Kerry can't beat Dean honestly, so...

he now tries to portray Dean as a Jew hater and terrorist sympathizer. How disgusting. This is pure desperation at it's worst, folks. I can never vote for anyone who does this. I see it happen to everyone who tries to criticize the Israeli government, and I hate this so bad it makes my skin crawl. Anyone who attempts to contribute to this happening is scum in my opinion. Should Kerry manage to get nominated, I will NOT vote for him. Same for Lieberman. This is a deal breaker for me.

But yours will be a vote for Bush then.

no offense, but that's how I feel. I despise anyone who does what both Kerry and Lieberman have done. I can't vote for either of them and send the message that this kind of behavior is okay. It's NOT okay.

Show us where Kerry is portraying Dean as a Jew hater, please. Your spin is disgusting. Kerry caught Dean adrift on an issue. Big deal. Dean didn't have his ducks in a row on that issue. How long have you been involved in politics? Candidates trip each other up on issues wherever there is an opening.

Dean has said that Kerry and others are just like Bush. THAT is truly disgusting and the desperation of a candidate back in January who wanted to get attention.

The rest of this country would throw Dean to the wolves if he ever compared terrorists to soldiers in the general election. In fact, it is so bad that I would be surprised if he could overcome it in 2004 anyway. It's very bad. It's more than an insult to the people who were killed by terrorists, it's an insult to every soldier in uniform all over the world. Hamas people are terrorists targeting innocent people. Not soldiers of any sort.

But I'm sure you know about the whole CIA mobilizing/funding muslim extremists to fight the Soviets..

Soldiers fight soldiers. Terrorists target civilians.

There have been several attacks against Russian civilians including a very bloody take over of a concert hall. I think that qualifies. Also the talaban in Afghanistan shot down civilian liners from time to time.

Now? We call them soldiers?

Three Israeli Soldiers Die in Foiled Raid Against Hamas Soldiers May Have Been Killed Accidentally by Comrades; Palestinian Authority Leaders Condemn Planned Seizure
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N36/Israli_soldiers.36w.html

Will Sen. Kerry be making sending out a press release denouncing the Los Angeles Times?

already answered previously.

Three Israeli Soldiers Die in Foiled Raid Against Hamas Soldiers May Have Been Killed Accidentally by Comrades; Palestinian Authority Leaders Condemn Planned Seizure

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N36/Israli_soldiers.36w.html

By Mary Curtius
LOS ANGELES TIMES -- JERUSALEM

An elite Israeli army unit’s raid Saturday night on a West Bank village to capture a leader of the militant Hamas Islamic movement went awry, the army chief of staff said Sunday.

Three Israeli soldiers killed during a gun battle with Mahmoud abu Hunoud may have been hit by “friendly fire,” Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz said. A fourth soldier, who was wounded, may also have been shot by his comrades. Abu Hunoud was slightly wounded but escaped, surrendering later to Palestinian security forces in nearby Nablus.

It was the most casualties the army has suffered in a West Bank operation since 1996. Senior army officers and political leaders here seemed stunned by the raid’s outcome.

“There was a very grave mishap,” Mofaz told a news conference. Mofaz said that he appointed a special panel to investigate the raid and that he expects to know in a few days what happened.

Hamas leaders Sunday praised Abu Hunoud, saying he successfully fought off the Israeli forces single-handedly, although the Israeli army said it captured a second Hamas militant, whom it identified as Nidal Ghallamseh, 36, during the raid on Assira Shamaliya. The army said the gun battle took place at Ghallamseh’s house, and it bulldozed the home Sunday morning.

I'll vote for Kerry over Bush, any day of the week. Sure, Kerry himself is a bit lame.. and yes his supporters go out of their way to magnify every little pointless detail about certain candidates, but I'm sure you agree..

Kerry HAS to be better than Bush.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): "I thought that John Kerry's statement in his announcement address -- that he voted for the resolution just to threaten Saddam Hussein -- was unbelievable. It was clearly an authorization for President Bush to use force against Saddam. … I don't get it. He's been criticizing Howard Dean for lacking experience to lead America in the world today. It's true. It's not the best time to put a rookie in charge of our country's future. It hasn't been a good time to have a cowboy in charge of our future, but we also don't need a waffler in charge of our country's future." (Glen Johnson And Anne E. Kornblut, “Democrats Rip Bush In 8-Way Debate,” The Boston Globe, 9/5/03)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/05/democrats_rip_bush_in_8_way_debate/

"The credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's WMD program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

-Bill Clinton Dec. 16, 1998

Read Carter's Nobel Lecture, delivered in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2002.
Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war (December 10, 2002)
A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War (January 31, 2003)
Carter: Iraq threat does not justify war (January 31, 2003)
Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War (February 1, 2003)
Carter Urges More Diplomacy on Iraq - Ex-President Blames Neglect of Mideast for Anti-American Mood (Feburary 25, 2003)
Just War — or a Just War? (March 9, 2003)

"The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided," he said.

