it is a bad thing we are so critical, as we give our enemies ammo.

Regardless of who we run, it is a puzzle we may have to solve before the next election.

Or are we just stuck with this system where in the process of weeding out candidates we rip them to shreds to the point where all the Republicans have to do is pick up OUR playbook and run with it?

Am I just seeing the effect of a large primary group of candidates? If so, I'm thinking that 2008 is going to be just as full of factions, luckily on both sides.

Forgive me. I barely participated in the primaries. I was only a vague Clarkie stuck with "Mr. Personality" when my vaguely supported candidate dropped out by Wisconsin.

I guess I just wish, in the process of supporting and/or not supporting one person or another, I didn't see us in some ways helping the Republicans.

If we could just give our Dem leaders SOME benefit of the doubt, not take their words out of context. I see a tendency to jump the gun in our reactions to these folks.

I dunno, maybe my problem is the internet. Places like this are like driving in traffic, where you have split second reactions almost on instinct.

I sorta wish I saw more circumspection, more thoughtfulness. More evidence that people were looking for the whole story. It's like someone's support lives or dies on one quote that may or may not be in context read on a messageboard.

Or maybe I'm just rambling because I never made my usual Starbucks run today. That could also be it.

If so, excuse me. Must. go. caffinate...

I'm just a Unity Gal at heart. How can we sew ourselves together as a group after particularly nasty primary seasons? That's what I wanna know.

It's also the reason I don't want to touch 2008 yet. Good God, we haven't recovered from the last one yet.

Oh right. Caffine. I'm going... I'm going...

And we rule out who we won't consider again and, as here, try to raise points about such people when they are extolled unjustly. And rightfully so. But we can be for someone. Almost everyone I knew was FOR Clinton. But this is a bad time for being unified down the line as we talk about the war. War split the party in the 60s as did race, but it came back together eventually. If there is a tough debate on the war and harsh judgements are made on either side, that seems to be a cause for alarm by some. Well, we're just going to have to live through that. Many want someone with stature on the left to take the lead (free of the DC mindset w/ closed door meetings between a small circle of politicos and consultants) and speak forcefully against the war and admit as Murtha has that's it's over, it will never be a success. The corruption and immorality the war has engendered and the tens of thousands killed mean someone has to bring that up forcefully and not try to say they'll "fix it" or "do better". Unity with those obstacles in the way is not gonna happen over most of the current crop of candidates. Not all, but most.

It took him a while to answer the question but ultimately he said yes, they misled.

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

Being polite hasn't worked WBAS. "Mislead" comes out a politician's mouth and evaporates into the ether.

Mislead means to deceive. Lie means to say something untrue.
IMO, misleading implies intent, planning.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think Sen Kerry is going to say "lie". He tried it early on, and it didn't work out very well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030623-122726-4425r.htm

Mislead just doesn't cut thru the media malarky. Someone as high profile as JK uses the word LIE and it would reverberate like a cannon shot thru the country. You'd see a poll question on CNN "Did the president lie?" People is the bars and coffee shops would be talking about the possible "lies". You have to get it out there and only someone who's a leader like JK can do it.


He should have flat out called Bush a "draft-dodger" during the campaign - that elevates the issue to another level.

Is it risky? Yeah. Is it pretty? No. You wanna goven you have to get power somehow.

But I don't think Sen Kerry is going to use the word 'lie'. I also don't recall any other senator saying it.
Check the link. When Sen Kerry said 'lie', both sides of the aisle accused him of political posturing. The focus switched from the word 'lie' to the supposition that he said it for his own purposes.
And it really didn't resonate. Google it, and you won't find that the media picked up on this use of the word 'lie'.
Maybe it would be different in the current climate. Who knows?
At any rate, I think the public can grasp 'misled'.
I hear you, though. "Lie" is a stronger word in common usage. I'm just not sure it will work to our advantage to use it.
Maybe we're being too cautious, or maybe just cautious enough.

language and that's why Dennis Kucinich even used it in his references.

always leaves him with a way out. If he ever gets the guts to say "lie" then there's no going back so he's not going to risk it for the sake of his own political future. I don't even think Kerry himself knows what he stands for.

anyone with INTEGRITY could do.

Name calling is schoolyard prank type crap.

BUT accepting the consequences of your actions and trying to FIX the result shows CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, AND INTELLEGENCE!!!

I was wrong to trust GWB!!! Unequivacally--NO flipping there!


Sorry, but there never was a 'way out' just like there never was a flipflop.

http://kerryoniraqwar.com/

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

Please read this quote from John Kerry made to a very highly respected journalist William Rivers Pitt in 2003!
"The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. ?Senator,? he said, ?the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you?re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.?

Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, "You're right. I was wrong to trust him. I'm sorry I did." And then he was gone.

At the time of the 2004 primary only about 25% of the voters were smart enough to see how important that was. When Dean put his big push on in Iowa and it fell flat he was finished. IMO the yelling wasn't the problem. It was the moderate Democrats on the campaign trail up on the stage with Dean that did it, including Kerry and especially Joe L. Too many voters still wanted a moderate

The yelling was the problem because the media portrayed him to be a wacko crazy bad-tempered loon.

At that time, I was not heavily involved in the primaries, but I remember for at least a week straight, while exersizing at the gym, they had CNN on tv, and for that week straight they showed that clip. They asked insidious questions about him losing his temper and not "looking Presidential" and they made a complete mockery of him. In fact, I probably am really close to mainstream America at that point! I didn't SEE the primary debates. I didn't see them on the stage. BUT, what I did see was the DEAN Scream! And I thought the media did a hachett job on him.

At the time, I liked Dean, Edwards, and Kerry, but had no strong philosophy about any of them. I was a little less impressed with Clark but during the campaign, I really grew to respect Clark's military stance and comments.

I really think we were lucky that all of them were really great candidates--all of them! AND all of them who run in 08 will be as well. We should all be proud to know they are out there fighting right here and now for 05- 06- 07-(and getting Dems elected in 06) before 08!

But regarding the "Dean Scream", I'm sorry but the media made mince-meat out of him.

I watched it, and everyone was pretty shocked at how poorly Dean did, me included. Yes after that the media did everything they could to kill any chance that he might have because the yelling gave them a simple minded club and the media was still backing the war. The media is useless and has shown practically no leadership. Now that Bush's war is supported by less then 50% the media is more balanced.

Before we get out of Iraq there will be a whole lot of screaming with no negative effect.

what is it about or Dems in Wasington ,why do they treat the Repuks with kid gloves ? After what the repukes did to our last great President Bill Clinton ,why do the Dems continue even when bushes approval ratings are so low to handle him and those around him ,like old school buddies ? Iam sick and tired of most of the elected Dems going easy on this White House and hold in the highest reguard the ones that are speaking out ,its to bad they dont have the rest of their party willing to put the screws to these corrupt repuks ,who are ruining our country and bringing all of us down with them ,except their country club memebers representing large multi national companies that do not have the U.S.A.'s best interest as a priority ,only the bottom line on profits for their company , and any American is seen as a disposable asset,to be thrown away ! Iam getting sick to my stomach just thinking about, between the lazy media and the spineless Dems how Mr. bush gets to keep going around spewing his hate and lies,smiling with that smirk on his face the whole time :-( !!!!
NicRic

TO you you want the word "lie".

Well bfd!!!

He said, "I was wrong."

Admissions of a wrong vote are MUCH more POWERFUL and TRUSTWORTHY than namecalling.

On the one hand, Kerry calls for a timeline to get out of Iraq;

On the other, he calls to replace Rummy with the biggest "hawk" of them all, McCain.

especially the last 6 weeks....so this could also be a way to bait Bush into replacing Rumsfeld WITH McCain to link McCain TIGHTER with Bush before 2008.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:puke:

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

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No permanent bases = nothing
Administration misled us into war = nothing
Rumsfeld sucks = nothing
I would not have voted for the IWR = nothing
Dems are basically united on the core issue = nothing
I made mistakes in the campaign and learned from them = nothing
Our continued presence is fueling the insurgency = nothing

IMO, that's not nothing.

to our eventual nominee. Kerry continues to give McCain respect and legitimacy over our own people, like he did by considering McCain his VP pick.

although there are some posts here that present a possible underlying rationale that makes a lot of sense.

I'm guessing there is a lot of conflict in Sen Kerry's feelings about McCain. On one hand, there has to be some respect for his service. And they've worked very closely together. On the other, McCain's been a real tool and a bush* enabler. Then again, there's the anti-torture legislation to consider.

When it comes to McCain, I find myself saying WTF? more often than not. But the point that he's not Cheney is well taken.

Still, McCain was not the totality of the interview. I think Sen Kerry made a lot of good points. Not a home run, but a solid base hit.

and man, there is something odd between bush and mccain.

there is something hugh in this mccain, bush thing. kerry is likely to be more in the know than i. i am curious too. i cant hardly stomach mccain anymore.

on the McCain thing. I think you're right. There's very likely more to his statement than meets the eye. Stay tuned...

