DU, don't get your hopes up about Kerry tomorrow...

I suspect he'll make a decent speech, then argue a bit about the memo...then he'll move on. Like he did with voter fraud. Or the Florida felon list. Or the Vietnam thing. Or the flip-flopper thing. Or his health care proposal. Or any number of other things he could have done better but didn't.

I can just picture it now: Sore/Loserman part deux...then on to the MJ verdict, or some errant private plane into DC airspace, or someone accidently shit on a Koran and AI found out about it...

IMO if he truly gave a damn, he would have went "George Galloway" on the DSM from the start. He didn't...but he sees that we "peasants" are pissed about it, so he figures that at least he should mention it and pacify us. Then we'll go back and hide behind our computers and say "Give 'em hell Kerry!"

My point? Conyers is actually working for us on this...Kerry is being opportunistic. Don't pin your hopes on him again. And don't expect Kerry to lead us on this uphill charge. Impeachment starts in the HOUSE. Our only hope of doing anything with a capital "I" rests on recapturing the HR in 2006. Then you can bet your ass Conyers will bring articles to the floor if there's a way to do it.

Expecting anything more than that before 2006 is pie-in-the-sky fantasy. I'd LOVE to be wrong, though :)

Anyone that uses that "flip-flopper thing" is suspect. Just thought I would let you know that your entire post is discounted because you use the RW talking points.

:hi:

:shrug:

:rofl:

tho I'll admit the "Sore Loserman" part wasn't quite as clear as it could've been. What he meant was that the MEDIA or at least the pundits would launch into that mode, whether or not they actually use that term (doubtful, IMO).

For the record, I think Jeffrey has it totally nailed. Does that make me a freeper too? Hmmm?

My daughter has been keeping me up late, so I've been a bit scatterbrained lately. I'm sure that has shown up in my typing/sentence structure.

My use of "Sore/Loserman" was supposed to be a condensational catch phrase to impress upon the reader exactly how the media will deal with this issue...which is, frankly, to dismiss it or have on some RWer for "balance" to shit all over the veracity of it. Can't you hear it now?

"That's NOT what it says!"

Just like 2000.

I guess I used too strong of a condensational term...it elicited a mean response.

always make me see red and may have blurred my vision. I would never think of you as a freeper (and I never called Jeffrey one) so I will trust your judgment and give the author the benefit of the doubt. I hope he discovers the :sarcasm: symbol.

peace

:hi:

it makes you someone who

on this board

has consistantly assigned the worst motives to Kerry's actions

no doubt having something to do with your dissatisfication

over the primary contest

which chose a candidate other than the one you supported

bitter Dean supporter.

What will Kerryites do when their talking points are all disproven?
:shrug:

how Kerry may not be the dynamic leader they're hoping for.

Then, next time Kerry appears to have changed/reverted into what he once was, they'll follow him wherever he may lead them, shouting "BCCI!" at their computer screen.

Should you care to, you can go back to WELL before the primaries were going good, and before Kerry appeared to be a player at ALL, and find my anti-kerry posts. There were many, many, many.

I've always had a BIG problem with him, and for many good reasons. Frankly, I think he's incredibly weak as a human being and as a public servant -- at least since sometime after his anti-war protest period.

The cheating and dirty tricks during the primary was just another shovelful, not the CAUSE of my anti-Kerry sentiment.

He was doing nothing, and then somehow in the New Hampshire primary he came up from the bottum of the barrel.

There was a good analysis of New Hampshire that makes a person wonder what really happened there.

Also, the difference between Kerry and Dean, the one that helped Kerry the most and hurt Dean the worst was when
Dean said he would break up the media monopolies.

That pretty much killed Dean's campaign.
No way would the media let him get elected after that.

Kerry helped big media to get bigger, voting for the deregulation that allowed Clear Channel to go from little over 100 outlets to over 1,000 outlets.

you're the poster child Kerry hater here at DU.

Your irrational hatred of Kerry twists and distorts every post you make that relates to him.

And always reinforces itself using rightwing talking points. Too bad that the blindness prevents even some lefties from seeing that.

If you want an accurate measure of their commitment and character.

Read the rest of my posts if you want to understand my point.

If you read the post closely, you'll see that, contrary to RW zombies, I actually exhibit some rational thought. Doesn't that immediately disqualify me as a RWer? :)

My usage of "flip flopper", while not initially enclosed in quotation marks to signify sarcastic ridicule, could be inferred on a close reading IMO.

:freak:

Senators are not in any position to do anything other than bring something up for the record. Impeachment comes from the House and so do investigations. All Kerry or any Senator can do is talk about the issue and hope people at home hear what he says and take some action. It seems to me like you are dumping a lot on Kerry. How many letters to the editor have you written on the subject?

It comes from the top and seeps down. The MSM control the dissemination of information to the mass. Have your LTTE made a difference in news coverage? In swaying the opinion of the mass? I'm not trying to dump on you...In fact, it's a wonder that any information gets through to us here near the bottom of the mass.

My point was that the Dems are largely silent on this...try reading about the Patient's Bill of Rights legislation if you want an example of what I would expect a true opposition party to do with concrete proof of impeachable offenses: Shut down the Senate for months until something happens.

Just watch...I hope I'm wrong about this, but I fully expect this to fall off the radar within a week, just like election fraud. I mean, of course we'll be pissed about it, and we'll come here and hide behind our computers, write LTTE, and feel good about "doing something". We'll blame the MSM for not doing their jobs, but I think we're all missing the point here: the MSM IS doing their job. They deliver the news the mass of people WANT to hear and EXPECT to hear.

Sorry if this sounds like I am dumping on Kerry. I just think a lot of people here are really thinking the DSM will sway a lot of people. My point is that Kerry did not push election fraud to the front like many wanted. He didn't fight the Bushies like many wanted. And I don't expect him to fight on this issue either.

What are the odds of that?

Thanks though for the heads-up (er 'heads-down'), Jeff.

then see it all come crashing down when it doesn't turn out exactly like we all want.