Carter, the most recent Nobel Peace laureate, insisted Saddam is not a threat to his neighbors. "With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/31/sprj.irq.carter/

--

Carter is only saying the case for invasion was not made, but even he supported using the threat of force to make Saddam compliant. Which was Kerry's position as well, coincidentally.

Of course, Joe was in the Rose Garden sucking up to the Bushwacker while Kerry was speaking. Kerry was extremely clear that he only supported a unilaterial, or largely unilaterial, invasion if Saddam Hussein represented an imminent threat.

******

"If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

"As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

"Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

Charley Reese -

'Some years ago, I gave up interviewing politicians. They will not tell the truth. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in his official campaign-opening speech recently, is a perfect illustration of the politician's aversion to truth.

"I voted to allow the president to threaten the use of force," Kerry said, adding that it was the right decision.

That's a lie. Kerry did not vote to allow the president to threaten force. He voted to authorize the president to use force. Why couldn't he just say that and add, "In retrospect, that was a mistake." No, Kerry is not going to admit he made a mistake even though his campaign stance is the reverse of his earlier position.

That is so typical of today's politicians and is, I think, a leading cause of voter apathy. Most Americans don't expect politicians to be infallible and perfect, but they do have a right to expect that politicians will be honest.'

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030912/index.php

Everyone knows that.

possibly justify your position? Kerry or Bush? It's a total no-brainer, no matter what he says about Dean. I don't like his statement today re Dean and the ME, but I care enough about the country my son will have to live in, to put petty concerns behind me. And these are petty concerns when put up against the disaster of busco. Please don't make decisions rooted in pique.

is not a petty concern. It's almost the entire concern in the Middle East.

Never mind, I misread your post. Sorry.

I can't and won't vote for either of them. I'll have to skip that vote if either are the nominee. I"m am thoroughly disgusted with both of them. Thoroughly. I'm just glad neither are going to be nominated. Once Clark announces he'll take a lot of Kerry's supporters and everyone knows Lieberman doesn't stand a change in hell.

but I wouldn't worry about having to do that. Kerry is running a mediocre campaign, and he is still slinging that Washington doublespeak, and you can't win with that bullshit this time around.

By candidates trying to distort positions. Especially pro-war candidates like Kerry, who supported Bush the entire time.

I'm glad we have candidates like Dean who is the only one willing to stand up for what's right and talk to white people about race. Kerry's doing a good job of giving Dean's speech. We don't need Bush-lite, but we also don't need Dean-lite.

I can't wait until Clark takes all those anti-war voters from Kerry's base.

a winky face or a <sarcasm> tag. I get burnt by irony deficiency everytime I forget them.

;)

You're so "morally outraged" at Kerry? Oh please. Dean has done his share of bashing. In fact, that's what gave him his ultra-appealing "outsider" image. But too bad so many people are willing to simply forget it happened because they want to.

Whichever lone figure staggers from the "bashing" deserves the nomination. We need a candidate who can withstand it.

They are trying to paint Dean as being anti-Israel and a jew hater in a passive aggressive way and it is absolutely disgusting!

Kerry's just trying to get Dean to firmly state where he really stands on the issue. In all fairness, Dean (through his actions and statements) has not made that clear. Candidates' platforms (along with their experience) need to be stacked against each other for us to make an intelligent decision. I am a Dean supporter and I understand that the other candidates need to challenge him until he is clearly defined. Kerry must know about Dean's pledge to Sharon, and he may be using Dean's latest statements to draw that out. So, yes, I agree there is a certain amount painting going on, and, in implying Dean may be anti-Israel, Kerry is going to force Dean to come clean. Dean has to learn not to make blanket statements or statements that contradict the "pre-frontrunner Dean". He has been setting himself up, and the others are going to have a field day if Howard doesn't watch his step. I'm pulling for the doctor, but we can't protect him from himself. I would defend him, but I honestly don't know what he truly believes in this matter, and I don't think anyone can pretend that they do.