1. McCain...well perhaps he is pushing McCain because McCain is better than RUMMY!

2. I suppose you haven't seen or heard or read the way he's defended Murtha against the righties, defended Cindy Sheehan (and even has her *blessing*, and also the way he's stood up against Bolton, Roberts, Condiliar, Gonzalez, etc...

Read away...

Rep. John (Jack) Murtha spoke his conscience on the Iraq situation yesterday at a press conference, and introduced “a bill today to start an “immediate redeployment” of U.S. troops out of Iraq, to be completed within six months. Republicans immediately went on the defensive by attempting to ’swift boat’ Murtha.

Republicans pounced, chastising Murtha for advocating what they called a strategy of surrender and abandonment.

John Kerry issued the following statement in response to the attacks on Murtha. He will also be speaking on the Senate Floor in a short time, regarding the attacks on Murtha:

“I won’t stand for the ‘swift boating’ of Jack Murtha. It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a Marine who came home from Vietnam with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha’s character and conscience.

“You know why the Republicans are engaged in the lowest form of smear and fear politics? Because they’re afraid of actually debating a senior congressman who has advised presidents of both parties on military matters. They’re afraid to debate a decorated veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. They’re terrified of actually leveling with the American people about the way they misled America into war, and admitting they have no clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home. Whether you agree with Jack Murtha’s policy or not is irrelevant. The truth is there is a better course for our troops and for America in Iraq, and I am going to keep fighting until we take that course for the good of our country.

“Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President for once should stop his allies from doing to Jack Murtha what he set them loose to do to John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia. The President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It’s time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it’s unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1195

Monday, Nov. 28, 2005 11:15 a.m. EST
Dennis Hastert Challenges John Kerry's 'Coward' Comments



Print Friendly Version
Forward this Page
E-mail NewsMax
RSS Feed

Reprint Information

Military Blogs the Newest Rage

215,000 New U.S. Jobs Added in November
John McCain: 'Fake News' a Fake Scandal
Mass. Justice Sorry for 'Red State' Remark
Hillary Clinton's 9/11 Cash Squandered


The already ugly debate over the war in Iraq just got uglier.

In a written appeal to supporters, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., accused House Speaker Dennis Hastert of calling Democratic Rep. John Murtha a coward.

Ever since Murtha, a decorated Marine and longtime supporter of the military, called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Republicans and Democrats have engaged in a verbal war, questioning each other's patriotism, support for the troops and right to criticize.

Writing to supporters the day after Murtha's Nov. 17 announcement, Kerry said, "You and I have to make it absolutely clear that we won't stand for Republican `Swift Boat' style attacks on Jack Murtha."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/28/111902.shtml

Had John Kerry won the election last year, the US would today be packing its bags
and preparing to leave Iraq under something similar to the Murtha plan. ...
http://hughhewitt.com/


John Kerry said a policy shift was needed to reflect realities on the ground.
... White House Defends Human Rights Record AP; How Murtha's call to exit Iraq ...
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051201/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc - 36k - Dec 2, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051201/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc

It's also very doubtful that Shrub would choose McCain to replace Rumsfeld if Kerry thinks it's a good idea.

Speaking of death knells, McCain looks like hell. I wonder if he's even well enough to make it through a campaign. Maybe it's nothing serious, but a campaign is grueling. And 'sickly looking' is not a good image. I'll bet he doesn't run.

Rumsfield, if and when Rumsfield goes. Was mentioned on one of the shows this morning.

at the response he gets. that too is interesting.

what board am i on?????

so confused right now, think i will have a hot shower and think of all the nothing he said this morning. and has been saying for a long long time.

But the person's post who you responded to did made sense.

Yours doesn't.

on "nothing".

(In context of their other posts.)

I thought maybe that person needed another cup of coffee.

We'll have to check back when she gets out of the shower, but I heard the sarcasm.

Thanks, though, ray. I think Sen Kerry had a lot to say this morning, and made some very strong statements against the administration.

on edit......my showers are always so insightful. i love that commercial businessmen getting into shower to come up with solutions.

having to show a little graph of sarcasm, a picture.

i tell my fundie firends, if you like i will talk really slow, louder, and use hand language.......

just a bet of a bitch

lol lol. that is cool. i bet someone will. but you dont have to, understand that is. K.

...on Face the Nation. Thank you, Senator, for continuing the fight!:patriot:

:patriot:

Well, he should learn to say "It depends" first, before he launches into a response like his first one. To satisfy the "I want a short answer, damn it!" people.

But he showed his capability for short answers quite nicely when, asked once again about would he vote for IWR knowing what he knows today, he just said firmly, "NO."