Perspective, please...heads forward, not up or down. You think Bush et al get a rise out of watching us get our hopes up and then bottoming out, like with election fraud, the Ohio elector challenge, etc?

We need to understand who is really on our side (Conyers and the CBC for one) and who is paying lip service because it behooves his 2008 aspirations.

That's all.

I'm certainly not a newbie and I'm both (pessimistic and a Kerry critic), I'm afraid to say. I believe the percentages are about the same among newbies and old DUers like me. Or it might actually be that there are more older DUers who are fairly pessimistic.

Maybe they just have a different perspective and not a pack mentality. Just because your new here, doesn't make you stupid. You were new once too!

admits it was a mistake, i can't support him.

"I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," the top Democrat added.

The Downing Street Memo, first reported on May 1 by the London Times, was drafted by a Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is said to be minutes of a July 2002 meeting where Blair allegedly admitted that the Bush administration "fixed" Iraq intelligence to manufacture a rationale for war.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/3/00901.shtml

And on what channel does Newsmax broadcast?

That's my point. See my post above about the purpose of the MSM for more if you want.

NewsMax described Kerry as the top democrat.

Really. That is a sad reflection on Democrats everywhere.

Myself, I think these are some names of people who qualify for title of top democrat:

Robert Byrd
Barbara Boxer
John Conyers

heheee

Even if Kerry comes out with video footage of Bush saying, "We have to make up edvience to support the invasion of Iraq"

The media wouldnt care, and they will talk about some dumbass story, and those who do cover it, will somehow blame Clinton or France.

shows how little you know about the man. He is the ONLY Senatoe who is willing to talk about this issue at all.For that alone, I give him credit no matter what the outcome tommorrow!

but can't discuss the DSM?

Boxer signs the letter challenging the electors from Ohio yet can't discuss the DSM?

Why would it be that hard for either of these two to discuss/debate/whatever the DSM in the Senate?

My point here, which I'll get flamed for again I'm sure, is that this issue is a non-starter right now in the Senate especially. Kerry is being trotted out to kill it off because the democratic base is pissed off about it. SO he'll come out, discuss it, and then it'll go away after a few days. Then the party leadership will expect all of US, the voters and the voice of the party, to crawl back behind our computers and lambaste the media for not covering Kerry's speech enough. But the media won't cover it, Kerry will move on quickly, nobody aside from Conyers will keep up the fight, and we'll all "respect Kerry for bringing it up".

to make some waves, he'd not confine his remarks to the Senate floor. He'd have gotten himself on some Sunday a.m. talk show. Or perhaps a press conference.

As I said on another thread a day or two ago, saying something on the Senate floor has become not unlike speaking in a vacuum: the sound just doesn't carry. He'll be nice and safe and yet be able to "claim" he's "done something" about this matter.

I will LOVE to be proven wrong, but I think jeffrey's got him pegged, and his assessment tracks with Kerry's track record.

and I would be the first person here to admit that I was wrong about the man...but I just can't bring myself to jump on his bandwagon after the last election.

You're right though. Go on MTP with a copy the DSM and read it out loud to Mr. Russert if you want to give em hell.

Kerry is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Some have already made up their minds it will never be enough no matter what.All sense of perpective is gone. How very sad.

and it made him a permanent target for the right and BushInc.

Amazing how some people who would never DREAM of putting themselves or their families into the crosshairs of the entire DC powerstructure the way Kerry has for over 30 years are the ones who come forward to insult Kerry.


Some opportunist the man is.....Kerry has taken the opportunity to make himself a TARGET for BushInc for over 3 decades and some here do their best to help the thugs marginalize him and his efforts against them.

Ummm excuse me, but I'll prove you wrong in your first statement. You just don't demand to be on a talk show you have to be INVITED and if you are not a Lieberman, Ben Nelson, etc. in other words Repub-lite FORGET IT. As far as a press conference ask Ms. Woolsey who shows up when they announce one, NO ONE.

Do you ever get tired of bashing, you have been doing it for a long time, you sound like a broken record. :boring:

if we get any MSM coverage besides Olbermann

will be nothing but Jacko's verdict. Bad bad bad time to discuss the DSM.

What are you talking about? Do you think that next week or even next year they'd talk about this minutes? I don't think so. They're there for a few purposes. 1) Save Bush's ass 2) Distract people from the real issues like this 3) Repeat rightwing talking points to where people will be brainwashed to think it's the truth. Why else do you think they'd never talk about the minutes? Why else do they pose Howard Dean as an "angry liberal"? Give me a break.

But there'll be no "issue-pounding" like we've been inundated with over social security...I mean, shit, look at the massive amount of fraud in the 2004 election...and we got a courtesy "fuck off" from Nightline a few months after it would have made a difference.

I'm not holding out much hope for anything more than a brief "oh-by-the-way" mention, then back to the Jacko deliberations. But it will be telling if anyone mentions it at all, even in passing. It may have a short life, but if we can get it kicked once, we can get it kicked again. That's how Watergate started--one story that just refused to go away.

it's good that both chambers get the info

...tick-tock, tick-tock...

they need the talking points

Senators haven't heard about the Downing Street Minutes....yet?

If it's on the internet I'm sure they've seen it on blogs and whatnot. Kerry mentioned how it was all over the internet didn't he?

I will assume that you didn't understand my point. Please re-read my post and you might see that I am not a RWer.

Through an air vent? BTW use your spell check, it's "accidentally."


Keith’s Barbeque Central

from the ongoing catastrophe in Iraq. I figure since last time it was urine, this time it would be feces.

BTW I usually use my spellcjeck, but this time I acksidentlee fergot ta dew sew

:)

a Kerry Basher special. I only pull this out on special occasions.

http://www.nopaper.net/space/The+Farm/cow.jpg

of DU fame is up.

tick tock.
dp

Sorry.

i'm just the timekeeper.

dp

but at 11:00.

(your fame clock is fast...)

:D

dp

I didn't get the "tick tock" -- but now I'm sorry I did.

Just plain silly.

If you disagree with jeffrey, why not post some sort of rebuttal or a defense of Kerry?