Come clean Dean!

If he would only lay his position out on the table, specifically and forcefully, not a bunch of mumbo jumbo about a two-solution state (even Bush supports that), then we could avoid this kind of confusion. Be a straight-shooter with us.

Make clear statements about the Iraq votes...don't leave it up to your supporters to defend you!

be able to pull it out and smooth things over. And if Dean can't stop putting his foot in it, he's not ready for prime time.

John Kerry is no better than Howard Dean in bashing candidates...you have no defense for Kerry other than point out shortcomings in Howard Dean.

Kerry is very open and consistent about his positions. Dean shifts whenever there is an advantage. How can we trust Dean?

Real soldiers who abide by the Geneva Convention,
international law & generally accepted rules of fair play.

by this definition, the US millitary in Iraq are nothing but paid
mercinaries for Exxon/Halliburton. I won't even mention Guantanamo.

I've felt the same way at times. Give it some time, let the passion diminish, and then make the best decision. I'm also very dissatified with Lieberman and Kerry at the moment, with Edwards and Gephardt climbing on my shit list, so I'm not sure what I'm going to do should one of them win myself.

I was so proud of Kerry when he stood up on the Senate floor and threatened to filibuster Bush's ANWR bill. It is very disappointing to see him become a Republican lackey over a span of a few months.

try to be more tolerant. No one is perfect. We need to defeat Bush and his buddies. Please reconsider.

We don't need this kind of vitriol coming from the Dean supporters. What exactly is the purpose of this post. What is it trying to accomplish other than antogonize Kerry supporters?

Don't make a right.

There is not subjectivity here. Just because one person posts a senseless attack thread that has no other purpose than to antogonize another group doesn't suddenly make it okay for everyone to do it.

I don't think so.

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html
http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY


There is a big difference between on the one hand, posting a thread that attacks, mischaracterizes, and provides no link or reference, and on the other hand, simply stating your opinion, however inflammatory, and then providing the references that led you to that opinion.

But now that you've done so and it has failed to convert Dean supporters, what will you do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't care how many times you repeat yourself. You are wrong. I understand that you don't want to hear any views different from your own. That is why I posted the 'Freedom to Leave' rule for you to read. If you don't want to hear what I have to say, leave or place me on 'ignore'. If you think I am violating some rule or law, report me. Those are your choices. If you really think you are going to get me to be quiet by telling me to 'shut up' - you must have a hard time learning lessons, because guess what, it isn't working.

n/t

for your own sanity.

Thanks for the concern, though. I'm trying not to ignore people because if they post crap I want to be able to counter it.

I will continue to speak up about whatever and to whomever I wish. And any insinuations that I have done anything more sinister than that will be forcefully countered.

one word

Valium

why you are so incoherent.

Like I said, this is personal for me. A dear friend of mine is dead because of this same kind of thing being done to them. It disgusts me to no end that supposed political leaders would stoop so low.

You're getting way too emotional about all this. First of all, I honestly don't think there's any inference that Dean's 'anti-Jew'. More importantly, all of these attacks are actually good for Dean. As a Vermonter you surely know that Dean has a high teflon quotient. Let him go through a crucible of criticism now. It'll only better prepare him for the onslaught of criticism Rove is even now brewing up for the eventual nominee. View what's going on now as spring training.

Finally, getting this worked up about stuff and reacting to it in a knee-jerk angry way, achieves nothing positive for your candidate. Reflect a bit before you post.

I despise this type of attack used to try to discredit another person. It's wrong and disgusting. It wouldn't matter who it came from...and if it were Dean who had done it, he would lose my support as well.

I despise this type of attack used to try to discredit another person. It's wrong and disgusting. It wouldn't matter who it came from.

But if someone asks you not to send personal messages, then DO NOT SEND THEM.

I think KK is very wrong about the "Jew-hater, terrorist-sympathizer" thing, but I sincerely hope you are not harassing him over it.

just because someone doesn't want to hear what I have to say. This poster keeps repeating that I am violating some rule or law which I think is nonsense and I'm sure they reported my supposed violation to the moderators. If I'd violated some rule I would have heard about it. I don't like letting people getting away with this type of deception and mischaracterization. It is very similar to the original BS post. I haven't harassed anyone and I haven't violated DU rules. If I am wrong about that I would like a moderator to let me know so. This poster put this thread up and I'm giving my feedback about it.