Of course the Dem-bashers will ignore that and focus on the (appropriately) nuanced responses that require a better than third grade education to understand, and call him "too" nuanced.

Overall though, great interview. I LOVED the way he handled the inevitable silly 2008 questions.

Still pussyfooting and covering his sorry ass.

He must be covering his "sorry ass" too. He must still be "pussyfooting" and he doesn't even call for bringing the troops home. Instead he's going to keep them in Arab nations where they can be redeployed into Iraq faster.

Yep..that's pussyfooting and covering a sorry ass.

And then there's this:

Had John Kerry won the election last year, the US would today be packing its bags
and preparing to leave Iraq under something similar to the Murtha plan. ...
http://hughhewitt.com /
(oh..right..that's pussyfooting and covering his ass in calling for similar plans to Murtha's)

John Kerry said a policy shift was needed to reflect realities on the ground.
... White House Defends Human Rights Record AP; How Murtha's call to exit Iraq ...
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051201/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc - 36k - Dec 2, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051201/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc


Tierra...take off your earplugs and start listening to the facts. I can't wait for you to find the one person who didn't vote for the IWR and who has the experience to win in 08.

Sheeez...guess with all these people unwilling to hear the truth, just like the fundie anti-abortionists, we'd better prepare for another 8 years of Republican rule.

The truth is that he voted for the war and has blood on his pathetic politician hands. The truth is that he still supports the occupation.
The truth is that he's suddenly realized that the political winds have changed direction and it's now safe to criticize the way the war he voted for is being conducted.

As for Murtha's "plan" I back it in so far as getting the troops out of Iraq. I oppose moving them to another country other than the USA.

As for "winning in '08" I'll be voting for the anti-war candidate, no matter what party.

He's a radical right wing blogger. Or perhaps you didn't notice the "Defend Delay" and Frist ads on his site?

(and that's a great question..)

Because they are trying to smear Kerry and Murtha but instead they have indeed helped proved my point. Kerry and Murtha DO want to end the war.

Even the righties see it!

:eyes:

You know, the thing is that there is never ONE absolute correct answer. If the "righties" never found an appropriate comment at D.U. to comment and to change their own mind then we would not have a 37% Bush disapproval rating.

The fact is that sometimes, using their own arguments DOES INDEED support your own.

Have you ever done debate? Are you a lawyer? Have you never seen the Defense use the comments made from the Prosecutor's side to debunk the case?

Well, in essense, that is what that person's post did. It showed HOW the other side views Kerry's actions. The fact that it's not a "leftie" does not invalidate the point.

In fact, it strengthens it.

Watch some real debates and some real legal cases and you'll see they do that all the time.

Edited to add:

All events and articles have one thing in common. The facts. It's the "spin" or the "perspective" one puts on it that is the difference. MY POINT was that a "righty" is absolutely convinced that KERRY would END the war! He is of course trying to use that point to support his own agenda, but the point is that KERRY WOULD END THE WAR!

It does not invalidate my point either: KERRY WOULD END THE WAR!

No, I'm not an attorney. I'm in advertising. I am currently dating an attorney, though. Does that count? Are you an attorney?

Back to the subject — The poster couldn't find a liberal view to quote?

Sure, one could pull LOTS of stuff out of context to validate their views, but isn't that somewhat disingenuous?

Had the poster done a search simple search on Hewitt's website, they'd have found this later on the same page (along with many other knocks on Democrats, the ACLU, etc.):

"And, via Left Coaster, I find that Jeffrey Feldman at Daily Kos and I had the same reaction to official Democratic response to the speech:

According to John Kerry, the problem with the President's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" was that it made the claim that the U.S. military belonged to the President's policy and not to the American people (hang on, here, it's hard to explain Kerry's arguments). He then went on to explain that Democrats are not calling for a time table for leaving Iraq, but were instead calling for a time table for success in Iraq which would allow for the U.S. military to leave (See the difference? Yeah...me neither).

Feldman thinks Russ Feingold's is the winning Dem voice in this conversation. Me, I'm partial to Joe Lieberman, but one thing's for certain-- Kerry is not helping them or the debate."

you'd see that I didn't quote Kos. HUGH HEWITT QUOTED KOS. So much for him being a good quote for Kerry, eh?

None of that was my quote. IT WAS HUGH HEWITT'S QUOTE!

Kneejerk much? I rest my case.

(First, I'm sorry about the crankyness before...too many stresses HERE (not at D.U. but HERE).

OK..you're point

Why quote from the wingnuts?