I've said this so many times about different things: I'm NOT a betting woman, but I'd put money on this (Jeffrey's take). Happily, we'll all know tomorrow, won't we?

We need more of those around here. :sarcasm:

What on earth were the first 174 posts like?....

anyway. I find things to be hopeful about these days, and a great Senator speaking out about the DSM is cause for rejoicing. With Conyers "doing the work" too, this will double the chances of media coverage this week.

BTW, we need Conyers to continue his awesome work and his awesome momentum, because the impeachment process can only be started in the House (Conyers), but will be tried in the Senate.

Couple of weeks ago he came out and said "there's no
political support for gay marriage" when at the time
72% of Mass. Democrats supported gay marriage.

He'll do something only when he thinks it's safe for
him to do it. More of the same.

and thank you for not flaming me :)

If JK had fought after Nov 4, like he said he would,
I'd probably have good things to say about him.
But the way he conceded so soon?

Pfff.

Apparently, I cannot be a liberal democrat and hold this opinion of Kerry...

I stay out of the politics forum most of the time
because I don't feel like arguing about it.

WHY I have such disdain for Kerry.

I agree 100% with everything you've said so far. In fact, I could've written these posts myself. AND, we're not alone. There are people here who get very, very upset about criticism of Kerry, no matter how valid, and some who are downright obsessed with him, and these can be pretty noisy, but there ARE more than just you and I here on the other (reality-based) side of things.

Just because you may disagree with Kerry thinking that gay marriage as a Democratic platform issue is not necessarily a good thing, you lump it all up to that he has "no political instinct".

Nice reach...desperate and inaccurate...but hey, perhaps people like Dean are also without political instincts as well because of the disagreement about gay marriage.

It's pretty pathetic to trash Kerry on such an issue that does nothing but mobilize the Right to get out the vote to vote on anti-gay marriage laws...

Civil unions and domestic partnerships (which Kerry has been fighting for) aren't enough for some people. Pathetic...

He said there was no support for gay marriage
IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSSET Dem party when polls
said that 72% of Mass. Dems SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

Gee, could you be more personally insulting to me?
And talk about innuendo and nonsense.

He's a political coward. He might have had courage
in the 1960s. He's lost it now.

The Iraq vote, "I'd do it again." I got the facts
on my side.

Get over it.

Perhaps you think Dean is for gay marriage... I guess he's a political coward too in your eyes...

BTW, where's the poll that you keep mentioning about 72% of MA dems for gay marriage? Source?

Way to win an argument, by calling me names.

You really must have some winning arguments, if you
hae to resort to name calling.

tsk tsk tsk.

I see you are a "Dean Democrat". You bring up Kerry and trash him that he doesn't have any "political instinct" in regard to "gay marriage".

Since this is an apparent litmus test for you, do you hold the same disdain for Dean with his view that he doesn't support gay marriage either and has the exact same opinion that Kerry has on the subject?

I'm jus' askin'.

(the word of the day, you know), I'll probably
answer it.

It's not the position that I care about. I don't
care what Kerry thinks about gay marriage.

The issue is not the issue.

The issue is Kerry's habit of saying what he thinks
is the "politically safe" thing that really ticks me
off.

It took Howard Dean to finally give the Dems a spine
transplant last year and be against the war for
political coward Kerry to finally jump on the bandwagon.

Kerry say it first? NO effing way.

That's my issue with Kerry.

Ergo I don't know for sure if the gay marriage position
you describe is Kerry's real position. I think he
probably took it because he thinks it's the safest
politically for him.

;Kay?

We can go around the Merry-Go-Round on the IWR vote until the cows turn into frogs...

I sense you just don't like Kerry and can't really back it up with anything other than petty half-truths...just like Karl Rove and the Fellas... I've seen and heard it all.

As for you writing "I don't know for sure if the gay marriage position you describe is Kerry's real position", that sort of proves my point you don't care to actually do some homework on Kerry before you trash him. His position is exactly the same as Dean's...and if you really want to know, Dean's position on the IWR was exactly the same as Kerry's...until he decided to change his tune and declare he was the "only candidate" against the War...well, except for Kucinich and Graham...but who's worried about "minor details".

Bezoinks.

I stopped reading your bullshit post at the words
"half-truth."

Just because I see Kerry differently than you do
doesn't make my viewpoint any less valid than yours.

I can't say the rest of what I want to say because
the harshness would exceed the rules of this board.

Go gaze at your navel and bother somebody else.

...or do you just make it up?

I only ask this question. Is Dean without any political instinct because he has been on the record saying he is against gay marriage? If you are consistent in your judgement, he is.

I heard about it on the early early Air America show, Laura
Flanders.

She was of the same opinion -- that Kerry has no clue.

Out For Democracy: Kerry Out of Touch with Massachusetts Democrats
http://outfordemocracy.org/arch/000370.html

A Boston Globe poll showed 71% of Democrats in his home state support
marriage equality ... and surely do not reflect the views of
Massachussetts Democrats. ...

:eyes:


Like I said, it's not the position. It's Kerry's
tendency to only take a position if he feels it's
politically safe.

I guess I'll have to repeat the message seven times
for you to finally get it.


Oh, and Howard Dean was the governor of a state that now
has civil unions. I'd call that putting his money where
his mouth is. (Unlike John Kerry.) So quit trying to
attack me using Dean's position on this. It only makes
you look desperate.

Let's meet in Paris and dance until the sun rises...enough of this American politics!

Oublions du passé!

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

I heard it on the AAR early early morning show. Around the
same time a poll came out saying a vast majority of Mass.
Dems supported gay marriage, John Kerry says something like
there's no support for gay marriage in the Mass. Dem party.

He's politically tone deaf.

He's good looking, he's rich. He's good enough to get
elected senator.

More than that? Not in this lifetime.

to start a disucsion.

You're not allowed to say that, "bald-faced lie." It's the
same as actually calling me a liar. That's against the rules.

