Emergency thread replacement: "Will Pitt backs ABB, supports Kerry"

Discuss.

and since I was originally a Kerry supporter, I respect his choice.

How can you not be? Kerry is my second choice, with Dean being first. I will say, however, that Kerry is more "electable" than Dean.

but what's ABB?

Meaning you'll vote for the Dem candidate, no matter who, as beating Bush is so important.

I've decided that my candidate is Howard Dean.
He's father, brother, son and uncle.
He's ready to kick ass, crack ironic & restore
the sanity & spirit of America all at once.
The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
drives Howard Dean to the White House.

I've decided that Beer and Peanuts should not be used as the building blocks for a meal.

edit:typo

I am ABB I like some more than others naturally. Kerry is slowly becoming my back up to Kucinich. I remember Will also said he liked Kucinich but he didnt think he was electable its all good as long as you like my guy Kucinich people and dont call him ugly we're cool. I think Kerry could be better than Dean really. Without Kerry's war vote this would be clear cut for me but with it I am still deadlocked but Kerry may be it in the end as a backup pick and hes the one my grandparents are supporting they are virtually my political teachers my grandmother is still smart but she doesnt realize that the media is spinning Dean's "liberalism" hes a good guy dont flame but Kerry is more so liberal than Dean.

Dean is the only chance.

America is sick of sophistry, prevarication and slick, nuanced arguments - everything that Kerry is.

Kerry will lose the presidential election, increase the Republican majority in Congress and make the Democratic party the minority party for the next 30 years.

but I think you are right.
On the other hand I'm DEFINITELY ABB

Unfortunately, he has shown he is a coward and he has shown that he is a loser who will alienate the American public with his wishy-washy, me-too-ism.

The guy is not a leader.

Howard Dean is the only leader among the candidates and the only chance to defeat Bush.

It was his pro war vote and his vote of the patriot act. Now I am not for the guy but him and your guy Dean are battling for the backup posistion of mine. I think Dean is pretty good but not as good as hes made out to be hes right on some things but I think I would really be one side and he on the others with many issues. We share the same hero I like that well I have many heroes and Truman sticks out for me too. Kerry and Dean are pretty much the same except Kerry was for the war and from what I read seems to regret it so anyways I really dont understand the friction of those two.

nt

Go back to previous topic
Forum NameGeneral Discussion Forum
Topic subjectAfter an agonizing struggle, I have finally
chosen my candidate
Topic
77269, After an agonizing struggle, I have finally
chosen my candidate
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:20 AM

WARNING

O Brave Soul, Who Hath Clicked This Thread, Know Ye
That A Flame War Hath Almost Certainly Taken Place
Below. Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here.


OK. That's taken care of.

First off, let me say this for the record book. I've
said it before...hell, everything I'm about to write
is something I've said here at one time or
another...but I'm gonna say it again.

I will vote for whomever wins the 2004 Democratic
Nomination. Period. More than that, I will go animal
to make sure as best I can that they win. I will be
an insane political wolverine gone wild on the meat
sickness for whomever gets the nod. There will be no
stopping me. I have ten good reasons for this:

1. Dick Cheney
2. Don Rumsfeld
3. Paul Wolfowitz
4. Richard Perle
5. John Ashcroft
6. Condoleezza Rice
7. Colin Powell
8. John Poindexter
9. John Bolton
10. Karl Rove

I will go further (insert Flame Bait #1) by saying
that anyone who does not comprehend that whoever
wins the nomination, for the aforementioned ten
reasons, is a massive improvement over our current
estate either a) Has not been paying attention, b)
Doesn't know fuck-all about politics, or c) Is so in
love with their personal political ideology that
they are living proof that the perfect is indeed the
enemy of the good.

I'd add d) That love affair keeps them from offering
some real help, however small, to people who really
need the help, in favor of voting for a dead-bang
loser so they can enjoy a self-righteous ego-fest
and stroke their liberal credentials at the same
time.

I read everything on DU. Everything. I have written
three books - one a New York Times/international
best-seller translated into twelve languages - on
the strength of the data provided by the people who
make this site what it is. That's why I gush over DU
in all three books. Check the thank-you page. You're
probably there.

I read everything. I weigh everything. I love Kerry,
Dean, and Kucinich - the out and out DU favorites.
I'd vote for the rest of the pack, even Joe, with a
big smile on my face and righteousness in my heart,
for all the reasons and more mentioned above.

(Flame Bait #2)I am backing John Kerry.

Dean is AWESOME. He has momentum, more money than I
ever thought he'd get, and a message that resonates.

Kucinich is AWESOME, even though political realities
pretty much guarantee that he will be the Gary Bauer
of the Left in this primary race. Deal with it. It's
true.

Kerry...I dunno...I'm gonna have to go with my
spidey-sense here. He's got all those years on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the tours in
Vietnam, an environmental record that is second to
none...and as far as I know, he is the only guy in
the race who has said (7/16/03) that we should get
out of Iraq. His rationale? There are 58,000 names
on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, he said. Half of
them would not be there if the leaders from that era
had the courage to withdraw when withdrawal was the
best option. Pride, he said, has no place in dealing
with the lives of soldiers.

Yah, yah, yah, I know, he voted for the war. Tellya
what. YOU have the DIRECTOR OF THE CIA look you in
the eye and promise you that Iraq had nukes. Wait.
What am I saying? You're a pack of internet jockeys
and grassroots activists. You have the privilege of
not having to deal with crap like that. So do I. I
don't want that job. Do you?

He got lied to by the DIRECTOR OF THE CIA. Were I
standing in his shoes, I very well might have voted
for war. Time to dispel a myth. The Dems who voted
against the war DID NOT do so because they doubted
the evidence. They did so because they felt it was
an infringement on the constitutional powers of the
Congress. Go look it up.

Yah, yah, yah, he voted for the Patriot Act. Tellya
what. YOU get anthrax mailed to the building you
work in, just days after all the 9/11 horrors, and
you get told by the ATTORNEY GENERAL that it was
terrorists who did it. I probably would have voted
for it.

It is the privilege of the activist to say "I would
never do THIS" or "I would never do "THAT." It is
the shitty deal of the Senator/Presidential
candidate to weigh his constituency, his
responsibilities to the entire nation re: his
positiopn on the intelligence committee, the fact
that one has the expectation to BELIEVE the CIA
DIRECTOR when he briefs you, and the fact that he
has to tread lightly around a hostile majority and a
hostile media in order to gain the ultimate prize,
the defeat of Bush.