You're saying, "Look at the source."

I can see why you would say that, except I also disagree with it too.

Why do I disagree?

Ok..as I tried to say before, but didn't say very well, is that the source was not 'friendly' to Kerry so then I feel you can add in 'motive'.

Clearly, it is their motive to ridicule Kerry by saying, "Kerry would end the war". They're motive in saying it is to get support for their anti-kerry message. The same as Kos is a great source for anti-kerry messaging.

It's like a hostile witness in a court of law. That person has the facts but doesn't want to support the side the facts support.


And in a way, the whole "Fact, motive, and retelling (story)" scenario reminds me of this college exersize we did when there was a HUGE rukuss at the front of the room.

Then we had to all retell what had happened. Within each retelling is pieces of the truth BUT each retelling had to be observed for elements of fact, fiction, opinion, bias, motives, etc...


And while I CAN see your point that Hewitt is a Right Winger--I also believe that there is nuggets of truth to that particular statement.

I believe the fact is: IF Kerry were President, he already would be bringing troops home.

I believe Hewitt's motive in saying that is to make sure 'his crowd' is alert and fighting back.

So to me, because the source is not always supportive of Kerry and they have a clear motive to not support Kerry, then their statement on that specific sentence does stand up to be supportive of the overall thesis that "Kerry would end the war if he were President."



Truce?

truce. But beware of using rightwing sources because they'll almost always come up and bite you in the ass.

He is a solid Democrat who is more liberal with his votes than he is with his tongue. I have examined his record directly rather than rely on the opinions of others, so I know JK is to be trusted. I encourage everyone on this thread to do the same so they know EXACTLY what they are talking about.

That being said, I wish his rhetoric would match his voting history in crucual moments with the press.

The media is something to fear if you are a Democrat, I understand...we HAVE to assure our pols that we don't care about the media's obvious attempts to smear Democrats. Maybe they will be more likely to devlop courage.

I knew some people were not in favor of Kerry anymore, but the sheer animosity toward the guy... wow.

I am still upset by his campaign and by his lack of response to the stolen election. But I thought what he had to say today was pretty strong. He basically called the president a LIAR on NATIONAL T.V. and said that the administration FALSIFIED INTEL to TAKE US TO WAR. It's taken THIS LONG for Dem Lawmakers to get on board since the DSM, but I AM COMPLETELY GREATFUL THEY ARE!

Let's not EAT EACH OTHER ON THIS NOW.

I agree that it was a strong interview.
If he stood on the desk and called bush* a liar, some would complain that he didn't jump up and down and call him a fucking liar.
He sounded convincing and rational, and very strongly opposed to the administration's Iraq policies. I think that's what most people are looking for from our leadership.

I was like, :wtf:? I know Kerry isn't the best talker, but sheesh, I was very glad it wasn't Lieberman on MTP saying "Bushie's doing a Heckuva job!"

about the animosity toward him from many on this site. My guess, is that those who still think a lot of him, don't post on these threads due to the high level of anger and sheer irrational emotion of the anti-Kerry posters.

I liked what he had to say today. I thought in 2004 that he was an impressive speaker, spoke from the heart and with intelligence - and all I saw on MTP today supported that opinion.

IMHO, he is one of our true leaders in the DEM party... don't understand why he is disliked so on this site? :shrug:

Some very vocal, others not so much.

I think a lot of people were stunned, and felt blindsided, when Kerry conceded so quickly after trumpeting that he'd make sure to count every vote. That was a raw feeling of betrayal that hasn't healed yet.

but Kerry was told by the Democratic Leadership that other than the suppression there was NO fraud and he could never make up the difference in the numbers.

I am sorry but I've been around DU long enough to know this would have been happening no matter what Kerry did. I don't understand the pscyhology behind it, but he's always been held to a completely different standard than anybody else. On issues that he has worked on for years and years, like ANWR and campaign finance reform and health care, people have often made bizarre "late to the show" comments. Most people have no clue who he is or what he has stood for over his lifetime. They jumped on an anti-Kerry bandwagon because he took a more cautious approach on Iraq and view everything he does through that narrow lens of hatred.

But your statement rings true otherwise. Kerry is a fine Senator who has a long history of voting exactly like DU would want him to.

Anyone who launches criticism of Kerry for the two afrementioned issues is within their rights. On the rest, criticism spurns from ignorance of Kerry's record coupled with disappointment in the election and the war.

I don't know about "hatred"....more like "tired of it all and willing to hang ANYONE out to dry as an example, as long as the example is made".