Pay attention.

because here, we LOVE him, understand him and would never expect him to go "George Galloway" on the senate floor. Opportunistic? You don't know the man very well, do you? If you are waiting for a "Hollywood" moment tomorrow, don't bother. If you are waiting for a speech that opens the door, then hang on and watch.

Kerry's attention span is very sharp and his memory is very long. He had just begun.

like how you said that. perfect. why oh why, do we expect our representitives to change who they are to become what we want them to be. kerry can only do it his way. and for me, it is a pretty good way

besides, i think he won in nov

Patience is his virtue.

That's what I don't understand. Some DUers like to praise him to the sky for his work on BCCI. But what CAME of it? WHy does he never mention a word about it any more?

Not particularly courageous in my book. NOR is there any evidence of your claim that he hasn't forgotten it. Seems like he's happy and relieved to leave it totally behind.

And I'm definitely not a RWer. Actually, I think true progressives/lefties are ANGRY as hell with many in the Democratic party, and we've just come to realize that most of them are completely ineffective. Thank goodness for the CBC or we wouldn't even be discussing this memo right now.

Helm alee ....... jibing ...... mind the boom!

I tend to agree that it is at least possible Kerry could be doing this purely opportunistically.

But that doesn't bother me. Personally, I still think it is too early for this pot to be expected to boil. It needs more time to come to full boil. Kerry need only keep it going. I don't really want him, or anyone else, for that matter, to 'go Galloway' just now.

I want the sheeple on Main Street to get **really** curious before we send in the big guns and do the whole dog and pony show. This is too important for some politico to waste on a stunt. I'm not saying Kerry's thing tomorrow is a stunt, but you get my point.

:popcorn:

anybody to say something about DSM, and he's the first one besides Conyers to do so, I'm not sure how folks can accuse him of jumping on some bandwagon. If he hadn't promised to talk about DSM, that to me would be playing it safe. I don't see what political gain he could get from mentioning then dropping this.

It may be a shock to people on DU, but I sincerely doubt we for the most part represent the base. Making us extremely happy isn't necessarily getting him anywhere politically.

The sad thing is that those who don't care for him much will have something bad to say either way. If he doesn't say something, he's a coward. If he does, he's a panderer.

The dude can't win.

"I don't see what political gain he could get from mentioning then dropping this."

He pacifies the angry among us in the liberal base who are wanting SOMEONE to say SOMETHING about this on TV. Then in 2008 when he runs again, he can say that he stood on principle for this when it was unpopular.

There is a good point in your post re: the guy is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I would respond to that by saying this: he can win if he were to do more than merely "address" this or "bring it up". The DSM contains concrete proof of impeachable crimes. That is not something you "address". That's something you shout from the rooftops the first time you read the thing. Not three weeks after you've seen the political landscape. That's what I meant by going "George Galloway" on their punk asses...standing up for what is right and who gives a shit what Norm Coleman thinks, says or does. Speak the truth to power and watch the bugs run with the lights on.

Whether or not he speaks to this today is simply immaterial to me .... as far as my perceptions about him are concerned. Further, I ascribe no particular motive to him speaking about it ... or not.

My specific concern is how we **as a united opposition force** handle the DSM. I've been whining long and loud for strategic restraint. If he serves to get the thing up a bit in the public eye, that's a good thing.

On the other hand (not that I expect this, cuz I don't) if he goes 'Galloway' about it now, the press covers it and then buries it and moves on to what cell Jacko will occupy, then I'll be angry .... and probably at Kerry (or whoever else might do it) for squandering a valuable resource - the DSM.

All I care about is that the DSM be nurtured to maturity as an issue. A few pushes along the way - like I'm thinking Kerry's mention will be - are a good thing.

Overplaying it now, is not.

.... and that's my 2 cents worth and I'm stickin' to it ......

One speech from Kerry will not accomplish anything. It will take many speeches from Kerry and Conyers and others over the course of weeks and months before it will start to sink in.

I'd like to see someone put the DSM together with what Paul O'Neil and Richard Clark said.

The tone of your post shows that you have decided already.

Your post should be addressed to the complete Democratic side of the Senate, but you choose to attack the person that will do something (whatever his reasons to do that).

This said, you are probably right about what can be expected. No impeachment procedure will happen as there is not enough Democrats in the House and that neither the House or the Senate are ready for that.

Kerry has been talking about this stuff for years AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT... perhaps you forget his efforts with something called the BCCI Scandal and the Iran Contra scandal. I guess that was "opportunistic" too.

Read up and do your homework before making a fool of yourself. Can you do that first?

Yeah, plenty of sore loser Dean primary supporters willing to bash Kerry at any moment....no better way to make me yawn. I see they are chiming in like bots without a clue.

Give John a chance to speak before you judge him.

Kerry has a chance to prove Jeffrey and me wrong. WE HOPE HE DOES. We doubt he will.

No need to take it quite so personally. As for doing our homework -- I have. What about you? I think I have a far more realistic grasp of the dynamics, and of John Kerry. YMMV.


Yeah, plenty of sore loser Dean primary supporters willing to bash Kerry at any moment

Is that supposed to mean me?? Let me assure you I am not and have NEVER been a "sore loser." I DO, however, fully expect ANY competition to be a fair one. When one side cheats, I do not like it and do not intend to let it go unaddressed. Kerry's side cheated, big time, and while I personally would have preferred Dean to have won -- the far more important issue is that WE DON'T KNOW who would have won had the people's will and voice not been manipulated to the extent that it wasn't The People who got to choose our nominee at all.

If expecting a fair competition makes me a "sore loser" in your eyes, that says more about you than it does about me.

Were the Iowa Caucus-goers cheating or cheated? I understand there were dirty tricks to the effect of Dean=Osama, but if that's called cheating then all negative campaigning is cheating.

If Kerry had done shit with that, there wouldn't have been the legal Bush Sr presidency, let alone this fraudulent non elected fascist nightmare.

Bush's Impending Watergate
By Harvey Wasserman
originally published on May 23, 1991

http://old.valleyadvocate.com/25th/archives/bushs_watergate.html

George Bush should be impeached. Whether he will be impeached depends on the intestinal fortitude of Congress. But the evidence is clearly sufficient to begin proceedings.