Does it sound like I am just making excuses? Of
course I am. In this brave new world 2003, you have
three choices:

1. Don't participate because it's all bullshit;

2. Pick a candidate that lets you sleep at night but
who has no chance given the current realities;

3. Compromise as much as you have to in order to get
these dragons out of the nest.

I have opted for #3, and I will sleep like a baby.

So there it is. My decision was a horserace between
Dean and Kerry. I think Kerry has longer teeth, more
experience, and a better record. Dean has the
privilege of having been 1,000 miles away from the
Senate when these hard votes came. No fault of his,
but I wonder how it would have come out if he'd been
there.

So there it is. Kerry in '04.

P.S. With sincere apologies to god_bush_n_cheney, I
have to say I don't give one fetid dingo's kidney
for all the stuff about Skull & Bones. As my former
students might say, Whatever.
77284, One flaw in your argument,
Posted by ThorsteinVeblen on Tue Jul-22-03 03:23 AM

if I knew the WMD claims were false, Kerry had to
have known.

There is no way around it.

If you agree with the path the Democratic Party is
on now, the path that has lost us seat in Congress
for 15 years and lost the huge 2002 election, your
vote for Kerry is smart.

If you are at all concerned about the current
leadership, I suggest you may want to rethink your
position.
77297, How do you know the nuke claims were false?
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:26 AM

Specifically.

What did you know, internet nobody, that would
overwhelm the words of the Director of the CIA in a
briefing? What did I know that would do that?
77315, Instinct. I was an adult through most of Vietnam
and all of Watergate.
Posted by greatauntoftriplets on Tue Jul-22-03 03:28 AM

I tend not to trust much of what politicians say.

And the busholini regime are liars from the word
"go".

Why should I have believed them?
77324, So if a nuke went off in New York
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:30 AM

and you're a Senator on the Intelligence Committee,
and the Director of the CIA warned you about it, but
you voted no, you can tell the incinerated ashes it
was OK because of your "instinct."

Like I said, the privilege of the activist.
77344, You have much to learn about women's intuition.
Posted by greatauntoftriplets on Tue Jul-22-03 03:34 AM

And that will come with more years.

Tenet was doling out politicized information to
please the regime.

Yes, the privilege of an activist.
77369, Not an excuse
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:36 AM

It works here, but not there.
77373, What did I know?
Posted by Eloriel on Tue Jul-22-03 03:38 AM

Glen Rangwala

And then there was Scott Ritter. And a fella named
Will Pitt.

Why do you say that Tenet lied to his face? Do you
have a link for that?

Why isn't Kerry on the right side NOW? He's got
every excuse in the book, or the biggest one: I was
misled. (I don't believe that, but I'd accept it.)

Sorry, son. It was pure political calculus, as it is
now. They all drank the Kool-Aid, and it wasn't the
WMD Kool-Aid, it was the "you want to run for
President and don't want anyone calling you
unpatriotic" Kool-Aid.

Support whomever you like, it's your unique
privilege as an American, for at least a little
while longer, assuming the voting machines get
fixed.

Eloriel
77399, Do I have a link for it????
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:42 AM

It has been all over the news! Ya might have heard
of a country named Niger. Tenet, Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld used it to justify the war. On September
24, 2002, Tenet used it to lie to the Senate
Intelligence Committee.

Hm. Kerry believes me, or the Director of the CIA.
Hm.
77422, The Niger documents were discredited before the
war
Posted by killbotfactory on Tue Jul-22-03 03:47 AM

by the UN weapons inspectors. Same with the aluminum
tubes. Heck, a bunch of the Bush admin's claims were
discredited before the war.

I don't understand why the story just grew legs
recently.
77661, Oh, sorry, my mistake. I expected a published
author to be more precise
Posted by Eloriel on Tue Jul-22-03 04:26 AM

with their language:

Tellya what. YOU have the DIRECTOR OF THE CIA look
you in the eye and promise you that Iraq had nukes.

You said LOOKED HIM IN THE EYE. To me that means a
personal encounter, or at worst a response in
committee to Kerry's own question. Based on your
phrasing, I was looking for a direct lie by Tenet,
mano a mano. Perhaps that happened. You asserted it
as fact, not speculation.

...and as far as I know, he is the only guy in the
race who has said (7/16/03) that we should get out
of Iraq.

Oh, please. If he's actually suggesting that, he's
delusional. Or pandering again. There is no way we
can pull out and not be guilty of an even bigger
sin, or at least equivalent.

It's my understanding that like Dean he would
internationalize the problem. Dean has a 7-point
plan for Iraq on his website that he posted on April
9 (was that the end of major hostilities? --
whatever date was the "end" of the major battles).

You might ask yourself what else you got wrong about
these 2 candidates. Or, what the hell. Just make it
a subjective call for the homey -- but then don't
try to rationalize it.

Eloriel
77688, Tenet briefs Senate Intelligence Committee
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 04:31 AM

Kerry on Senate Intelligence Committee.

Must I draw you a map?

OK.

Tenet ------>tells lie------>to Kerry.

Clear?
77817, Nope. Not in light of all the other evidence
which was thoroughly
Posted by Eloriel on Tue Jul-22-03 05:04 AM

debunked well before. Not in light of all the leaks
from the CIA, DIA, objections from retired military,
leaks from Pentagon brass, millions and millions of
phone calls, faxes, emails from constituents,
millions of protesters, and COMMON SENSE, as in WHY
WERE NONE OF OUR MAIN ALLIES willing to go along
with this?

Sorry, chief. Doesn't wash. You haven't provided a
transcript for a direct lie from Tenet. Your
language was imprecise.

I rather think you imagine Kerry got more than I
believe he did. I distinctly remember Dems coming
out of a meeting in which they were given a special
briefing and their response was: "nothing new here,"
"not convincing."

Eloriel


77374, Leaks from the CIA reported in Kinght-Ridder
Posted by ThorsteinVeblen on Tue Jul-22-03 03:38 AM

As early as October, 2002.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/opinion/22KRUG.html?hp

"On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported
on intelligence officials who "charge that the
administration squelches dissenting views, and that
intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to
produce reports supporting the White House's
argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat
to the United States that pre-emptive military
action is necessary." One official accused the
administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the
intelligence books"; none of the dozen other
officials the reporters spoke to disagreed."



I claim no authority, oh mighty political author,
just a humble messenger who happens to read.