It really surprises me how little many of us try to understand the motives of our debating opponents on DU. These are our political allies...they deserve more consideration than accusations of blind hatred.

People are dying because of this war....real people. Kerry hatred stems from the fact that many people see this continuing war as continuing murder in our names. It's not Kerry hatred...it is war hatred, which is understandable.

People are suffering under a crazy Bush regime that lies to the American poeple and has ostensibly stolen our democracy and replaced it with corporate control. Those on the left who know about our stolen Democracy (or believe in it, whatever your take) think that this issue is exceedingly important, but, in the interest of *whatever*, our prominent Dem pols are not doing much about it. It is not Kerry hatred, it is election fraud hatred. Kerry is just a representation of it.

Now anyone can disagree with either of these positions, but please understand these positions do not come from some fixation on Kerry, but on fixation with the stances he takes on important issues. THAT is what we should be debating, not strawman arguments about the "Kerry-hatred" on this board. Conversely, some use fallacy arguments to launch bombs at Kerry, as well (mostly ad hominems).

The issues matter...the personalities do not. I only soeak for myself, though.

If Kerry had said the exact same thing Murtha said, the fine print of keeping troops in Kuwait and the fact that 6 months isn't NOW NOW NOW would have been the talking points.

It is Kerry hatred, pure and simple. And the fact that the hatred may well be marginalizing the exact person who really CAN get us out of this war, that his words on the war are constantly misstated which actually makes it more difficult for us to unite against the war, and that people are DYING while all these bullshit word games continue, PISSES ME THE HELL OFF.

He has introduced election reform legislation and is the ONLY ONE who co-sponsored Obama's legislation that was touted on DU yesterday. Well, touted until somebody pointed out Kerry was the co-sponsor. It'll sink into oblivion now that his name is attached.

It's Kerry hatred and I really don't care how many people try to deny it or spin it. It's the weirdest thing I've ever seen in politics, even weirder than the Bush love.

Your first point is speculative (the capitalized NOW NOW NOW one).

As far as the second point about how people aren't happy with Kerry, please note that the very news story you cite is only days old. What people remember is the "knowing then what I know now" coment from the Grand Canyon, like it or not. Eveything he has said since has not sunk very deep into the body politic. Blame the usual suspects (the media, lazy people not reading news, etc.). Plus there is confusion because of Clinton's position, and Kerry is unwittingly associated with Hillary via the DLC connection (a popular grievance target group here). Ths may not be justified, but the perceived connection is there.

If Kerry keeps up his antiwar rhetoric publically, you will see turnaround...but in time. I agree with you that Kerry's stance on the war has softened, but I cannot agree that we need to excoriate others for not coming to that conclusion, as well. I also cannot agree that people know this...some do, but most do not.

Convince the people you refer to because you will never get anywhere with hyperbole. These ARE your political allies, even though you compare their positions with love for Bush. Otherwise, you may inadvertently be contributing to the "lack of unity" you vociferously plea against in your last post.

You get the last word.

Well there you go. Far be it for the left to give a shit about truth and lies, (as they rail against everybody else for their lies), to look at the truth about those "perceived connections". Or anything else. Like what was really said last year at the Grand Canyon or about ending the war. Last year and before. Kerry's stance on the war hasn't softened at all, it's exactly the same as it's always been. Stabilize Iraq as best as we can and get out. At varying points he thought the UN or NATO or the Arab League could help create a better outcome than what we have now, but as Bush has continued to fuck up and limit those options, Kerry has had to change his strategy on what could be accomplished in Iraq. As he's repeatedly said, we only had a limited amount of time for an optimum result, since we were already there and couldn't turn back the clock.

But if you could go back 2 years and have Kerry in charge, with his plan in Iraq, would you? UN, NATO, regional cooperation, Iraqi driven reconstruction, no Fallujahs, no Abu Ghraib, no search & destroy. Hmm?

The left childishly insisted that the only two choices were "out now" or warmonger. Facing the reality that the real choices were Bush's death and destruction OR ANY better course just didn't enter your mind. You called any number of better strategies "stay the course" instead of recognizing them for distinctly different approaches, approaches that might well have put Iraq in a much better place today and have our troops at home. How many people have to die before the left gets it through their thick heads that most of the time the not perfect solution is the only one you're going to get and you better take it if you want to keep people alive.