The grounds for impeachment rest in the now-familiar circumstances around the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis. The story has circulated since the mid 1980s, but in recent weeks has gained startling new confirmation.

The circumstances are worth repeating: On November 4, 1979, radical Iranian students seized some 55 American citizens and began a crisis that lasted until the moment Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president 444 days later.

Future historians may well blame President Jimmy Carter for the inception of the crisis. He ignored warnings that it could happen and stumbled badly once it began. Some may also wonder if he exploited the situation to deflect a challenge to his renomination from Sen. Edward Kennedy.

But by October of 1980, one thing was clear: If the hostages were released prior to the election, Carter would be re-elected. If not, Ronald Reagan would win. All major polls -- including one by the primary Republican pollster, Richard Wirthlin -- showed a 10 percent swing on just that issue.

In early October, word spread through the world media that Carter had negotiated a deal for the hostages' release. It was widely believed that he had agreed to unfreeze some $4 billion in assets claimed by the deposed Shah, and to supply spare parts to the American-made arms inherited by the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary regime. The hostages were due home by mid-October, in ample time to assure Carter's re-election.

Then, mysteriously, the deal was off. The hostages weren't coming home after all. What happened?

-- more --

Q: What president pardoned the criminals for the BCCI Scandal over all the investigations done in the case?

Don't forget to show us the link.

You have determined that Kerry could have brought the entire Bush organization down as a new Senator all by HIMSELF.

Why don't you dare ask where were any other Democrats across the nation providing backup to Kerry's 5 year effort on BCCI?

Were they giving verbal or public support for Reagan and Bush's efforts or Kerry's?

Kerry wouldn't let the case drop and pursued it for FIVE years. When the feds wouldn't prosecute, he took the evidence to the NY state attorney general to make sure it didn't drop.


Can you name JUST ONE PERSON in government who did more to investigate and expose more government corruption than Kerry?

Just one.

Or won't YOUR broken record against Kerry allow you to face the truth about Kerry's UNMATCHED service to this nation?

Mark Felt: exposed the Nixon corruption and faced death threats for it.

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/050530roco02

John Conyers: the point man on election fraud and fighting for us when Kerry wouldn't.

http://www.truthout.org/cblog.shtml

Bernie Sanders: corporate welfare...probably the biggest non-Iraq crme committed daily by our govt.

http://www.progress.org/corpw30.htm

Henry Waxman: Halliburton investigation going nowhere, but not Waxman's fault.

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=812

Many, many more out there.

I don't think any of us are criticizing Kerry's service in the BCCI deal. What we're saying is that BCCI was a long time ago politically, and that Kerry has changed. He backed down many times when Bush challenged him. He held his punches in the second and third debate. He did not fight election fraud like he should have. He's no longer the Kerry who had the balls to go to Nicaragua as a big F-U to Reagan's proxy war.

much bigger than Watergate and ALL of them UNDERcovered BECAUSE they were bigger than Watergate.

Not ONE name you mentioned uncovered the MAGNITUDE and SCOPE of the corruption that Kerry did. If you think that any of those investigations came close to IranContra and BCCI in scope, then there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG with your perception. Halold Evans, an HONEST historian, said that IranContra and its sister scandal BCCI was THE biggest scandal in a century of American history, FAR GREATER than ANYTHING that occurred in Watergate.

Too bad the corporate media lets foolish Americans believe otherwise.

but yes, Kerry did good work on it. Criticizing Kerry's work on these issues wasn't my point.

I disagree with your historian's claim about BCCI being the biggest scandal in a century in American history. There were a few assassinations in the 1960s that were scandalous. There is an illegal war raging right now that is scandalous. Subverting a Presidential election is scandalous. Vietnam was quite scandalous. And yes, secretly supplying a few thousand death squad soldiers with guns from arms for hostages deals with Iran is scandalous.

I tend to gauge how bad my country's actions are by death tolls, just so you'll know why my perceptions are "seriously wrong". But I can also see how bad it is when my country tends to subvert democracy at home or abroad "for the greater good".

Here's another example for you and your historian: the Church Committee

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/contents.htm

I'll go back to being a "foolish american" now.

But the greater point was that the MEDIA controlled the scope of any scandal and they downplayed the magnitude of IranContra and BCCI.

It would be absurd of anyone with any working knowledge of history to pretend BCCI wasn't the facilitating financial network for most of the funding of international terrorism, wars and unrest in most regions of the world, including Central America and Iran-Iraq. Guess those death tolls didn't make your perception benchmark. You can add up ALL the blowback (9-11) from the financing of Bin Laden throughlout the 80s and early 90s, too.

Robert Parry would be the first to tell you that it was Kerry who acted on his reporting and opened up the inquiry for a greater, official investigation.

I don't get your need to make Kerry out to be an empty suit when the facts over 30 years EASILY prove that picture to be false.

It reminds me of the operations launched against him every time he made life uncomfortable for various Republican presidents and their administrations.

If you won't even see what I posted as an effort on my part to intelligently discuss a topic, you're obviously not interested in my point of view. I didn't post about cigarattes. I posted about Watergate (the subversion of American Democracy), 2004 election fraud (subversion of American democracy), the Export-Import Bank (M-I complex funding with tax dollars=invasive US foreign policy to protect business interests), and one example of Halliburton's war profiteering on oil overcharges. I could have posted many, many others, but you wouldn't read them anyway.

Aside from not reading my links, you reconstructed my argument in an effort to make me an easier target. If you want dialogue, read my posts and links.

than Kerry, is absurd. They would both say that while their investigations were incredibly significant, that IranContra and BCCI were the two biggies. In fact, most other investigations are smaller parts to the greater picture that is IranContra-BCCI.

When you fail to acknowledge its import and downplay Kerry's role, I am given every reason to doubt your intentions.

My point has been throughout this thread to open people's eyes up to the way Kerry is now that he is pursuing the presidency.

And I never said that Waxman and Sanders had exposed more government corruption...those two (and Conyers) were examples of people sticking their necks out for all of us RIGHT NOW while your candidate treads lightly.

You're changing my point again to make it easier to attack.

Here is what I said:

"I disagree with your historian's claim about BCCI being the biggest scandal in a century in American history. There were a few assassinations in the 1960s that were scandalous. There is an illegal war raging right now that is scandalous. Subverting a Presidential election is scandalous. Vietnam was quite scandalous. And yes, secretly supplying a few thousand death squad soldiers with guns from arms for hostages deals with Iran is scandalous."

And I don't have any pressing need to demonize Kerry. I'm making a judgment based upon his recent actions that led me to conclude a lot of folks here were placing WAY too much faith in this guy to lead the uphill charge for impeachment (which is what you and I both want BTW). If you read my OP you'll see that I advocate not placing a lot of hope in Kerry the same way we all did (myself included) on fighting a stolen election. I then pointed to examples of what might have led me to conclude differently in other threads posted throughout.

Yeah, there was absolutely no commitment there. Have you read anything about Nixon's paranoia. Kerry was harassed for years about the actions he took speaking out against the war. He and his wife were followed, had their phone tapped, people threw bricks through the window of their house - one of which came close to their oldest daughter in her cradle.

As a war hero, handsome,brilliant Yale graduate, with connections, a far simpler plan was to run for Congress. His answer to Morey Safer about whether he wanted to be President indicated that he was well aware that his antiwar activities would likely preclude that.

I lived in that time period and knew people who were afraid to cross through campus after Kent State - even though the rallies at the school I went to were peaceful. It took guts to do what he did. Kerry was born into a privileged world that he could have returned to, ignoring everything that was wrong in Vietnam. He spoke out because people were still dying and the returning vets (who were not in his position) were not getting the help they needed.

it was sad to watch a deserter smear a war hero and the war hero lets the deserter get away with it.

IMO if 1974 Kerry were running, I'd vote for him over just about anyone else. My point is that many here are failing to see that 1974 Kerry is not around anymore.

of being a rightwinger but what the hell. I agree with you.

I supported John Kerry.....gave money to his campaign, worked at the local Democratic Headquarters and worked the polls, but the fact of the matter is he didn't fight back when he needed to.

I think some on DU expect one senator to be able to work a miracle, and that just isn't going to happen. He said he would raise the issue--that isn't even a promise to speak on the floor of the Senate about it--but I wouldn't be surprised if he does. This would be done to raise both public awareness and to argue the case to his colleagues. He's not about to lead an impeachment charge single-handedly; that's for the House,anyway, as you say. John Conyers is doing great, and I know he'll keep fighting. And Kerry will do something in the Senate, but I expect a lot of people have got their hopes up way too far and are assuming things that Kerry can't and shouldn't do.

On the other hand, if it's an issue he feels is important, he won't just drop it. He'll doggedly keep on pushing it until it goes somewhere. He's been known to push a single bill for as long as five years until it finally gets approved. He spent two years of his life on the "Vietnam thing", and at the time considered that he'd ruined any hopes of holding public office. As for this year, there is no evidence that he has given up on election reform,or the many other issues he's working on, and certainly not his health care for kids bill, which he is still traveling for and promoting. The man is like a workaholic. We don't see this stuff on TV, but it does get reported in the newspapers. Kerry has plenty of persistence, conviction and ability to focus. He's done lots of things that put him at a political disadvantage because of deeply held principles.

On the Senate floor he can and does get mad, but in a controlled way--you can see it in his eyes--he isn't the type to go ballistic; that's "reserved", I think for the Senior Senator from MA--lol. I'm sure the Lion of the Senate will be having a thing or two to say about the DSM, too.

Children's health care -- he just finished a couple of weeks ago a tour around the South to promote the bill. So he hasn't let that drop.

Another: I read an article in an online India newspaper around Xmas time that he was blasting the Bank of England for not taking care of the BCCI creditors who'd lost their money. I found out later that this hadn't come out of the blue, as there was a civil suit pending. Ask yourself how long ago BCCI was, and then ask yourselves how many of the BCCI creditors who'd lost their money could vote for the man. You may then realize he was not vote-mongering, nor grandstanding for the folks at home, as no one was likely to see him standing up for these people.

Also, google the name Don McTigue. If he's not still on the case in Ohio, and by extention, concerned with election fraud, then why is there still a lawsuit pending.

I dispute your basic premise, which is that Kerry doesn't follow through, or that his persistant nature is a thing of the past.

Horsehockey.

thank you for actually addressing the points raised and not personally attacking me.

The Health Care bill stands no chance of passing. Bush will veto it even if it managed to miraculously pass the HR, which it won't. It would get killed by the Repubs in committee. SO he gets to go around the country touting a bill that won't see the light of day unless we take back everything in 2008. But he gets to position himself for the 2008 run by promoting this bill, which is a good bill from what I've read BTW, but it's DOA. It's opportunism, not policy making.

I wanted to believe, when I voted last november, that I was voting for the Kerry of BCCI, Iran Contra, VVAW, etc. I thought that the one person I'd want going up against the BFEE when they try to steal another one is a guy like the Old Kerry who fought on principle. Sooooo....they steal another one, Kerry quickly concedes (contrary to what Edwards wanted), is allegedly acting behind the scenes on election fraud, is in control of the situation, gathering evidence...and I wait, and wait...and Bush is getting ready to invade another country...

Kerry's agenda of children's health care, veterans' rights and some small business legislation coupled with some of the strongest, principled objections to the Republican subversion of the constitution can help push people towards considering voting in Democrats. He is not the only one doing this - but I can't think of anyone doing it better.

His bill may be DOA, but he is using every tool he has to give it publicity and to explain in detail why it is important and why it makes economic sense. Via his email list, he has gotten over 600,000 people to sign to support this and he has enlisted the endorsement of the bill from many non-profit organizations, which represent over 17 million people. (including an association of pediatric doctors).

The Democrats control neither house of Congress and Bush is President. Come 2006, a Republican claim is that the Democrats don't have an agenda. Reid has publicized an agenda that includes Kerry's issues (as well as those of other Democrats). Oddly, Kerry is simultaneously doing the best job he can to support Democrats in 2006, positioning himself for 2008, and being the best Senator he can.

You are willing to assume that the election was stolen in a provable way. It is more likely that Ohio was stolen through incompetence. The local Democrats were on the bipartisan committees that allocated voting machines. That Blackwell manipulated things so there were fewer voting machines in November than there were in the primaries is obvious - but should have been caught before the fact by the Democrats. As a person who worked in statistics/Operations Research, one way I look at it is that there exists some percentage of people who would not or could not wait 4 + hours to vote. (Not to mention the size of the lines might lead them to think it was a Kerry blow out, which would be amplified by the exit poll info that came out in the afternoon. These 2 things may have led people for whom waiting this length of time would be a hardship, to forgo voting.) Although one could identify the percentage of votes lost this way that would be needed to give Kerry a win, it would not matter as these lost votes are not recoverable. (I don't know how many of Kerry's votes were from places with super long lines - but it might be that it is reasonable that the surpression by long lines alone cost Kerry the election.)

In other published reports, it seems there were a lot of Kerry votes lost by voting errors. Some buildings housed multiple precincts, each with the candidates listed in different order. In a few intercity locations, there were people who said it was OK to use any machine. If you had a precinct X ballot, and used a precinct Y machine, your vote went to the wrong candidate. (Someone posted 2 precincts in the same building where you could see "ghosts" of the Kerry vote - for independents on the line Kerry was on for the other precinct.) These types of problems were mostly in the intercity and involved either poor directions or no Hispanic directions. These people came out thinking they voted for Kerry, although they didn't - so they might account for part of the exit poll discrepancy.

Reading of these things, I do think that Kerry succeeded in getting more people out in Ohio than needed - but that roadblocks in the process led some to either not cast their vote or to not cast it correctly. Kerry more than anyone should feel cheated by this - he and his family worked their hearts out to win, but there is no recourse for this. If Kerry would have challenged the vote in November, he would have lost. The Ohio courts and legislature were Republican as were the 2 houses of Congress. There is no provision for re-doing a state's voting in the constitution.

for the repugs to attack healthcare for children ,particularly when they make such a fuss over them. It really will make them look bad and secodly, if it is DOA, that is still great for us as we can now push the fact that Repugs are letting children die. It is a win win situation. I thought it was brilliant when I first heard it and I still do!

1. You assume that the bill will get out of committee. There is little chance of that happening unless Kerry were to introduce it as a rider, which he may or may not do. I would guess that even if he were to do this, he'd get voted down. I haven't seen anything from him that would lead me to think he'd spend the political capital to do this right now.

2. You assume that the MSM will cover the Republican's attempts to kill the bill. There is no way we can count on the MSM to do anything of the sort. Personally, I count on the MSM to do the exact opposite of what I want. This way I find that I am rarely let down anymore.

3. You assume that the voters will give a shit. As much as I'd like to think that is true, were that the case we would see a massive press for universal health care...not Kerry's (or anyone else's) "stopgap" proposals.

embarrass the Republicans. I expect nothing from the MSM, but I do expect us to make an issue of this. And I know Kerry will. As for the voters, they got interested in Shiavo and the cornerstones of the Repukes are children, with the right to life and all. Look at the stem cell kiddies Bush had at the WH. Yeah, I think the amber alert, Siamese twin oriented, voter might care.

All I'm saying is that if the MSM does not cover his bill, those who may be outraged by it would never know about it in the first place.

And I question whether Repugs actually do care about children (their cornerstone as you said) when they can cut Medicaid funding, cut pell grants, etc. They love photo ops, and no matter what they do, they'll always have a steady stream of white children to trot out in front of cameras to make everyone think they really do care about children.

The DSM will be on official record in the House AND Senate. Someday, historians will look at the record and know that we tried hard to expose the Bush*/PNAC junta. Whether we ultimately succeed or not remains to be seen.....although I suspect we can do some serious damage in the long run.

oh really?

RL

Guess being the first to investigate and expose terrorism and its FUNDING by international financiers and GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION just passed by your perception meter.

not how they once WERE is much better IMO than holding out this irrational hope that Kerry will miraculously become what we ALL hoped he would be this time last year.

But I guess I'm just too damned stupid and "Anti-Kerry".

:eyes:

RL

if Kerry shows me this time is any different than the last times he has let me down, great. Screw me for being wrong...won't be the first or last time. Unlike many in this thread, though, I'll GLADLY admit that I was wrong.

All I'm doing is making an observation...many here on DU place a lot of faith in Kerry that I believe is misplaced, especially considering his recent past when he has been actively pursuing the presidency.

I think it is important for all of us to keep in mind that we have a common enemy here. I want anyone capable of taking Bush down to do it. My point has been that Kerry had many opportunities to do just that and either dropped the ball or didn't bother wasting political capital on it.

He happened to be in college then getting his law degree, which came in handily for his investigative work in the Iran-Contra and BCCI, which happened in the 80's and 90's, and in the middle of that he was writing a book about terrorism, doing his job as a Senator etc. etc.

I think you meant 1971, but who knows since you know nothing about John Kerry the MAN. Before you start slandering a good man and a GREAT DEMOCRAT, do your homework. :argh:

I start my first year of law school this fall :)

as a soon-to-be-lawyer, obviously with an interest in politics...which Party did YOU campaign for last Fall?

which went for Bush 61% to 38% Kerry. I voted for Kerry, discussed political issues in every single one of my classes trying to open their eyes about Bush's lies, did a presentation on the illegality of the Iraq war for an International Law class (including the Nuremburg comparison...which didn't sway anybody), debated with professors in class without regard to the detrimental effect it undoubtedly had on my grades, doubled my vote by taking my wife with me, and it still made no difference. I figure if I can't sway any students (who are supposed to have an open mind and a thirst for truth), then I can't sway anybody else around this shithole.