If Tenet lied to Kerry's face, why isn't Kerry
demanding his resignation? In my experience,
politicians don't like to be made fools of which is
exactly what Kerry looks like now - a fool (at best.
At worst he is a corrupt coward).






77429, Pitt
Posted by sgr2 on Tue Jul-22-03 03:48 AM

I agree with you. After all, if we nominate Dean
we've got a big fight on our hands. We might win,
but it will be a gigantic uphill battle from the
start.

If we nominate Kerry I believe it's a landslide in
our favor.


NOTE: I think we win in a landslide if its Edwards
too.
77540, I don't agree it'd be a landslide if Edwards gets
the nod but...
Posted by WindRavenX on Tue Jul-22-03 04:04 AM

...I think Kerry should pick Edwards as his running
mate, IMO, as I have stated in every canidate thread
for months now :)
But, back on topic. Mr. Pitt's strategy is like my
own: I will support whoever gets the Democratic
nomination, and like Mr.Pitt, I support Kerry not
for just his ability to generate funds and WIN, but
there does seem to be another six sense working as
to why I really like Kerry. JM2C.
77555, plenty
Posted by dfong63 on Tue Jul-22-03 04:06 AM

What did you know, internet nobody, that would
overwhelm the words of the Director of the CIA in a
briefing? What did I know that would do that?

for one thing, we have the CIA director's own
testimony that Saddam's WMD's if any were not a
major threat to the US and would be more of a threat
if we attacked him.

for another thing, any man who is afraid to
challenge what the CIA tells him --- which is
functionally equivalent to believing everything the
CIA says --- is a man who does not belong in the
white house.

millions of protestors worldwide knew the WMD claims
were bogus. we had the courage to stand up to the
lies, and so should any man who wants to be the
leader of the most powerful nation on earth. and
don't make me laugh by saying that a man who lacked
the courage of his (supposed) convictions, is the
strong national security candidate.

and then, there's the small matter of Kerry's vote
on the patriot act.

basically your argument boils down to your gut
instinct. well my gut instinct says Kerry's a phoney
and a has-been.





77570, Nuke's in Iraq
Posted by bahrbearian on Tue Jul-22-03 04:09 AM

What about the weapons inspector's what about
Isreal's Nukes what about Eastern Europes nukes
North Korea Pakistans,India's,China.....Lets get
going We've got a lot of Countries to Bomb!
77327, What did you read
Posted by sandnsea on Tue Jul-22-03 03:30 AM

to come to that conclusion.
77336, Tons of stuff
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:32 AM

Mostly, though, I talked to my dad.


77372, what kind of name is "Redding"?
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 03:37 AM

It's cool as hell. Is that an old family name kind
of thing? And you got named "William"? Lol. :silly:
77386, Old school Alabama
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:40 AM

In the male family, the last three men before me
were 'Charles __________ Pitt.' My pop is Charles
Redding, and he went with Redding. I came within an
ace of being Charles Rivers, which would have been
awesome in Boston. :)
77409, well, damn
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 03:44 AM

My name is Charles. rofl.
77562, not you hon
Posted by sandnsea on Tue Jul-22-03 04:06 AM

thorsteinveblen. Obviously you read. When I want to
know what something says, I try to go to the horse's
mouth. The actual speech, testimony, dod/cia/state
report, etc. I was just wondering if thorsteinveblen
had done that when he/she decided there was nothing
at all to the weapons claims. While I was outraged
at the obvious hype from these reports, I could also
see why doing something about Iraq would be seen as
important. Kerry voted to do something and sincerely
hoped that something wasn't war. I get it.
77582, Gotcha
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 04:12 AM

Thanks.

:)
77408, How would he have known that?
Posted by Old and In the Way on Tue Jul-22-03 03:44 AM

When this administration was controlling the intel
that was given to Congress?

I mean, other than the fact that we now know that
this is administrations lied on the evidence, would
you risked the lives of 100s of thousands if there
was a chance that your gut instinct was wrong?

And I believe the vote was allowing Bush to pursue
war as a last option if the UN inspections were
being stonewalled. That, of course, didn't happen,
so Bush clearly violated the terms and certainly the
spirit of the Senate vote.

And you do know that this vote was planned to occur
just before the mid-terms with the intent of driving
a wedge between Democrats...right?




77286, ABB
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 03:24 AM

That's what I'm reduced to. Actually, I've been
voting AGAINST politicians so long I don't think I'm
capable of voting FOR someone. Gawd, I am so old and
cynical.
77292, I'm reading you loud and clear
Posted by HootieMcBoob on Tue Jul-22-03 03:26 AM

I like Kucinich and I like Dean but unless Clark
gets into the race, in my opinion, there's not a
better candidate out there to beat Bush than John
Kerry. For all the reasons you've mentioned above.
We're not gonna find a perfect candidate. We just
have to live with that. I'll support vehemently
whoever wins the nomination but at the moment I'm
with you and Kerry.

Sorry, no flame from me.
77295, KUCINICH IS A BETTER MAN
Posted by mmm on Tue Jul-22-03 03:26 AM

HE CAN WIN
77306, Agree with the first part
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:27 AM

Disagree with the second.
77423, He'd make a great House Majority Leader.....
Posted by Old and In the Way on Tue Jul-22-03 03:47 AM

77443, Yeah, and pigs can fly
Posted by sgr2 on Tue Jul-22-03 03:49 AM

Reality
77303, I couldn't vote for anyone condoning the Patrot
act,
Posted by FEqualsMA on Tue Jul-22-03 03:27 AM

or that actually supports the war.
77312, He doesn't support the war
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:28 AM

7/16/03 - Get out.

Welcome to DU.
77450, Guess that's a symptom of the Dean banwagon.
Posted by FEqualsMA on Tue Jul-22-03 03:50 AM

77347, welcome!
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 03:34 AM

:toast:

be sure to check the links
77309, Not Enough, Will
Posted by OrdinaryTa on Tue Jul-22-03 03:27 AM

I don't have to vote for somebody who voted for the
war, and I'm not gonna. Yes, there are all these
strategic considerations, but to hell with them. If
you vote for a bullshit war, you've voted for a
bullshit war. It's a fact! Mental reservation won't
save you from the consequences of your own actions.

No to Kerry. No to Clinton. And no to Lieberman.
77357, I'd hold my nose and vote for LIEberman
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 03:35 AM

ABB. It's all we got...
77507, The Republicans were hoping you'd take that tact!
Posted by Old and In the Way on Tue Jul-22-03 03:59 AM

The vote went exactly to plan. Give the Dems a
choice....either vote your conscience and gut (and
take yourself out of the run for President) or
support the President on a major issue of national
security and lose a serious segment of the single
issue, anti-war electorate.