I don't really know the whole story, but my suggestion is that you never send another PM to KK unless he specifically asks for it. You may not be breaking rules (I don't know), but it would still be wrong to do so. If you have a point to make, make it in the open.

KK is trying to imply that there is some harassment going on that you don't know about, however, that is not true.

nt

one. Then as I said I would in post 54 I sent another everytime I was accused of breaking the law.

I will admit to childishness in this matter. I suppose I should have just 'risen above' this silly dispute but I really believe that these matters are best left to the moderators and should not be the topic of conversation in the threads. If someone violates the rules in your opinion you should report them to the moderators, not berate them in a thread. And that is the point I was trying to make, and have repeated here in the thread, and in my PM's to KK.

If KK doesn't want my messages, why not just put me on ignore? What's the problem with that? If I am violating a rule, why not just report me to the moderators? What's wrong with that?

That's my advice, and I'll leave it at that.

Six after being told the PMs were unwelcome. I didn't answer any of them. I believe this has been resolved, so the subject should be dropped now.

I'll message you anytime I have anything to say that is more appropriate in a PM than a posting. If you don't like it, too bad.

How many times do I have to tell you to leave me alone before it sinks in? Yes, I got my letter and am trying to abide by what was asked of me. I might suggest you do the same and STOP sending me PMs that aren't welcome.

This is going WAY overboard if you equate this minor political parrying between two candidates with the death of your friend.

Someone used this same passive aggressive demonizing of a dear friend who ended up being treated so badly by others that they resorted to suicide. It was defamation of character, and it turned people against my friend and destroyed his life. I despise anyone using these tactics because I've seen it destroy the life of someone I cared for. Trying to do that to another human being is disgusting and immoral. If it had of been Dean who did this I would be saying the same thing. This is something that is WRONG and when it happens someone needs to say just how wrong it is.

is pathetic. Perhaps the way for you to move past these problems is through counseling. The trauma you have experienced seems to be keeping you from being able to think straight.

But I am really starting to find your callousness disturbing. I realize we both support Kerry, but this guy obviously feels some deep pain over the loss. Calling it "pathetic" is kind of, well, f*cked up.

Even though you occassionally piss me off and disappoint me, I still like you.

I disagree that my analogy is wrong. The tactic Kerry and Lieberman are employing against Dean is the very same tactic used by Zionists who seek to discredit anything said that is critical of Israel. I would expect this from Lieberman because I have always viewed him as in line with Zionism. However, supporters of Kerry (such as yourself) has claimed that Kerry takes a more "honest and fair" approach on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. The fact that he used the typical Zionist method of trying to shout down anything critical of Israel would suggest otherwise. It was dirty, unethical and disgusting for that very reason. This behavior is downright loathesome and hypocritical from someone who claims to be fair and honest on the issue.

I hardly think someone who takes to harassing others should make any suggestions that anyone see a counselor. Talk about projecting.

Buzz off bonehead...

committed suicide long ago from being called delusional and a liar only about hundred times from someone who still posts here. I never even once alerted on that poster over it.

Politics is tough. The guys in it are not saints. Well, Dennis comes close. The problem with all the projection of saintly attributes to candidates adds to the cult of personality that is unhealthy.

So he has to keep flip flopping on issues in order to say whatever the people he happens to be talking to want to hear. Well know Dean trait. He says what people want to hear,, makes them beleive he is committed to thew issues that are important to them, and then states he NEVER supported that stance, once he gets your vote.

Sorry, Deans statements about Hamas are even a greater indication of his complete incompetance. If he cannot speak diplomically about international affairs during a campaign, he will not be able to dpeak diplomatically when it is critical. at the U.N. or during peace negotiations when at the end, the leades of sttes involved must peak to each other alone. Dean flubs most of what he says when there is not canned speech prepared for him, when Trippi's hadn is not uup the back of Dean jacket, making his mouth move.

Years of diplomatic efforts and relations between nations have fallen apart for statements of far less importance than Dean stupid remark about Hamas.

If Dean's statement drives voters away from him, he won't win the nomination. I, however, don't think people will care. That is the gamble I am willing to take with my candidate. We'll only know who is right after the primaries.

Do we know who is right by the result of the elections of 2000?

The wrong candidate can also win a nomination, if deceptive tactics are used, just as Bush won the election by deception, fraud, and politically craven behavior.

Bush didn't fool the people, he got fewer votes.

The people know when they are being lied to, sometimes, though, they want to believe the lie.