The Democratic party in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is in shambles. Hell, today we have the "Jesus is Lord" people standing on the corner with their evangelical signs aloft. I can see them out my window right now. It's kind of hard to reason with people like that, as you probably know.

I used to get harrassed by the Youth for Christ people going from class to class. We had a guy, Preacher Bob (or Ron...can't remember exactly), who used to stand in the Quad and yell at the students that we were all going to hell. We have to leave the commonwealth to go buy alcohol since we can't get it around here...dry county.

BTW fire away with the lawyer jokes if you want...you won't hurt my feelings. There are a lot of scumbag attorneys out there, so I figure my future profession deserves it :)

Imho, he's a has-been, at least on the national arena.

:boring:

:boring: :rofl:

Kerry is a coward!!! I knew Ray on KGO last night was puffing. I have unsubscribed to Kerry, whenever I e-mail him, all I get is a solicitation for donations. I'm done with him, unless he gets some balls.

Welcome to DU

Where's the outrage from all members of Congress? Shouldn't this be a HUGE BIG DEAl to every citizen in America? Every Senator and congressperson should demand to know the truth about the memo. Our soliders are dying everyday because of a war based on lies as corporations profit from the war. When do we wake up as a nation and make human life more valuable than money?

1. There is no outrage because people either don't know what is going on or they really don't care.

2. Obviously, this should be huge...which was one of my original points. Leadership isn't behind this because we elect people based on what they say they'll do, or electability, or ABB, or compromise...we get the government we want for the most part, and right now we are paying the price for crawling in bed with the Republican lite members of the DLC.

I believe that Kerry will trot this out to pay lip service to people like us who actually know what is happening and are pissed off. Then he'll stay on it for about a week and it'll go away. Then we'll all sit around here blaming the MSM for not reporting it.

3. Hopefully soon...otherwise, I don't think we'll last that much longer.

I suspect he'll make a decent speech, then argue a bit about the memo...then he'll move on. Like he did with voter fraud. Or the Florida felon list. Or the Vietnam thing. Or the flip-flopper thing. ...

the flip-flopper thing was something foisted upon him by a slimy gang of gutter repukes. His response to that was to address it to a point, and then focus on his POSITIVE vision for the nation. He REFUSED to join these pigs in the gutter. Thank you JOHN KERRY.

Comparing a response to an attack, which might best employ one strategy, to the promotion of an issue, which might require another, entirely different approach, is disingenuous. Intentionally, or otherwise.

I know for a fact that Kerry COULD HAVE adequately addressed the "flip-flopper" issue in a manner that would have put it to rest outside of the inner repuke circle.

And, I hate to say it, but the nature of American politics is to crawl into the gutter and beat the other guy's/woman's brains out. I wish it were different, but that's the political landscape successful politicians have to deal with.

I saw the smear coming a mile away. If you remember the 88 campaign, Dukakis had many opportunities to respond adequately to the Willie Horton issue (Reagan's California had the same program, for example) but he didn't. W reran the 88 campaign, except this time he ran against gays instead of blacks.

Also, IMO there is no real difference between an attack and the promotion of an issue. In both instances you have to actively promote your point of view and anticipate and defend your idea(s) against the rabble. I suppose we just disagree on that.

but then, it was Kerry's call, and he, imho, decided to appeal to the better part of people, to attract toward a positive light rather than thow mud.

And you know what, imho, I think he was right. I think it worked.

Kerry had more to deal with than the slimeballs on the right, the media could never give anymore than a lukewarm presentation of Kerry's campaign. The media has turned very anti-Democratic, as I'm sure you're aware.

How many times did we see the convention producer cursing about the balloons not falling? For some, that was the headline of the night. Very very little was said about the substance of the convetion, the Democratic platform.

So he had a media that had glided bush along to absurd power to start with focusing on whatever negative could be percieved about the Democratic candidate.

Kerry had a lot to take into consideration, and he called the shots. Again, I think he was right, I think he won. But even if he didn't, I'm not about to lunge for his throat over it. I think he did the best he could, and I think the reasoning was sound.

I supported him then, after much reluctance, and I'd support him again, eagerly.

What should our hopes for Kerry be?

a. that he will act like he cares about a problem?

or

b. that he will be effective in addressing the problem?

I for one do not forget that he promised to see that every vote was counted, and then he quickly conceded the contest and did NOTHING.

We should not be enablers of his pretense.

If he were really sincere about doing something, I would have to wonder why he is so in-effective.

Either way, he is useless to the working person.
Useless. Sorry, that is my opinion.
We can't move his little hands and feet for him and will him to be
a "Conyers" or a "Boxer". He just doesn't have what it takes.

that Kerry promised to see that every vote was counted, and is still involved in a legal fight in Ohio, and is part of election legislation in the Senate.

That's not "nothing."

I think that Kerry is waiting for tomorrow to mention the DSM because Bolton will be argued tomorrow. It makes total sense that he is going to tie it in with the normal Senate business to give it legitimacy when it gets onto the record, and in doing so Kerry is likely to garner more support from other Senators.

I choose to remain positive, because the only way that the BFEE (like any other form of evil) can truly win is if we give up & stop fighting back. As I write letters to the media, the Congress, and the Senate, I do not stop to consider how likely it is that my letters will turn the tide and heal the nation and what is being done to us & in our name.

I act in opposition to the BFEE because I refuse to give them legitimacy by saying that there is nothing that I can do, so why even try; that happened in Germany. I will continue to support those in those public officials, what is left of the media, or any one else who seeks to restore the nation to sanity and remove the thugs who defile it.


Peace

Oh, I forgot, somebody said it will probably be Wednesday, or maybe not. But that's OK, it's the thought that counts. Right? :eyes:

Have a cup of coffee, relax.:donut: The day is young, and there is nothing to be gained by throwing in the towel.

See his latest - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1835227

"We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons..."

Compared to PNAC's plans for world domination, Watergate is trivial, a practice run.

Did Kerry ever speak about the DSM on the Senate floor?