All of this is why I lost respect for much of the anti-war activists quite some time ago. Not all, but most. And when all of this is going on, they don't seem like my political allies at all.

it's not that weird. when you have dumbest, the most dangerous president of our entire history get selected again through voter fraud, but Kerry denies it that's not only a serious problem for the party, it's a serious problem for the country, our future.

some of us see that betrayal as intensely profound, and we do see it as a betrayal of our hopes and our trust.

just because you don't understand that concept, doesn't mean it is somehow less real, or less logical, or less rational. It is a deeply profund and visceral sense of betrayal and disappointment, which ultimately equates to a profound sense of loss of esteem for him as a potential candidate in the 2008 election.

Just because you "don't get that" - don't make it any less real.

People have been investigating elections all over the country for 5 years now. More than just Ohio, machine elections all over the place where machine hacking has been alledged. If it's so easy to prove, why hasn't it been proven ANYWHERE???

People say Paul Hackett's election was stolen. Why doesn't anybody say that HE betrayed them??? Oh no, people are lined up behind him for the Senate even though he didn't do anything about HIS stolen election. Where's the Ohio lawsuits over the voting initatives that were stolen????

I am sorry, but the left is full of shit. They were looking for ANY reason to turn on Kerry. If he hadn't conceded, they'd be pissing all over him for that. They hate him, they always will hate him, and if I'd known how that hatred would play out in the election, I'd have supported Howard Dean just to shut their asses up once and for all.

That fact by itself does not necessarily imply foul play, but wouldn't it be an absolute imperative to investigate?

That's the problem with stolen elections. Electronic voting is vote theft BY DEFINITION. It's exactly the same as if someone grabbed your ballot and asked how you wanted it filled out, and then did so while refusing to let you watch. You can't prove cheating, but howthefuck could you possibly know one way or another unless you investigated the secret process? And that is precisely what Kerry and all too many other leading Dems refuse to do.

Now, it's true that such an investigation could not have been done fast enough to change the election results, but it fucking well HAS to be done for the sake of future elections! You can't have evidence without investigations.

You don't speak for me. Be careful about what you "know" about "most people".

I think it comes from the fact that many on the left swallowed their doubts about the guy in favor a giant, unified push to get rid of Bush. The effort failed, and now Kerry is a walking representation of that failure. The ensuing months have revealed tremendous damage to our way of life, our ideals, our future, and a lot of DUers take that anger and direct it to the walking representation of our failure and bleak future.

Is Kerry painted badly on DU? Yes he is.
Does he deserve it? Probably not, but his quick concession hurt
It is understandable? Yes
Will it pass? Only when Bush is defeated
Will I stop talking like Rumsfeld? Yes, but it is really easy to do

:rofl:

:rofl:

of flames - knew that I had opened myself up to that. So I guess I will go one step further and say that I don't remember him "giving in" quickly. The numbers, from what I remember, didn't support a win - no matter how they were counted at that time.

There was not then and there is not now any "physical proof" that the election was stolen. I, personally, firmly believe - there is no doubt in my mind, tho it is circumstantial - that the election was stolen in Ohio, Florida (again) and very likely New Mexico. But there wasn't then any hope of solid physical proof coming forward to validate that belief any more than there is now. IMO, it will take years to investigate. I do have confidence that Kerry is working toward proof - he and Edwards have filed a lawsuit last I heard...

But what exactly did those who are hurt so terribly over this want to have him and Edwards do about it? What constructively could they do?

Really, thanks for not flaming me. Just looking for a discussion of this as we all seem to skirt around it or flame each other. What steps would we want to have him and Edwards do?

Expecially the recent GAO report on election fraud. There is a thread on it today here on DU...you should read it and see how close to "total" proof we have gathered in support of the election fraud hypothesis. That GAO report is damaging, and it IS an official government report...at the very least, it warrants a complete investigation and the removal of certain responsible parties from their governmental offices, elected or not.

And as far as what steps could or should be taken, I really think that calling these numerous reports to the attention of the electorate would have been a great start. Standing up with Boxer and Conyers on election fraud when it was brought to the floor would have been nice, as well. There are other instances of Kerry/Edwards running away from this issue in public....and the left is mad because this issue SHOULD be public.

It is hard to defend the guy who got screwed in the election when he won't defend himself...it is evn used as a talking point against those who are for election reform. It was the same problem Gore had when he silenced the Congressional Black Caucus when they spoke up about voter disenfrachisement in Florida. I know they do this for a peaceful transistion of power and to give the impression of stability, but at times like these, the last thing we need is to keep up appearances.

We are really hurting here.

As a side-note, I try not to flame people,but I use my "ignore" function liberally. It is good for the blood pressure.

At least that is my take on it.

I appreciate the reply... I know about the GAO and the mounting evidence as I have been following it. But as far as I can tell, there is no 'physical' proof of it yet.