And, if you do vote your conscience, you could still
lose if compelling evidence does in fact show that
Iraq was 45 minutes away from wasting a major US
city.

George Rove won the first pot on a bluff with him
holding all the cards....those that were smart
enough to fold and vote for supporting the UN action
cannot have their patriotism questioned, but they
can now accuse this administration of lying about
the facts presented as evidence.
77310, I haven't really chosen yet
Posted by philosophie_en_rose on Tue Jul-22-03 03:27 AM

But I just wanted to say that I respect all of your
reasons and especially agree with the anti-flamebait
commentary.
77314, Good for you.
Posted by Clete on Tue Jul-22-03 03:28 AM

You have all the good reasons, however, if the chips
are allowed to stay where they fall, I really think
Dean is gonna be the next President and my choice.
If he doesn't win the primaries because the greys
have made back room deals of some sort for
Lieberman, Kerry or Edwards, then of course I think
you will be right.
77318, If Dean is the next President, or even the
nominee
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:29 AM

I will turn mad handsprings of joy in the street.
77337, I don't think you should lump
Posted by HootieMcBoob on Tue Jul-22-03 03:33 AM

Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards together. Maybe they
are all dlc types but...
Edwards is too green and doesn't have nearly the
chops, And Lieberman is much more conservative then
Kerry. Kerry is the only candidate who could
legitimately be considered a liberal who has the
national security background to set bush on his ass
in a debate. He's not ideal but beating bush in my
opinion has got to be the ultimate goal here.
77393, Edwards has the looks though
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 03:41 AM

and in this visual media driven world that's an
important asset. Plus, he's liberal as hell.

Edwards/Cinton(Hillary) in 2012!
77319, Excellent and well-reasoned decision Will
Posted by PeteNYC on Tue Jul-22-03 03:29 AM

.
77325, Good choice Will
Posted by lastliberalintexas on Tue Jul-22-03 03:30 AM

At least, he will be IF he beats Dean in the
primaries. ;-)

Kerry has much to recommend him, and I think he
would be a good president. And you are correct-
anything is better than the Nazis in DC.
77354, I like some of them more than others
Posted by LEFTofLEFT on Tue Jul-22-03 03:35 AM

I too will vote early and often against the
resident.

I will wait untill the last minute and make the best
choice in the primary.

Until then I am supporrting several canidates.


77363, While I will hold my nose and vote for Joe even
if it comes to that...
Posted by MrsGrumpy on Tue Jul-22-03 03:36 AM

As a mother, wife of a blue collar, non-union
employee, and all around concerned part of "We the
People", I cannot get behind a man seemingly glazed
over with power...

I place a lot of respect and admiration in the
Veterans for Peace Organization, and I must admit,
until their rally in March of this year, until I
listened to those who also bravely served and yet
have not the connections nor the money to make their
voices heard loudly to be able to capture some
political leverage. I would have been okay with
Kerry...Now I cannot say that. Any man who betrays
his brothers, can also betray his country. This is
why I support Dean, he has taken to the streets, to
the "real people" for lack of a better word. It
cracks me up when I read posts saying he is the
upper middle class's choice. If you could only see
the cracker box I live in...the jalopies we drive..

I don't like to and try not to flame others...

Best of luck to all the candidates...Let's Beat Bush

77378, "Glazed over with power"
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:39 AM

FDR was glazed over with power, and he saved the
world while making America basically what it is.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was glazed over with power.
He saved the world in 1962 during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, and offered a view of a future America that
was so good and pure it earned him a bullet in the
head.
77428, Touche'. I agree with you there, but is Mr. Kerry
wanting what is best
Posted by MrsGrumpy on Tue Jul-22-03 03:48 AM

for his nation, as FDR's New Deal? Or is it more a
sense of how high can I take this for my own
interests?

snip

The Marines say they never leave even their dead.
These men have left all the casualties and retreated
behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have
left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching
begin them in the sun in this country....

snip

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

Is he not hiding behind that very shield
today...given his voting record?

Don't get me wrong, I'll vote anything unBush, but
in my mind and as I look at my children, this man
does not have my interests, my children's future in
mind...
77520, As far as wanting what's best for the children...
Posted by knaveree on Tue Jul-22-03 04:01 AM

I understand that DU has been, for good reasons,
focussed heavily on the Iraq clusterfuck and Kerry's
complicated dance in response to it, but something I
haven't seen much of in all the DU fora is that on
an issue crucial to the future and our children,
progressives ought to compare Kerry's policies and
votes on the environment with the other Democrats.
In my view, he stands up quite well.

Thanks, Mr. Pitt, for your views and this thread. I
agree with you.

Bruce
77556, Welcome aboard, Bruce
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 04:06 AM

:)
77597, welcome
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 04:15 AM

:toast:

be sure to check the links
77494, Kerry didn't betray his brothers
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 03:58 AM

I'm a "drafted" (I know, we are useless, or worse,
according to the Bush Admin)Vietnam combat veteran
(I have a CIB etc.) but when I came back I
demonstrated against the war. I was there, in the
jungle, and directly experienced this crime. Kerry's
protesting is a plus for him.
77751, You see, for me, that only adds to the betrayal
Posted by Eloriel on Tue Jul-22-03 04:46 AM

Kerry was THERE -- he was a Vietnam war hero. Then
he was an ANTI-War hero. But in the final analysis
it's come to this: he's become one of the old men
who send young men (and women) to die for useless
causes, for abject lies, for empire (literally), and
all the other wrong reasons.

I remember a number of years ago, in the 90s
sometime, Robert McNamara making the rounds on
various talk shows with his new book about Vietnam.
In his book were the words: "We were wrong.
Terribly, terribly wrong." I happened to hear at
least 3 different appearances by him, possibly more.
Each time, his voice cracked and he choked back
tears. It was so obvious, and so very pathetic, that
in his old age he was looking for forgiveness. I say
pathetic -- perhaps not. Perhaps one could say that
at least he did, finally, have a conscience.

Kerry wants to trot out his Vietnam war record --
but what good is it if he learned nothing? What good
is either his war or anti-war record if he's become
one of them, who will (assuming he does, indeed,
have a conscience) feel the need to cry for
forgiveness in his old age?

It really is why I'm SO much angrier with him than
any of the others (except those with Presidential
aspirations -- Hillary, Biden, and who knows who
else). HE of all people had the life experiences
that should have enabled him NOT to follow down that
"old men make war" path. It is a terrible betrayal
of his OWN life.

And My God! Those war voters put their stamp of
approval on pre-emptive war!! What an atrocity. What
a betrayal of American values, of international law
and comity.

And there are people here who want me to GET OVER
IT?? Not in my lifetime. Not any more than I'll get
over the Stolen Election Kerry also wants me to get
over.

Eloriel


77401, Well done, Will
Posted by Amerikav60 on Tue Jul-22-03 03:43 AM

Of course, I'd rather you'd have chosen to endorse
Dean, but it sounds like it was a close choice and
you'd be thrilled with either.

No matter who you chose to endorse, I say well done
because you obviously spent a lot of time making the
decision, rather than jumping in as a "me too".

Your first point is particularly resonant -- I
cannot myself fathom why anyone would be so blinded
as to think that ANY of these candidates are not
worlds away from what we have now. I can't even
imagine NOT VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE when
the choice is the Dem or George W. Bush.

I completely respect your decision, and I look
forward to doing virtual handstands with you when
either Dean or Kerry get the nod.
77404, Best Response Ever!
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:43 AM

Thanks. :)
77405, Spidey-sense rules
Posted by jsaro on Tue Jul-22-03 03:43 AM

I back Kerry for much the same reasons that you
state. I LOVE Dean, but this is just not the time
for him. Kerry strikes me as more electable. Dean,
he's a huge hit with regular Dems, but with swing
voters, I don't know. I think Kerry has more appeal
to the Moron-Americans who now rule this country.
That being said, I will vote for A-N-Y Democrat,
even Lieberman!!! Anyone but Bush!!!
77413, It might be time for Dean
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:45 AM

I am wide open and happy to be wrong.
77414, It's way too soon.
Posted by Stevie D on Tue Jul-22-03 03:45 AM

Unfortunately, money will decide. Your choice or
mine won't mean shit. That said, I follow your
reasoning and can't disagree.

There are at least seven months before anyone has a
vote counted. It's a political eternity.

I'm still holding my cards.
77424, Was there any doubt
Posted by imhotep on Tue Jul-22-03 03:47 AM

since you have basically said everything in the post
500 times already, it doesnt take a rocket scientist
to figure out you would support the warmonger Kerry
and demand everyone blindly supprt the "party." Big
surprise....
77435, For a Buddhist
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:48 AM

you're pretty chippy. :)
77433, I respect your opnion
Posted by ChrisNYC on Tue Jul-22-03 03:48 AM

But find the justifications weak and unconvincing. I
Live in NYC, my apartment was about 6 blocks from
the WTC, I couldn't breathe the air outside for a
week, anthrax was killing people at our post office,
and I ALWAYS OPPOSED THE PATRIOT ACT. Trying to
justify that because Kerry was in scary DC really
doesn't begin to fly with me.

As for the war -- If he was actually misled, it was
because of his own failure to investigate -- the
information was readily available as I was reading
about it months ago. I could forgive his stances in
some circumstances, but I don't think he feels he
did anything wrong. So, I will hope he loses in the
primary. If not, I'll support him as best I can.
77451, Months ago?
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:51 AM

From reputable sources better than the Director of
the CIA? Before October 10 2002? I'd like to see
them.

I hear you, particularly about the Patriot Act.
Choice #3 involved compromise, as I said, and the
Patriot Act can be destroyed...but only if we win.
77891, Try these
Posted by Eloriel on Tue Jul-22-03 05:23 AM

10-10-02 - CIA Letter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html
President George Bush's attempt to maintain public
support for military action against Iraq has taken a
fresh blow from an unexpected quarter, with the
publication of a letter from the CIA stating that
while Saddam Hussein poses little threat to America
now, a US invasion could push him into retaliating
with chemical or biological weapons.
The unusually detailed public statement, in the form
of a letter from the CIA director, George Tenet, to
Congress, comes at a highly sensitive moment,
potentially damaging Mr Bush's attempt to rally an
overwhelming congressional mandate for the use of
force against Iraq.

In a chilling excerpt, Mr Tenet warned that if
Saddam was personally threatened he might seize "his
last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large
number of victims with him".

snip

This assessment is reinforced by testimony given to
Congress last week by an unnamed senior intelligence
officer, which Mr Tenet allowed to be declassified.

The officer said: "My judgment would be that the
probability of initiating an attack . . . in the
foreseeable future, given the conditions we
understand now, the likelihood I think would be
low."

more

Some administration officials expressing misgivings
on Iraq
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676

Oct. 8, 2002, 10:47AM

By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News
WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals
congressional and international support for invading
Iraq, a growing number of military officers,
intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own
government privately have deep misgivings about the
administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks
have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi
leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting
his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have
overstated the amount of international support for
attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential
repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

more

CIA Report refutes Bush rhetoric
(I have this bookmarked as 10-8)
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=119

The Washington Post front-page headline read,
"Analysts Discount Attack by Iraq." The New York
Times said, "CIA Warns That a US Attack May Ignite
Terror." But these newspapers could have reasonably
announced, "CIA Information Indicates Bush Misleads
Public on Threat from Iraq."

In the past week, President Bush has been on a tear;
in speech after speech (many of them on the campaign
trail), he has been excoriating Saddam Hussein as a
direct threat to Americans. At a political
fundraiser in New Hampshire on October 5, he called
Hussein "a man who hates so much he's willing to
kill his own people, much less Americans." And Bush
noted, "We must do everything we can to disarm this
man before he hurts a single American." During a
primetime speech in Cincinnati two days later, Bush
characterized Saddam as a "threat...that could bring
sudden terror and suffering to America." He
pronounced the Iraqi dictator a "significant" danger
to America and said, "Iraq could decide on any given
day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a
terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance
with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to
attack America without leaving any fingerprints." He
remarked, "we're concerned that Iraq is exploring
ways of using" unmanned aerial vehicles "for
missions targeting the United States." And he
proclaimed, "America must not ignore the threat
gathering against us." At an October 8 campaign
rally in Tennessee, Bush remarked, "I've got a
problem, obviously, with Mr. Saddam Hussein, and so
do you, and that is he poses a threat. He poses a
threat to America."

The message is, Saddam is coming, Saddam is coming,
and the United States better take the sucker out
before he strikes America--meaning, you. But Bush
has a problem: the CIA doesn't back him up on this.
In fact, it says the opposite.

At a hearing held by the House and Senate
intelligence committees on October 8, Senator Bob
Graham, the chairman of the Senate panel, read from
a letter sent to him by CIA chief George Tenet. In
that note, Tenet reported the CIA had concluded that
"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short
of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or
CBW against the United States." The CIA, according
to Tenet, also had determined, "Should Saddam
conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be
deterred, he probably would become much less
constrained in adopting terrorist actions." And the
Agency found, "Saddam might decide that the extreme
step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting
a WMD attack against the United States would be his
last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large
number of victims with him."

The bottom-line: Saddam is not likely in the near
future to hit the United States or share his weapons
with al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists,
unless the United States assaults Iraq. This is
hardly the picture the President is sharing with the
American public.

more


10-08 Officials Private Doubts on Iraq
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4234259.htm
Some military, intelligence and diplomatic sources
say hawks are overstating the danger that Baghdad
poses.
By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John
Walcott
Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - While President Bush marshals
congressional and international support for invading
Iraq, a growing number of military officers,
intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own
government privately have deep misgivings about the
administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials say administration hawks have
exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein poses - including distorting his
links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; have
overstated the amount of international support for
attacking Iraq; and have downplayed the potential
repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They say that the administration squelches
dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are
under intense pressure to produce reports supporting
the White House's argument that Hussein poses such
an immediate threat to the United States that
preemptive military action is necessary.

"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence
community are feeling very strong pressure from the
Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one
official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echoed his views in
interviews with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No
one who was interviewed disagreed.

more


Eariest bookmark I have on the general
inadvisability of war on Iraq:
http://www.progressive.org/Media%20Project%202/mpcj3102.html
January 31, 2002

U.S. must not extend war on terrorism to Iraq
By retired Rear Adm. Eugene J. Carroll Jr.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush
increased the heat on Iraq. He said, "Iraq continues
to flaunt its hostility toward America and to
support terror." War hawks in Washington want
America to finish what it started in Desert Storm 11
years ago.

What they all appear to forget is that there were
three major reasons why American forces did not
drive on to Baghdad, Iraq's capital, in 1991. Those
three powerful reasons are still relevant today.

more

I have LOTS of links through August and September
from Retired Generals and Admirals and others (Secty
of Navy) from US, GrBr, Scotland, Australia, though
some of them are now broken.

And surely Ritter was speaking during that period,
wasn't he? I saw him in Atlanta and it was plenty
warm out -- must've been September or thereabouts.

Eloriel
77998, Info available prior to October 10, 2002
Posted by IkeWarnedUs on Tue Jul-22-03 06:11 AM

I don't agree with your choice in Kerry, but I
wasn't going to jump in about it. I respect your
opinion and your right to it.

But I have to set the record straight. There were
stories from reliable sources that shed doubt on the
Bush administration's claims about Iraq and its
motive for war. As a member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee I would have liked Kerry to
have at least asked for an investigation as to the
legitimacy of Bush's claims and/or those in these
stories.

Here are some of the stories reported in legitimate
news outlets between September 7 and October 5,
2002.

Bush misstated report on Iraq per White House
MSNBC September 7, 2002

http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp

Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of
mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite
photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy
agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament.
But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior
administration official acknowledged Saturday night
that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a
spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph
had been misinterpreted.

---------------- and ----------------

Interview with Scott Ritter
CNN AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN Aired September
9, 2002 - 08:17 ET

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/09/ltm.14.html

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The report from the
International Institute for Strategic Studies
confirming Saddam's enduring interest in developing
weapons of mass destruction, that comes a day after
former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter
insisted Iraq is not a threat to the U.S. He told
the Iraqi parliament the country is on the verge of
making an historical mistake by trying to remove
Saddam Hussein.


---------------- and ----------------

Agency disavows report on Iraq arms
September 27, 2002 By Joseph Curl THE WASHINGTON
TIMES

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a
report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq
in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a
nuclear weapon does not exist.
"There's never been a report like that issued from
this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief
spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview
from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

<snip>

The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an
earlier IAEA report.
"He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press
Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a
report saying that after the war they found out they
were about six months away."

Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by
the IAEA in 1991.

---------------- and ----------------

The President's Real Goal in Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/29/02 By Jay
Bookman

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

<snip>

Among the architects of this would-be American
Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people
who now hold key positions in the Bush
administration: They envision the creation and
enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax
Americana," or American peace. But so far, the
American people have not appreciated the true extent
of that ambition.
Part of it's laid out in the National Security
Strategy, a document in which each administration
outlines its approach to defending the country. The
Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a
significant departure from previous approaches, a
change that it attributes largely to the attacks of
Sept. 11.

<snip>

The report's repeated references to terrorism are
misleading, however, because the approach of the new
National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired
by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much
the same language in a report issued in September
2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a
group of conservative interventionists outraged by
the thought that the United States might be
forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

---------------- and ----------------

Bush, Rumsfeld exaggerate allied support, some
officials say
By WARREN P. STROBEL Knight Ridder Newspapers Posted
10/4/02 Philadelphia Enquirer (Philly.com)

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/4214827.htm

WASHINGTON - President Bush and some of his top
aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied
support for a war in Iraq, according to senior
officials in the military and the Bush
administration.
These officials, rankled by what they charge is a
tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over
unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or
the Middle East are ready to support an attack
against Iraq unless the United Nations Security
Council explicitly authorizes the use of force.

---------------- and ----------------

Graham: Expect retaliation
The senator says briefings indicate a war with Iraq
is ''highly likely'' to provoke terrorist attacks.
By MARY JACOBY and PAUL DE LA GARZA St. Petersburg
Times 10/5/02

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/05/Worldandnation/Graham__Expect_retali.shtml

WASHINGTON -- A war in Iraq could provoke
international terrorist cells within the United
States to attack American citizens at home, Senate
Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham said
Friday.

<snip>

Although former Vice President Al Gore, Senate
Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota,
Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, West Virginia
Sen. Robert Byrd and other senior Democrats have
criticized Bush's war plans, Graham's objections
were among the most substantive offered so far by
any lawmaker.

<snip>

Graham said he does not discount the Iraqi threat
but says he opposes a pre-emptive strike while the
war on terrorism remains in full gear.
He described Hussein as "an evil man" whose chemical
and biological weapons capabilities must be
neutralized but said removing the Iraqi president
should not be the nation's priority at this time.


77434, I respect your opnion
Posted by ChrisNYC on Tue Jul-22-03 03:48 AM

But find the justifications weak and unconvincing. I
Live in NYC, my apartment was about 6 blocks from
the WTC, I couldn't breathe the air outside for a
week, anthrax was killing people at our post office,
and I ALWAYS OPPOSED THE PATRIOT ACT. Trying to
justify that because Kerry was in scary DC really
doesn't begin to fly with me.

As for the war -- If he was actually misled, it was
because of his own failure to investigate -- the
information was readily available as I was reading
about it months ago. I could forgive his stances in
some circumstances, but I don't think he feels he
did anything wrong. So, I will hope he loses in the
primary. If not, I'll support him as best I can.
77436, I respect your opnion
Posted by ChrisNYC on Tue Jul-22-03 03:48 AM

But find the justifications weak and unconvincing. I
Live in NYC, my apartment was about 6 blocks from
the WTC, I couldn't breathe the air outside for a
week, anthrax was killing people at our post office,
and I ALWAYS OPPOSED THE PATRIOT ACT. Trying to
justify that because Kerry was in scary DC really
doesn't begin to fly with me.

As for the war -- If he was actually misled, it was
because of his own failure to investigate -- the
information was readily available as I was reading
about it months ago. I could forgive his stances in
some circumstances, but I don't think he feels he
did anything wrong. So, I will hope he loses in the
primary. If not, I'll support him as best I can.
77438, I respect your opnion
Posted by ChrisNYC on Tue Jul-22-03 03:48 AM

But find the justifications weak and unconvincing. I
Live in NYC, my apartment was about 6 blocks from
the WTC, I couldn't breathe the air outside for a
week, anthrax was killing people at our post office,
and I ALWAYS OPPOSED THE PATRIOT ACT. Trying to
justify that because Kerry was in scary DC really
doesn't begin to fly with me.

As for the war -- If he was actually misled, it was
because of his own failure to investigate -- the
information was readily available as I was reading
about it months ago. I could forgive his stances in
some circumstances, but I don't think he feels he
did anything wrong. So, I will hope he loses in the
primary. If not, I'll support him as best I can.
77449, Sorry, DU is acting up again. n/t
Posted by ChrisNYC on Tue Jul-22-03 03:50 AM

77756, Yep
Posted by dweller on Tue Jul-22-03 04:47 AM

but damn, you made your point!
:toast:

dp
77441, the best thing about Kerry, imo,
Posted by Cocoa on Tue Jul-22-03 03:48 AM

is he's the most willing and able to fight dirty
against Bush. He can destroy the chimp with more
ferocity than the others would be able to.
77458, He must hide it well
Posted by ChrisNYC on Tue Jul-22-03 03:52 AM

I've never seen anything close to ferocious coming
out of him.
77461, Kerry v. Weld in 1996
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:52 AM

was a BATTLE ROYALE. Kerry has claws.
77979, Funny how we choose between our gut and our
ideals...
Posted by Rooktoven on Tue Jul-22-03 06:00 AM

For example--

My gut tells me the best campaigner against bush
would be Edwards, both in debates and in campaign
strategy. I think he would stay more controlled (or
would appear so than) Dean.

I find myself admiring Howard Dean for his fire, I
respect what he has done on the internet, and I
think he is more friendly to open source software (a
big personal issue for me) than Edwards is.

So why am I still leaning toward Edwards? One, I'm
from NC. I know he understands campaigning. Two, I
believe his experience in the courtroom would make
him the prohibitive debater against Bush. (Don't
look for a debate by the way.) The closeness of the
last election showed that some people in American
are scared by intellect that is wielded heavily-- no
matter how right the intellect is.

In a nutshell, I think Edwards would rip Bush into
tiny shreds and make dubya look foolish , smiling
nicely the whole time.
77462, If Wesley Clark decides to run
Posted by buff2 on Tue Jul-22-03 03:52 AM

Kerry won't stand a chance.
77484, True enough
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:55 AM

If Clark gets in to this, I will reassess.
77538, Clark/Clinton in 2012!
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 04:04 AM

I really, really want to see Hillary run. But as a
practical matter, I think a Dean/Clark ticket is a
shoe-in.

ps: anyone know the origins of that phrase? Shoe-in
I mean, not Dean/Clark.
77623, I'm curious Will,
Posted by IkeWarnedUs on Tue Jul-22-03 04:20 AM

If Clark decides to run as a Republican, would you
still reassess?

Last I heard, Clark hadn't ruled it out.
77721, Well, jeeze, that's kinda faulty logic
Posted by Stoic on Tue Jul-22-03 04:38 AM

He hasn't explicitly ruled out a trip to Mars yet
either.
77746, Silly
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 04:44 AM

question.

ABBA, baby.
77463, Why am I not surprised? One question...
Posted by arendt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:52 AM

With all hell breaking loose about WMD lies, and
with
Randall Beers sitting on Kerry's team,

why isn't Kerry hammering Bush much harder?

He has a guy who was on Bush's team. A guy who knows
where the bodies are buried. Is there some insider
knowledge
that is guiding Kerry's timing?

I hate being "played", and there is more
choreography
around this WMD story than I have ever seen. Nobody
is playing it straight.

The American public doesn't seem to have a high
enough
security clearance to be let in on what is going on.
(All I
know is that someone green-lighted the media to stop
smothering all the anti-Bush criticism, but they
still shaft
the Democrats at every opportunity.)

When Kerry starts to use all the experience and
assets
at his command, then I'll start to listen. But, as I
have
personally told Kerry staffers: he is way too slow.
His
thunder is being stolen by everyone else. The media
is grooming *Republicans* to slay George the Dragon.
Kerry cannot get the coverage that the media is
giving
for free to people like Hegel and Wilson.

If Kerry has got some heavy artillery, he had better
fire
it while there is still a battle. Meanwhile,
although I don't
know enough about Dean's agenda, his energy and
willingness to say
unpalatable-to-the-corporate-media
things should not be dismissed.

Yes. I too will vote for the Democratic nominee
(UNLESS
it is Holy Joe the Zionist, GOP mole). I will vote
for Kerry
if he is the nominee. But, the man has got to light
a fire.

arendt
77479, "America should get out of Iraq"
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:54 AM

07-16-03

Has any other candidate said that? Anyone with a
shot, anyway?

If a tree falls in the forest and the media doesn't
report it, did it happen?

Yes.

Ask the tree.
77549, Fair point about media, but has he repeated it?
Posted by arendt on Tue Jul-22-03 04:05 AM

Yes, the media under reports it.

But, if the candidate really believes it, as opposed
to just
making a statement ONCE to get it on his record
without
antagonizing people ("Youz guys understand dat I
gotta
say deez tings to keep my street cred up, huh?"),
then
he will repeat that statement. He will put it in his
stump
speech.

I can't find a lot of reporting of what Kerry
actually says
on a day to day basis.

If you want to help Kerry, you can:

1) Get Kerry to post the text of every one of his
daily speeches
on his web site for all to read.

2) Write your own summary, with direct quotes and
dates,
of what he said.

Maybe if I could here what the guy is saying every
day, I could
form a clear picture of him.

Right now, you must pardon MY spidey sense. I lived
in NJ
where Bill (I'm so superior) Bradley pontificated.
Kerry reminds
me a lot of Bill - walk the walk, talk the talk,
then shaft you on
some critical bill claiming that what was done was
done for
some higher strategic good. Bill also provided a lot
of sound
bites for bashing Al Gore.

My mind is open, but something has to come in. Send
me
lots of MP3s of those trees falling.

arendt


77533, plenty of time
Posted by MattNC on Tue Jul-22-03 04:03 AM

Still well over a year before the election - give it
time. If it becomes certain Kerry will get the
nomination, I'd save any info Beers has until
September/October of '04.

Kerry/Clark is starting to sound like an ideal
ticket.
77587, I disagree
Posted by arendt on Tue Jul-22-03 04:12 AM

This WMD thing is going to happen in the next three
months.
Beers' info is mainly about WMD stuff. It has a
shelf life.

This was my beef with Kerry's aide. They think this
thing
will sit still for their strategic plan. I have
never seen a
more fluid and nutsy political situation, coupled
with an
unstable international military situation (N. Korea,
Iran,
any fire Bush can light).

My personal opinion is that Kerry is too cautious,
unless
he has some very big Aces up his sleeve.

arendt
77470, Kerry ain't going to get it
Posted by khephra on Tue Jul-22-03 03:53 AM

But I respect your opinions.
77487, You better.
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 03:56 AM

:)

Kidding, kidding, kidding.

:)
77495, Alright...let's duel!
Posted by khephra on Tue Jul-22-03 03:58 AM

Tuna fish at 20 paces!

:evilgrin:
77618, I've got british imported kippers
Posted by Friar on Tue Jul-22-03 04:19 AM

...fear me!
77490, A few questions for ya there champ
Posted by God_bush_n_cheney on Tue Jul-22-03 03:57 AM

Yah, yah, yah, he voted for the Patriot Act. Tellya
what. YOU get anthrax mailed to the building you
work in, just days after all the 9/11 horrors, and
you get told by the ATTORNEY GENERAL that it was
terrorists who did it. I probably would have voted
for it.

9/11 happened almost 2 years ago. Time enough for
Kerry and the rest to read what they have enacted.
There are many notable people now telling us what
bad legislation it really is. Why is Kerry mum on
it?

as far as I know, he is the only guy in the race who
has said (7/16/03) that we should get out of Iraq.
His rationale? There are 58,000 names on the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial, he said. Half of them would not
be there if the leaders from that era had the
courage to withdraw when withdrawal was the best
option.

It is easy for Kerry to wriggle out of his Iraq vote
by saying I was lied to. It is even easier for him
to say "get out" when he knows full well we cannot.
We are comitted whatever that means.


(Flame Bait #2)I am backing John Kerry.

A couple of months ago you posted a similar thread
to this backing Dean? Is this your final decision?

P.S. With sincere apologies to god_bush_n_cheney, I
have to say I don't give one fetid dingo's kidney
for all the stuff about Skull & Bones. As my former
students might say, Whatever.

I can respect that...
77532, Response
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 04:03 AM

Yah, yah, yah, he voted for the Patriot Act. Tellya
what. YOU get anthrax mailed to the building you
work in, just days after all the 9/11 horrors, and
you get told by the ATTORNEY GENERAL that it was
terrorists who did it. I probably would have voted
for it.

9/11 happened almost 2 years ago. Time enough for
Kerry and the rest to read what they have enacted.
There are many notable people now telling us what
bad legislation it really is. Why is Kerry mum on
it?

"I think now there's that huge sense across this
country that there's a breach at every level. People
are angry about the invasion of their privacy. . . .
The Patriot Act is perceived to be even more of
breach -- and in fact it is. . . . And people are
worried about their rights in America. People are
worried about the Supreme Court. Women are worried
about the rollback to a dark age of back alleys with
respect to their to choice." - 07-11-03

as far as I know, he is the only guy in the race who
has said (7/16/03) that we should get out of Iraq.
His rationale? There are 58,000 names on the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial, he said. Half of them would not
be there if the leaders from that era had the
courage to withdraw when withdrawal was the best
option.

It is easy for Kerry to wriggle out of his Iraq vote
by saying I was lied to. It is even easier for him
to say "get out" when he knows full well we cannot.
We are comitted whatever that means.

So that obviates his ability as a Vietnam Vet so
speak to the issue?

(Flame Bait #2)I am backing John Kerry.

A couple of months ago you posted a similar thread
to this backing Dean? Is this your final decision?

My thread before was a statement about how impressed
I am with Dean. I still am. But my statement stands.


77592, "So that obviates his ability
Posted by God_bush_n_cheney on Tue Jul-22-03 04:14 AM

as a Vietnam Vet so speak to the issue?"

No it does not...but I do view it as crocodile
tears. We all knew damned well iraq had no WMD's.
Kerry of all people should know what Bushco is all
about! Hasn't he come up against them before?

I can respect your choice...I just don't happen to
agree.



77493, Oh prophet!
Posted by Terwilliger on Tue Jul-22-03 03:58 AM


You picked the one that was most certainly going to
be the party nominee anyway! :eyes:
77534, Oh hyperbolist
Posted by WilliamPitt on Tue Jul-22-03 04:03 AM

Oh never mind. :)
77499, I'm supporting Kerry too...
Posted by jchild on Tue Jul-22-03 03:59 AM

I think he probably has the Dem nomination sealed,
unless dark horse Edwards pulls it out.

way, but my mind is open to being convinced to go
with Kerry, so I'm looking for all the arguments.

I saved the text of the thread for later review.

D

Breaking news? Nah. Broken news. :)

John Kerry has a very strong progressive domestic record. He should be given his just dues for his support of these great causes.