I try to think of what I would do in the same situation... they are lawyers and very aware of physical vs circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately, I think the GAO is still surmising that something is not right - without actual proof.

My hope is that Kerry/Edward's lawsuit will turn up the proof needed (or some evidence) in time for the 2006 elections. To my thinking, to make a big deal about it now without the proof would not have the desired results that everyone wants - in fact would pretty much guarantee to be a turn off to the masses hearing about it.

Imagine the argument currently happening on DU but on a much larger scale - instead of hundreds arguing back and forth about what happened in 2004 and 2000 - there would be millions and still no resolution as there is no proof. People, with much shorter attention spans than us, would get tired of talking/hearing about it and it would get buried in the news if reported at all. For right now, the issue is simmering and not going away so I do have faith that the truth on this nasty business will 'out' eventually and the proof or some guilty person will step forward.

My opinion and my hope.

Peace.

What the heck is going on here? :shrug:

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

So they will blast any Democrat as soon as they are getting some traction.

I think I know what thread you are talking about concerning yesterday. It was the same thing: blasting a good democrat in order to advance their party.

for whatever reason. I like many dem candidates, but there aren't many who don't have flaws of some sort. I can't see flogging or defending any to death. I've seen too many flog a candidate to death threads lately, and it all revolves around presidential candidates.

counterproductive given the 06 elections coming.

even if we might not otherwise defend to the death.

I just posted a very rambling post up thread that sort of laments the same thing you are talking about. I'm not talking about Kerry. I'm talking about all our former or future candidates. We so often do the Republicans work for them if we don't give our Dem leaders at least a fair shake, where we take their words in context and try to find out what they were REALLY trying to say before we start in with the criticism.

If we don't at least bother to make sure we're being fair, then we're a bit to much like the Republicans during the campaign for me, pulling quotes out of context and making false comparisons that are indeed not fair. We railed against them during the campaign. But sometimes I see us as being just the same. We're supposed to be the thinking ones over here, you know?

...that old 'house divided against itself cannot stand' thing. Kerry was wonderful...as usual. I respect all the insight given in this and other threads about his performance. I think there is truth in some of what has been said. But I also think that most of the general public does not follow Kerry like we do. I've been very frustrated that Kerry's Georgetown speech with his thoughtful plan forward in Iraq has not been covered at all. This interview provided Kerry another forum to get that information out to those people who haven't heard his plan at all yet (and I think that's a lot of people). I would guess that was the goal...and if so, he did VERY well!


:patriot:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml

Thanks to Broadslidin here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5515332

This is the main thing I want to hear.

Some people here have to have their head cleaned if they think that Bush will name somebody better than McCain or Lieberman. That is all Kerry was saying, but of course who here can think that far.

I know you love McCain (who loves bush) - so much so, you wanted him as your VP. But why confuse the issue and spread the lie that the former keating 5 crook is anything more than a BFEE stooge? WTF? Can't you two get a room somewhere?:wtf:

everybody but Bush, and that includes Cheney and Rumsfeld. But he cannot bring himself to criticize *. I wonder why.

Anyway. This was exactly three seconds on the show. A lot of other things more interesting than that were said, such as " NO PERMANENT BASES" ...

difference between all of them? Even on torture, McCain started with the moral position and ended up justifying the beasts. (heard hm on The Daily Show). Why boost him?

place and I think it is a safe bet that Kerry thinks the same way.

However, the comment is taken out of context or rather the context was not given in this diary.

Kerry in fact was advocating the firing of Rumsfeld and of any people who is like Cheney. From the transcript, you can see he is not advocating the merits of McCain but the fact that Rummy is totally incompetent and he should have been fired a long time ago.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=1305



I understand your point (and agree on McCain), but I think, now that I have read the transcript) that this is more a way to say that everybody is better than Rummy and Cheney than an endorsement of McCain.

The intent might have been the one you say, but the net result is that shills like McCain and Powell get sanctified.

when Kerry was asked by the host if the "lies" were "intentional" he answered in the affirmative.

And like the OP of that thread, I agree that it is newsworthy.

Not a former peacenik who voted for another illegitimate war and took on a hawkish posture...

The million shades of grey can confuse. In ways it seems good that the bottom fell out of it. The multi-headed monster that is DLC-DC-GOP-INC needs pruned back much. In the future I hope that they continue to get it consistently wrong. They all continue to offer up all their excuses and no real apologies for all the failure that they really are.

The lines are really drawn but most are too afraid or PC to admit them, it is the establishment vs the people. They, the establishment, will continue on as long as they can find enough people to believe them :shrug: