Read this (Iraq) quote, & try to guess which party the speaker belongs to.

"In my judgment, the new prime minister (of Spain) should not have decided that he was going to pull out of Iraq. He should have said, `This increases our determination to get the job done...'"

Give up? You will note that the speaker seems quite determined to continue the crusade, n'est-ce pas? He is sternly lecturing the new socialist prime minister of Spain, letting him know what Spain's responsibilites are, to contribute manpower in support of US military seizures of other countries. The tone is one of lecturing arrogance, thoroughly supportive of US militarism & the project of US global dominance. The speaker doesn't say that the new Spanish government has the right to make its own decisions, and he expresses no respect for the fact that Spanish voters threw out the Aznar government, PRECISELY because they found the US crusade so repulsive, & despised their own government's complicity in it.

So, you might think it's a Republican, right? You might think it sounds like Denny Hastert, or one of those other rightwing creeps who have been widely quoted in recent days on the results of the Spanish election.

But if you think so, you'd be wrong. It's none other than the Democratic nominee.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/17/kerry_blasts_bush_on_protecting_troops/

that can't be a democrat.

but he's a highly principled liberal Democrat who will be the next President of the United States. Sorry.

While I am certainly not saying that Aznar deserves a pass for getting Spain into this mess against the wishes of 90% of the Spanish people -- Zapatero did not show good judgement in immediately coming in and lecturing the leaders of other nations.

I haven't heard such rhetoric coming from either Schroeder or Chirac, despite their continued opposition to the manner in which things are being handled.

Zapatero's remarks demonstrate the same lack of nuance, albeit from an OPPOSITE direction, as has been exhibited by the current administration. As much as those of us who oppose war would LIKE for a world leader to come onto the stage and begin shaking his fist at the Bush administration, in the end it accomplishes nothing.

I just think that Kerry shouldn't have made a public statement on the issue either -- simply because it's a matter for SPAIN and not the UNITED STATES.

thinking that have nothing to do with Zapatero's level of statesmanship. The determination to push on with the crusade, and the judging of Spain's 'responsibilities' on the sole basis of US needs -- these things are troubling, even if Zapatero's statements were not particularly nuanced.

Kerry's absolutely right. Zapatero's words (and not the Spanish voters') will encourage Al Qaeda to try to influence elections in other countries, which is a bad thing for everybody. That's just not how you respond to terror.

Iraqis, not Americans, will bear the brunt of unilateral troop withdrawals. We shouldn't be in Iraq, but we are, and we need to do what we can to make the best of things and prevent further bloodshed.

Furthermore, the problem with Zapatero's statements isn't that they aren't nuanced, its that they're stupid and ill-timed. What in the hell made him say that he'd be willing to campaign for John Kerry? You think that's a good thing for Spain politically? You think Kerry wants that? Don't be ridiculous. Its just stupid and childish.

... that Bush demonstrated in his "compassionate conservatism" and "run to the center" in the 2000 election? Thinking that certainly had some of the hard-core RWers up in arms?

Here's a little tip vis a vis electoral campaigns after the primary season -- DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR AT FACE VALUE. Kerry has had Cheney attacking him in the media like a junkyard dog, saying he's weak on national security issues. What in the hell do you expect him to do -- announce that he thinks its a good thing what the incoming Spanish PM said, and that we're going to cut and run in Iraq too?

He CAN'T say something like that, REGARDLESS of what his plans are. I hate the fact that we're there as much as anybody, and I think the whole thing is going abysmally, and I'm also certain I don't agree with Kerry's take on it 100%. But I also realize that posturing IS important with regards to electoral politics, and as such, I'm more than willing to give him a pass on a STATEMENT like this.

It's a terrible thing that one is virtually forced into posturing like this. I respond far more positively to a Dennis Kucinich coming forward to say, "We were lied into this war! It was wrong to go in, and it's wrong to stay in!"

The point is, how would the average voter out there respond? When looking at these kinds of things, try viewing it from their perspective. That way, you won't get your blood boiling quite so much. ;-)

and then complain when you think Kerry lied.

Nice racket! Damned if you do, and damned if you don't

Nixon did. And it got him elected, too.

ON EDIT -- please clarify exactly what Nixon pronouncement you're referring to here.

I'm referring to the remark Mondale made about raising taxes.

Unless you mean his strategic thinking. He's trying to avoid being stamped out and also to close the gap on national security. Viewing the media's near unaminity on this election as a 'terrorist victory', Kerry did what was strategically smart. A statement agreeing with Spain's decision would be defined as 'supporting appeasement' (as was Dean's comment) and Kerry would be powerless to stop it. The cable news stations would define it for him 24 hours a day while giving him or his spokesmen about thirty seconds to respond.

Further, the statement would make little to no positive impact on voters. Far leftists are the only market this kind of comment might really make a difference with, and they have long since written off Kerry, so catering to them will gain him nothing. In other words, you will never see a 'way to go Kerry!' post here from far leftists here because Kerry is already the enemy in their eyes. Kerry's actual statement will not violently offend his likely supporters, and the far leftists will just file it under 'Kerry is bad'.

So it would be a total lose-lose situation for Kerry to explicitly endorse Zapatero's decision. Therefore his actual thoughts on policy can hardly be discerned from this comment.

implication is that we cannot look forward to ANYTHING other than nonstop lying for the next 8 months. Basically, you're making the case that the forces are arrayed so that when Kerry speaks, he doesn't mean what he says, because he's operating under the constant threat of annihilation by the media.

If one accepts this picture, one is accepting a campaign of constant lying by both sides, but always justifying the Democrats' side by saying they're under special threats which make truth-telling impossible. This can be a very slippery slope, to put it mildly.

Besides which: I think we do know enough about Kerry to know that he really is in favor of continuing the occupation until an obedient US puppet government is installed in Iraq. I don't really buy the idea that he just said this thing, to ward off potentially lethal media attacks (though there's no doubt that such attacks would be forthcoming).

Without the risk of incurring potentially fatal damage, especially early on when he will be defined for the public. To take risky positions he needs to be competitive in media influence or money, and right now he's way behind in both.

And yes, to some degree you can parse these campaign-mode comments with the real guy, as you could with Bush in 2000. Kerry is out of step with my thinking on Iraq, for example. He made a strategically and morally wrong move in 2002 by thinking politically, but this one was a no-brainer politically. I can guess at where he is on Iraq, but I'll only know for sure when/if he's in office. I guess that he is more interested in a US military presence in the ME than I am.

In his initial post, RIchM argued that Kerry's statement represented support for a Repuke position. In this post, RichM says it's not a Repuke position, but instead of acknowledging his mistake, RichM instead tries to raise an entirely new complaint, that Kerry is lying.

He complained when he thought Kerry was telling the truth. Now he complains because he thinks Kerry is lying. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't

by uttering the unvarnished truth. It must be....nuanced - well sugar-coated at least.

Why not? Aren't we always saying we want people to speak out instead of letting silence imply consent? The bad guys certainly aren't shy about putting their positions!

Why do you think that the RWers are so f***ing bad at it, anyway?

Just because the complete lack of nuance is coming from someone who is closer to our side, doesn't mean it is either right or effective.

No. You might always be saying that, and some DUers are also saying that, but that opinion is far from universal.

The bad guys certainly aren't shy about putting their positions!

Really? You mean Bush* has always been honest about the real reasons he wanted to invade Iraq?

Just campaign fluff, as usual. And, as usual, his balancing act will piss off leftists. Does he really believe this garbage? Who knows, but strategically it was smart to say. He's trying to avoid being stamped into a bloody 'terrorist's choice' pancake by the press. The media, incidentally, have all decided Spain was a terrorist victory. And yet the loss of civil rights, removal of troops from SA, and polarization of Western-Middle Eastern relations is evidence of Bush's winning the 'war on terror'. :crazy:

From the same article:

"Nothing is more important than telling the American people the truth about the economy, health care, and the issues of war and peace," Kerry said after ticking off a list of what he considers contradictions in major Bush administration policies. They included a Congressional Budget Office report released Monday saying that only 6 percent of the country's current budget deficit could be attributed to economic weakness, a much smaller share of the blame than the administration has placed on the economy. The CBO study cited the negative effects of ballooning government spending and progressively deeper tax cuts.

"Now the president is busy trying to blame everybody, except his own administration," Kerry told the crowd. "Ninety-four percent of the problem is George Bush and his administration."

As for the new ad, Kerry said the president -- not he -- was to blame for any lack of preparedness or protection for US soldiers.

"The president made the decision as to when to send our troops to war, no one else. He decided the date. He decided that diplomacy was over. He decided to go forward. And on the date that they went into Iraq, they didn't have the armament on the Humvees, the armored doors, they didn't have the equipment they needed in some regards, and they didn't have the state-of-the-art body armor," the senator said.

O

but it's not a big deal to me. It's just politics.

and it is a big deal with me. It's politics.

...yeah right :eyes:

Like Howard Dean, however, he does feel that withdrawing troops from Iraq would be a tremendous mistake. No we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but like it or not, we're there. And a unilateral withdrawal at this point would be a disaster.

1. His statements on Iraq have been completely asinine. He's said he'll only keep Spanish troops in Iraq if they come under UN control. Of course the UN has long admitted it is completely incapable of operating troops in anything more than a symbolic role. That has been proven time and time again, most recently in Sierra Leone. So effectively, Zapatero only wants Spanish troops in Iraq if their lives will be unncessarily jeopardized by incompetent leadership. I fully support Kerry's call to internationalize participation in Iraq, up to and including seeking a UN mandate. But calling for UN control is just ridiculous.

2. Zapatero's offered to come to the US to campaign for Kerry. That's also asinine. He's also said all of Spain's problems with the US will disappear if Kerry's elected. That's even more asinine. Of course he wants Kerry elected. But you can't say crap like that in public if you're the Prime Minister-elect of Spain. Spain needs to do business with the US, regardless of what sunbitch is President. And the last thing any responsible leader does is pick sides publicly in an American election. What if Bush is reelected? Zapatero's screwed. And does he really believe that John Kerry wants the Spanish Prime Minister out campaigning for him? I can think of few things Kerry would want less.

3. Spain is divided right now like it hasn't been at any time since the death of Franco. The last thing Zapatero should be doing is saying anything at all about Iraq. Should he withdraw his troops? Perhaps. But you don't talk about it just after the biggest terrorist attack in Spanish history, and the biggest in Europe in fifteen years. That just further polarizes the country and makes it appear - even if that isn't the case - like you're caving into terror.

(See my response to IC above.)

Re your point #3 - "The last thing Zapatero should be doing is saying anything at all about Iraq...you don't talk about it just after the biggest terrorist attack in Spanish history...
- Wait a minute. Iraq is a very big issue, and was central to why the voters kicked out Aznar. How is it even possible to "not talk about it?" That's saying that if you get elected prime minister in an upset election, you take center stage, and promptly shut down discussion of a burning issue that just happens to be the reason why you're now prime minister! It's contrary to democracy, to refuse to discuss issues of such obvious concern to the public.

What WAS central to it was the way in which the Aznar government tried to mislead the Spanish people in the immediate aftermath of the train bombing. Aznar said it was Eta because if he said it was al Qaeda, it could be perceived that he helped bring it about due to his participation in Iraq. But what got the Spanish people in an uproar was the consistent misleading. They gave the Aznar government a chance to come clean with what really happened -- the government continued to stonewall and mislead -- so the people basically told the government, "Fuck you, you're outta here!"

The central issue was not Iraq, but was the government refusing to come clean about the biggest terror attack on Spanish soil in some time. Iraq was peripheral.

the war were the highest in the world, I'd venture a guess that Iraq had something to do with it.

It was the misdirection and odious political maneuvering that swung the vote by a bare 4% to a 43-38 Socialist victory, not Iraq. Based on the PPs record on Iraq alone (before the bombing), they still led by 4%. The response to the terrorist attack seems to have made the difference.

Iraq had something to do with it by the nature of the fact that the attacks likely had something to do with Spanish involvement in Iraq, which resulted in the misleading of the Spanish people by their government as to the facts behind the bombings.

The Spanish people were completely pissed about the lies surrounding the bombing. While they didn't agree with Aznar's policy on Iraq, that in itself was hardly the determining factor.

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

Because Spain was just the target of a horrific terrorist attack by people whom it seems were trying to force Spain to get out of Iraq. The last thing you want to do is appear to legitimize their efforts. Does that mean abandoning your campaign promise? No. But any smart politican puts it on the backburner. Spain is divided and hurt, and Zapatero's first priority should be to heal that divide. Not to continue what both political parties were doing in the run-up to the election - which was shamelessly try to exploit the terrorist attack for political gain.

Now it's his attitude?

It's contrary to democracy, to refuse to discuss issues of such obvious concern to the public.

That's a strange conception of democracy. Free speech isn't just about the right to say what you want. It's also about the right to NOT say what you DON'T want to say. Forced speech isn't free speech, and the idea that someone must discuss any issue is undemocratic

maybe that's why he said it after getting elected?

nt

Aznar wasn't kicked out because of Iraq.

Aznar was kicked out because his government tried to cover up Al-Qaeda involvement in the train bombing.

I know that you would probably like it to be because most Spanish voters are anti-war, but, sorry, that's just not the case.

I was quite astonished in the way he used the tragedy for his political goals.
Spain can withdraw their troops if they regard it necessary but revealing these plans just a few days after the terrorist attack was the wrong signal to Al Quaeda in my opinion.

You can see it already in the potential Spanish pullout of troops in June

In the Polish leadership voicing concerns about being duped into Iraq

South Korean leadership refusing to bow to US pressure to deploy it's troops in the more dangerous Mosul reagion of Iraq.

Hondurus stating it will pull out of Iraq

These are cracks in the dam. The Iraq lie will eventually cause a bursting of the dam and the resistance in Iraq probably knows this.

..And even here in the US strong sentiment exists in segments of the population (the ones that do a little research on their own and refuse to swallow the propaganda line of "if you don't believe us you're un-American" and don't watch Fox news) that Iraq was a lie and the Bush administration has weaved a web of lies soo thick that it has gone beyond the point of no return.

All of this happening in the face of a mainstream US press that refuses to ask the hard questions. A press that is a willing participant in the lies.

You might be able to fool some or most of the people in the US, but you can't fool the rest of the world. Americans may be ignorant but the rest of the world knows what time it is.

UK population overwhelmingly against Iraq invasion, same for Spain, same for Italy. Massive anti-war movement in the propagandized US population. And these countries are the major pilars of the "coaltion of the willing"?

Smaller countries in the coalition such as Palau, Marshall Islands, Hondurus, Bulgaria etc., etc....These are the countries Bush is referring to in talking about the "biggest coalition in world history".....to anyone who really knows the score, these countries are HISTORY economically if they don't do the bidding of this administration. It's called "blackmail".

Before Bush sent us over the cliff in Mesopatamia, Iraq was NOT part of Al-Qaeda or a threat to our national security. Now it is a country in disarray.

Maybe that's part of the plan but I don't see how it makes us safer.

While I believe that Kerry will be a vast improvement over Bush, at the same time I am not deluding myself that he will be able to really repair the US's standing with the rest of the world.

He'll be in a helluva tough spot. The rest of the world has seen the mask over US neoimperialism pulled off and laid its eyes on the ugliness of its visage, due to the overreaching of the neocons. Even if Kerry tries to put that mask back on, the rest of the world will never forget what the true face of US foreign aims looks like.

The rift between the US and EU is growing, as each is trying to go in a different direction. The US is trying now to expand the cold war posture it maintained in a post-cold war world in the name of the "War on Terrorism". The EU stands staunchly against this kind of militarism, advocating instead the interface of global intelligence operations and law-enforcement efforts against potential terrorists. Kerry will be powerless to stem the flow of militarism, because of the power of the MIC, and the fearmongering of the RW among the American populace. Any step away from increased militarism is portrayed as "weak on defense".

As for East Asia, fuhgeddaboudit. Japan and, especially South Korea, are growing quite tired of the US treating them like "satellite states". The Asian financial crisis of 1997 really drove a wedge between the US and this region, because the US was (rightfully, IMHO) seen as forcing currency speculation down the throats of East Asia for its own benefit. And the NK/SK situation doesn't help us either -- we're widely seen as increasing animosity when the two countries really want to bridge their differences. China is exercising its newfound economic muscle, and its export-driven policies continue to gut the US manufacturing sector.

In short, the only ally the US can really count on anymore is Britain -- and that doesn't matter because the UK is considerably weaker, economically-speaking, than either France or Germany; and there's now no real chance of the UK taking a leadership role in the EU, like France and Germany have done.

In short, Kerry will have pressure to INCREASE militarism at home while facing staunch and increasing opposition to it abroad. Increasing reliance on a finance-driven economy will only exacerbate economic problems here at home as more of the economy leaves for more export-driven China and India. Increasing dissent will result in calls for curtailment of civil liberties at home.

The main difference between the two is that all of this will be in hyperdrive under Bush, because he'll actually seek to accelerate it. I don't think that Kerry will necessarily WANT all of this to happen -- I just, sadly, see him as mostly powerless to do anything to really stop it.

I think world opinion of the US can and will turn on a dime. Just look at Eisenhower/Kennedy for the perfect example of that. Under Eisenhower, the US was pretty much hated as never before. VP Richard Nixon was almost killed by an anti-American mob in Caracas, for instance. Kennedy changed that overnight. I think most people agree he was regarded almost as a living saint in much of the world, especially the Third World, especially Latin America. Was he a living saint? Well, no. But the point is that public opinion everwhere is fickle, especially when it concerns the United States.

... but in this instance, you will be wrong. ;-)

Eisenhower and Nixon didn't pull the kind of shit that Bush and Cheney have. Nowhere close. Plus, all of Ike's stuff was done under the auspices of the Cold War. Right now, what we're going through isn't the "War on Terror" -- it's simply the blowback from what we did during the Cold War.

Perhaps we could have stopped this had we scaled back to a large degree our military presence around the world after the fall of the USSR. But we didn't -- which immediately brought into question the reasons why we had established such a far-flung military "footprint" in the first place. If it were truly for countering the Soviet "menace", then we would have dismantled it.

Couple this reality with what is perceived in many other parts of the world as US manipulation of global finance and commerce to its own ends through the IMF and World Bank. When we insist, through the IMF, that Indonesia adopt austerity measures -- it results in a lot of people being thrown into poverty. When we insisted that East Asian nations open up their markets to currency speculation -- and that then threw their economies into a dive -- they don't forget those kinds of things.

If you put all of these things together, it immediately results in the rest of the world questioning what our true motives ARE. Are they really freedom and democracy -- or are they empire?

All that the neoconservatives did was to rip the mask off of our true face of empire. Hell, just look at how the word was never mentioned out loud before (outside of the likes of Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti) -- to it being spoken of favorably in the paper of record, the NY Times (remember that article by Michael Ignatieff?).

The rest of the world has seen us for what we truly are, and they don't like it. And unlike during the time of the Cold War, the nations of the European Union and East Asia have developed to the point that they can actually challenge our claim to world leadership. But it really matters little, for our empire will simply crumble under its own weight should we choose not to dismantle it. The only question is how many of us will be crushed by the debris.

Well, actually, Nixon did nothing as Vice President so you can say it was all Eisenhower. But under Ike, the US did a hell of a lot of shenanigans not exactly popular in the Third World. You know, like support dictators the world 'round, ignore the Soviet invasion of Hungary, overthrow Mossadegh and Lumumba, etc.

I don't exactly think your description of IMF/World Bank is entirely accurate. While both have made significant mistakes, they're hardly the demons they're made out to be, and they are both extremely and necessary proponents of international stability and third world progress. Reform is the answer.

While you are right that Iran, Guatemala, Zaire, etc. all occurred under Ike's watch -- I seem to remember a Democratic President named Truman who actually browbeat the French to re-assert themselves in a little place named Vietnam. I also remember a Democratic President named Johnson seriously escalating things there into a full-blown war.

While we're at it, I remember a National Security Advisor with the initials ZB who actually instigated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by backing some Islamic fundamentalists -- and then bragged about its success. I don't hear him bragging too much now about the "blowback" from that operation....

The key here is that it has been our foreign policy over the years to stick our fingers into a whole bunch of pies all over the globe. While sometimes the finger has been just a pinky poke, while others we've tried to grab a whole fistful (as in Vietnam), the trend is still clear.

WRT the IMF and WB, I don't think you completely know how those organizations operate. They might have been designed for noble ends (I believe that Keynes was a big proponent of the IMF) -- but the fact is that they are both (the IMF more so) pretty much controlled by the US Treasury. The US alone has veto power within the IMF. Expecting them to "reform" given the power structures in play is like expecting a band aid to be effective treatment for gangrene.

Eisenhower was the real force who supported intervention in Vietnam. In fact, it was on his watch that the first US "advisers" were deployed there. And I wouldn't list LBJ as being too popular overseas either. But Kennedy sure was.

I'm not sure I understand why you bring up Afghanistan and US support for the Mujehedin. My point isn't that specific US policies are good or bad, its that world opinion of the US is fickle and very much dependent on the kind of leadership exhibited by the current occupant of the White House.

They might have been designed for noble ends (I believe that Keynes was a big proponent of the IMF) -- but the fact is that they are both (the IMF more so) pretty much controlled by the US Treasury. The US alone has veto power within the IMF. Expecting them to "reform" given the power structures in play is like expecting a band aid to be effective treatment for gangrene.

I don't think we really disagree on that. Of course both are largely controlled by the US Treasury. So what? They're still capable of reforming, and both, while flawed, have still managed to do a lot of good. Oh, and they're both more necessary now than ever.

FDR had actually made overtures to Ho Chi Minh, and support for his bid for independence. After FDR's death, Truman cut off contact with Ho. After WWII, Truman basically told the French that they'd better get their asses back in there and re-establish authority.

The French stayed until Dienbienphu, and then decided they'd had enough. That's when Eisenhower increased the US role.

So, Eisenhower was the one who increased the US role, more than anything out of circumstances of timing. But it was Truman who set the ball rolling on this one with his stubborn insistence on supporting the Imperialism of England, France and the Dutch under the guise of "cold warriorism". Had Dienbienphu happened under Truman's watch, you can be damned sure that he would have committed us to Vietnam at least as much as Eisenhower did.

Ho made overtures to FDR, which were, for whatever reason, ignored.

Truman did back the French, as he was a Cold Warrior, but I don't think its really fair to say that Truman was internationally unpopular. Remember, under Truman the US supported Vietnam's right to self-determination which combined a crack-down on the Communists with independence and democracy. It was only Eisenhower who supported South Vietnam's cancelation of the promised vote.

You're right that FDR did not make overtures to Ho. I misspoke. Ho made overtures to FDR, and Ho was actually given OSS clearance (since he had fought the Japanese) for a brief period until the end of WWII. However, it is probably important to note that Ho's clearance actually came AFTER FDR's death.

However, it is still widely regarded that FDR may have been open to supporting Ho's Viet Minh nationalist movement. Whether that is entirely true or not, we will never know. What we DO know, however, is that Truman immediately broke off contact with Ho and prodded the French to re-assert themselves in Indochina.

And the "promise" of "democracy" was most likely little different than the "democracy" we promised any other former colonies at that time -- democracy on the terms of the United States. When viewed in the broader context of US foreign policy toward nationalist movements in the Cold War, the cancelling of elections is still completely in character.

You're right that Kennedy was popular around the world. It's also important to note that he was killed, and we really don't know by whom (unless you actually BELIEVE the magic bullet theory). It certainly couldn't have been because he tried to push against the MIC/FBI/CIA/mob, could it? :tinfoilhat:

I believe Jack Kennedy was shot by one gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, working alone. I think the facts support that assertion. I also believe that this is not germane to the original claim, which was that while US policy can be right or wrong, the reputation of America is almost only reflective of the repuation of the current Administration. If you have a popular Administration, America will be popular. If the Administration's positions are not internationally popular, America won't be. Simple enough.

... and see where things are. :shrug:

BTW, the magic bullet is called "magic" because it defies the laws of physics. But if it helps you to sleep better at night, then by all means embrace it. It's not like we ever WILL know any different, anyway....

No wonder you believe the DLC's line of crap. Oswald acted alone, and Hinkley really wanted to impress Jodie Foster :eyes:

I actually have little use for the DLC.

However I also believe that Hinkley really wanted to impress Jodie Foster.

What is your goal? Why are you pretending that wanting the support of allies is the same thing as 'continuing the crusade'?

:silly::eyes::silly::eyes:

What a great "point."

:puke:

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

You got confused again because you didn't understand the post.

but I took the quote to mean that Kerry meant that nobody has a choice anymore- everyone needs to stay there, get Iraq cleaned up as well as we can at this point in the debacle, and then get the hell out.

I have a few ideas, but normally I reserve them for when speaking of conservative pundits.

PS - Even Carol Moseley Braun expressed this exact sentiment. If she ain't a GOP creep, I don't know who is...

for exercising their right to vote. That's far different from asking a leader to see this debacle through. It does not help the people of the world to walk away now that we have created a mess. Spain was partner to creating this and DK has said he wouldn't just walk away from it now. The spanish leader could use some lessons in diplomacy also it appears.

The problem isn't with the Spanish voters, who justly voted against a government that had handled the Madrid bombing with incredible incomptence and had lied repeatedly about it to the Spanish people. The problem is with Zapatero who has apparently fumbled a tremendous opportunity to bring Spain together, and is instead pulling it apart with childish and irresponsible rhetoric.

I would rather see Zapatero on the ballot than Kerry.

Shiites and Sunni worshippers join forces in a large protest in Baghdad against the American occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) following the traditional Friday noon prayer, Friday, March 19, 2004. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

every poll shows that while Iraqis are not exactly welcoming of the American presence, few want a withdrawal just right now. And that's consistent with everything we see on the ground - namely the threat of an imminent civil war.

I'd like to know who conducted them, what the questions were, what the sample size was, and what the MOE was, before giving ANY credence to ANY poll.

re: Civil war, do you want our soldiers over there in the middle of it? It's coming either way. And our soldiers are great big targets because of official US policy over the last 12 years.

Giving up control of the profits (spoils), and turning this over to the UN ASAP is becoming urgent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1253521#1254252

I guess they just don't know what's good for them :shrug:

Polls I've seen since last summer have shown what you say to be true. It used to be as high as 75% and is lower now.

This is from February 2004 (Pdf)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

The situation is very complex, but Iraqis seem not to want the coalition troops to leave until the situation is straightened out and they have security. They do want their own government, of course, but they don't want even more chaos or a civil war or a religious government. They do want a democratic government.

If THE JOB is rebuilding Iraq...then what's the problem?
Turning it over to an ill equipped force certainly does not meet the criteria for global reponsibility which was, of course, breeched when the war started...either way, I trust Kerry a lot more than Bush to meet this goal.

While Spain is intent in pulling out, it is probably NOT a wise thing to do in response to a terrorist attack...it communicates "terrorize us again the next time you want something."

as Bush - is completion of the US project: placing Iraq - with all its resources - under US control. That's what "get the job done" means. I can call it a 'crusade' if I feel like it. (Actually, it's a Tip o' the Hat to DUer DuctapeFatwa, who originated the term. It's so good, it's irresistible.)

You want "dishonest?" - OK, that would be you, for using the word "rebuilding." That's a euphemism, useful for its connotations of pleasant, constructive, & helpful. The euphemism is used to paper over what's really "imperialism," or "taking over," in plain language.

Between you, DF and others...I can only hope the poor help themselves...because you all have done your best to divide the left to the point of digging a hole in hell for them.

There was no difference between Bush and Gore and the people you claimed to help got royally fucked.

Now we are rerunning the script on Bush and Kerry...it must be hell fucking over the most vulnerable from your intellectual lookout all the while pretending to be an advocate.

and when you point out a difference, they say "It means the same thing. There's no difference"

I have sympathy for some of what you're talking about. But by accepting Kerry, you're accepting a terribly compromised package. I insist on hearing at least a very substantial amount of truth, or I'm not going to accept a given package. Kucinich spoke the truth; I worked for him; I supported him with enthusiasm, even though he's a Democrat, & I don't respect many Democrats. But Kerry is no Kucinich.

You accuse me of "fucking over the most vulnerable." I think the real harm to them comes from treacherous political tendencies - such as the Democratic Party, which has now managed to select as its standard bearer someone as compromised as Kerry. Try to remember how ashamed of this country you felt one year ago today -- then try to get you mind around the fact that the party you support has nominated someone who voted for the IWR and is basically onboard for "success" in the occupation. This nomination is a colossal betrayal of all principle; it is a clear declaration to the world: "We are desperate. We are confused. We don't know what we stand for, but we are willing to go along with the worst of US militarism."

We're so lucky to have RichM to tell us what the truth is.

You accuse me of "fucking over the most vulnerable." I think the real harm to them comes from treacherous political tendencies

And what do you know about the poor, RichM? Both you and DuctTapeFatwa talk about them as if they are a major concern of yours, so I'd be interested in hearing what sort of experiences you've had working with the poor, so we can assess your expertise and credibility on issue concerning the poor.

Here's your chance to shine RichM. Will you take it, or will you fail to respond yet again?

anything that doesn't match up to their paradigm. Unlike you, I wallowed for a long time with my own disappointment in the fact that the vote may have been purely political. I argued with myseld back and forth over it. I heard what others had to say. I came to my conclusions about his vote and whether I could forgive it by careful thought and I DO forgive it. YOu can't forgive it because in your righteousness you must hang onto it.....for it to be any other way you might have to admit you aren't 100% accurate.

YOu require a substantial amount of truth as long as it agrees with you. If it doesn't, you no longer require truth..you DID demonstrate that above in the thread in your exchange with Chris.

I find the nomination no MORE a colossal betrayal of principle than I find your positions to be a colossal betrayal of principle. It is a betrayal to claim tobe an intellect and then spin or rename anything that does not fit neatly into your version of things.

I insist on hearing at least a very substantial amount of truth, or I'm not going to accept a given package.

And if your choice is only between two packages, then you have to choose one or the other. Even if you try to take the "principled road" and not choose between those two choices, you are STILL choosing between them.

Furthermore, this isn't about YOU and what YOU insist on -- it is about US, and about those who stand to bear the REAL consequences of the very slight differences you perceive from your perch -- it is about which of these is literally the "lesser of two evils".

So, between Kerry, with all of his flaws; or Bush, who is just beyond the pale -- which one are you going to choose?

Kucinich spoke the truth; I worked for him; I supported him with enthusiasm, even though he's a Democrat, & I don't respect many Democrats. But Kerry is no Kucinich.

I supported and voted for Kucinich as well, and Kerry is no Kucinich. But Kucinich didn't win, and although he did affect the debate, he isn't going to be the nominee. That means, you have to move on and look to the future -- and Kerry is the nominee in that upcoming election.

I think the real harm to them comes from treacherous political tendencies - such as the Democratic Party, which has now managed to select as its standard bearer someone as compromised as Kerry.

No, the real danger to them is from those who cannot recognize the need to act strategically in some situations, and to stand for principle in others. The key is knowing the difference between these situations.

In a series of letters to The Nation following the death of fmr Sen. Paul Simon, a letter-writer told of working for Sen. Simon for a period of time. On one trip through Washington DC, they saw a homeless man sleeping on the street. The writer said he saw the Senator's face turn into an angry frown and he said, "That will always be the legacy of the Reagan administration."

The moral of this? What you or I perceive as imperceptible differences between Bush and Kerry in some areas can actually be enormous differences in others. If you want to be an advocate for those less well-off, you have to start by doing what is necessary in the short-term to stave off greater suffering. If that means swallowing your self-righteous pride and voting for John Kerry, then that's what you do. Otherwise, you are sacrificing THEM for YOUR goals and ideals, and an advocate doesn't do that.

Try to remember how ashamed of this country you felt one year ago today -- then try to get you mind around the fact that the party you support has nominated someone who voted for the IWR and is basically onboard for "success" in the occupation.

I remember it well. I also remember that JK co-sponsored Clean Elections with Paul Wellstone. I remember that he fought for higher fuel efficiency standards. I remember all the times he has called for an Apollo Project on energy. Am I happy about his IWR vote? Hardly. But it doesn't cancel out everything else he's ever done.

This nomination is a colossal betrayal of all principle...

No it isn't. See above. The real betrayal of principle has been going on for quite some time now (I'd say since shortly after the founding of the country) and you can't expect to eliminate all of that in one fell swoop.

...it is a clear declaration to the world: "We are desperate. We are confused. We don't know what we stand for, but we are willing to go along with the worst of US militarism."

Sadly, that is the spirit of the American People. It is up to US to wake them up to the reality that they have had an empire thrust upon them that they never asked for, that they are now being told to pay for with blood, sweat and livelihoods.

that my big-picture analysis is not very different from yours - so if mine is "false," yours may also be in trouble!

Here are some points of difference, however:

First, you talk about the actual Kerry-or-Bush voting question. To me, this is not a major issue. If the election looks close, and my state looks close, I may or may not decide to hold my nose and vote for Kerry. In any case, I certainly understand the position of those who decide to vote for him, on grounds that he's the lesser evil.

What I'm most opposed to is not the decision of some to vote for him. It's the propagation of the idea that he's anything other than the lesser evil. I am comfortable hearing people express willingness to vote for him the way Chomsky did -- making clear that the choice is almost loathesome in its restrictiveness.

More than caring whether or not people wind up voting for this compromised nominee, I want people to become far more aware of the inherent treachery of the Democratic Party, & of how the 2-party system serves as an instrument of class control. The position "Kerry stinks, but I feel forced to vote for him" is acceptable to me. The position "He's a wonderful candidate, & will be a great president" is unacceptable to me, because it propagates dangerous delusions about the Democratic Party. I see the Dem Party as an institution whose social function is the siphoning off of well-intentioned energy into dead ends. This institution serves the ruling class just as much as the Republican Party does - it just serves it in a different way.

I agree with your remark that "The real betrayal of principle has been going on for quite some time now (I'd say since shortly after the founding of the country)." However, I still firmly believe, as I posted above, that "This nomination is a colossal betrayal of all principle."

By informing people that they're wrong to think Kerry is a good candidate?

Well then maybe you should come up with a more persuasive argument than "Kerry said something that sounded vaguely Republican"

see that, it is clear that his worldview and judgement are so fundamentally flawed that talking about differences between him and bush is like talking about angels on the head of a pin.

Bush.

Bush could have and would have gone to war no matter how Kerry voted. I'm VERY CONCERNED about people who can't see that.

for *his* vote. I am worried about people who can't see *that.* Jeezus Christ, i don't care what the rest of the mob is doing; i do not base my standards of behavior on what other people do, and in the final analysis i and only i am responsible for my choices and actions. It is really weak to try to justify kerry's vote on the ground the everybody else was doing it, or bush would have had the war anyway. I remember that vote well, and it was known to all that it was a vote for war; talk about 'requirements to go to the UN' are just so much ass-covering. Maybe 50 years from now when most people have long since forgotten the details, that spin might fly, but it is not going to work today.

during closed door hearings in SOME cases by agents who he would have probably felt were credible given his LONG history on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I would NOT have wanted to be IN HIS SHOES.

Call it ass-covering or whatever you wish to call it. In the FINAL analysis we ALL have to live with ourselves and our actions...I do..you do..and Kerry has to live with his...NOW as a LIBERAL..knowing that ONE OF TWO people will end up president under the TRIED AND TRUE LIKELY SCENARIO next November...can you LIVE with repeatedly SLAMMING Kerry for a war George Bush would have gotten us into anyway knowing HOW MUCH IS ON THE LINE?

Maybe 50 years from now you'll look back and notice how EXTREME you were in your PURITY..how it actually HARMED the people you THINK you MIGHT BE HELPING and how it really didn't WORK to divide the entire LEFT over a war that would ahve taken place regardless.

reached the conclusion that the democratic party (and this whole country) is hopelessly lost and going in the wrong direction, and i should not encourage the dem party to continue going in the wrong direction. Btw, i have already 'hurt people' by voting for two dem senators who voted for the war! Frankly, i think it's time that i stopped 'hurting people' and voted for someone who will actually turn this country around and give it back to the people. We are all responsible for our own votes (just like john kerry is); i will not justify my vote on the basis of how other people vote.

It wasn't a vote for war. That is a something that those who need these talking points to attack Kerry will never acknowledge.
No one denies that Kerry is responsible for his vote and I highly doubt that the poster justfied Kerry's vote "on the ground everybody else was doing it".
But he is not responsible for the way the Bush Admin handled that war.
Kerry wanted UN inspections and for the case that nothing else works, if he wanted an international coalition. That is how he explained his vote.

It's ironic how you accuse those who dissent with your view of spinning though as your interpretation of Kerry's vote is clearly a distortion of his own explanation.

politics. Sure, there were many (dems) such as kerry and clinton, saying essentially "I'm voting for the resolution in order to avoid war." Whatever. The troops were already being amassed in Kuwait. It was understood that the IWR was the congressional stamp of approval for war. Some congressmembers wanted that 'yes' vote on the record, while at the same time having the obfuscating, eqivocating quotes to fall back on in case the war went bad. That's standard operating procedure.

If you'll recall, it was clear at the time that nothing Sadaam could do was going to stop this war. The UN inspections route was not even an option (in terms of actually heading off the war) because you can't prove something *doesn't* exist. I ask you, what is a realistic scenario in which the UN could have prevented this war? Fact is, the only ones who could have stopped it were the american people and their congressional representatives. That didn't happen, and our nominee bears his share of the responsibility for not trying to stop it.

so don't expect RichM to explain. Expect him to repeat

(Even though up above, RichM admits he doesn't think Kerry really meant that he wanted to stay in Iraq, RichM continues to argue that Kerry meant what he said, except when he says "reconstruction" which RichM knows really means "crusade".)

I'm sure there's a good paying job waiting for him on one side of the aisle or another after he becomes persuasive enough.

A good propogandist knows how to respond to arguments without showing his hand. RichM doesn't know how to respond to arguments so he usually just takes a powder when things get rough.

Look at the top of the thread, where Irate Citizen and others explain what Kerry really meant. RichM agrees without acknowledging his mistake, and then goes on to complain that Kerry isn't telling the truth.

IOW, RichM didn't like it when he thought Kerry was telling the truth. Then, when RichM realized it was just political rhetoric, he decided to not like it because it was NOT the truth.

Someone with a facility in propoganda would know better than to contradict themselves so transparently. If RIchM is looking for a job, I suggest he practice saying "Would you like to super-size that?"

then why do you insist on words like "crusade" and "imperialism"? Why not call it "rebuilding"?

with the buzz word....after all, we need to make sure people realize there's no difference between Bush and Kerry...in order to do that, we need the RichM Berlitz Dictionary so that if Kerry states the opposite of Bush people cn be reassured that there is still no difference....he references Ductape Fatwa as the one informing his rhetoric in the matter and then accuses ME of dishonesty??? Pffffft.

that "crusade" and "imperialism" isn't going to get them what they want either

... and what exactly is it that "they" want?

who want the candidates to do whatever the fringe thinks they should do.

it seems to be mobile from day to day...in this thread THE don't want empire or a crusade but want us to pull out of Iraq which will simply lead to a different crusade..they (Rich) want honesty but not if it means they need to demonstrate any...they want a shoice but every time you point out that there ARE differences..THEY will simply pave over the differences with rhetoric in order to CLING to their righteous belief that there IS no choice...

you KNOW I am no right winger but I must say..these discussion are so free from any real compromise when they occur that it is pretty clear to ME that THEY want the same autoritarian power that the right has only THEY want it from the left....the only thing that changes is the direction that the shit gets flung at you from.

Which is why they can never describe Kerry's winning the nomination as being the result of an election. Instead it's "the media picked Kerry" or "the DLC picked Kerry"

They hate us for our freedoms! :-)

Jan Michael to be one of the most thoughtful posters on DU...one who questions and can stand in the face of disagreement well.

I myself prefer Social Democracy over straight unadulterated capitalism as I feel it is the most humane form of government.
What PAINS me is that the right and the left EACH have rhetorical devices designed TO SCARE people over to their way of thinking...and therein lies the rub.,.don't claim you want honesty when you are in fact willing to use similar rhetorical devices to get what you want...and it would be nice if one could DISCERN what they want in the first place because I am clear that while Rich wants what HE wants...another person engaging similar rhetorical devices as RICH will have a completely different ransom.

I don't discredit leftists. Just the fringe who seem to think it's their way or the highway. JanMichael is not alone in being a thoughtful and intelligent leftist. There's also MSreader, and many others including (I suspect) IrateCitizen, who has been known to write an interesting post or two.

right

defense, or defending others from imminent harm; and i don't want either of those conditions to be used as a cover for ulterior motives. i.e., i'll give you some food if you accept jesus. Is that too much to ask? Is it too much to ask that America not kill people in a moment of mad mob-hysteria 'just in case, well, you never know, they might be thinking about preparing to do something to america some day.' If that is too much to ask of the democratic nominee, then really, why bother being a democrat? Secondly, whether you call it rebuilding or a crusade, it doesn't matter, cuz neither one is going to end successfully. No way is any Arab country going to let the Great Satan come in and impose a new and alien government on them.

interview from a local LIBERAL professor from Global Justice speaking who indicated that AFTER Saddam was deposed the majority of the population WAS supportive but for certain areas such as Fallulah...this was a LIBERAL that had gone to Iraq as an observer..he pointed out the violence ratcheted up as the private contracts were being vetted as well as the NGO's there not getting the job done such as Creative Associates who went over to rebuild the schools and have done it on a VERY MINOR budget with dismal results.

I agree that the MANNER in which we went to war under false pretenses was unjust....but that is no different than the first Gulf War in which Saddam was actually baited to go into Kuwait.


But I DO promise you this...your answer to my question is CLEARLY not enough for some and if we asked 20 more who claim to share your ideology, we would get 20 different answers and if we asked what ONE thing they would be willing to compromise on, we would get 20 MORE answers and still no consensus.

ouster with wanting america to stay and occupy the country. Also, it doesn't take all that many jihadists to make the reconstruction absolutely unworkable. I speak a little Arabic and i have been monitoring various Arab news sources since well before the war, and i can tell you that the notion that we are on a crusade (war of the cross, as they call it) is far from being an idea that is only held by a radical fringe. Most Americans also have no idea how obsessed the entire Arab world is with Isreal's 'occupation' of palestinian land, and our invasion and occupation of iraq fit perfectly into their preconceived belief that there is an Israeli-American conspiracy to control arab lands and resources and to desstroy Islam. Add in the ethnic divisions of Iraq, and IMO, there is no way that this war could have turned out any differently than it has. (And it will not be gatting better any time soon.)

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

and instead, offers another personal attack

Another baseless assumption which is pretty much all you can present in your posts.
Insults can't make up for lack of arguments. You have to resort to that poor strategy as your are yet again losing the argument.
It's quite pitiful actually.

If you're relying on adhominem attacks, your positions are weaker than i thought.

One group who claimed responsibility in Spain said that they would cease their operations to see if the new president there withdraws troops. The effect of that withdrawal would put a further burden on our soldiers and appease the stated aims of the terrorists. I believe that that is the pattern that will play out in Iraq in the coming months. Terrorists will escalate their violence to turn public opinion against Bush to force his hand and attempt to thereby legitimize the terror attacks as some sort of regional nationalism against U.S. imperialism. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as desirable as it may sound, will only embolden those who would terrorize to achieve these aims.

Another attack on the U.S. is almost certain, likely before our presidential election. The effect of such an attack would be an increased national anxiety about our vulnerability to terrorism and a demand for a strong response. There was a unanimity between parties in our response to 9-11 and I expect that to always occur. If an attack happens, Kerry must be seen as cooperating with Bush in responding to the threat in order to present a unified front and to prevent the terrorists from creating an advantage from their violence.

Americans expect to prevail over those forces that bedevil us and threaten our security. At the same time we expect our leaders to be guileless in the exercise of our unassailable defenses. If we get in a jam, Americans will expect our leaders to work together. That means Kerry and Bush. That means us.

Democrats can't allow themselves to be seen as echoing the demands of these terror forces in advocating the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, nor can they risk having their dissension adopted as the battle cry for some subversive bent on killing Americans or our allies in the name of Iraqi liberation. Further, if we turn our backs now and run without establishing an international transition of forces in Iraq, there is a good chance that those outside terror agents will find a new home in the security vacuum created by our absence. Our concern for Iraq's soverignty should also extend to a concern for post-invasion Iraq's establishment of a stable governing authority. That is the rationale for gradual withdrawal and internationalization as opposed to cut and run.

Kerry and the rest of us have to deal with the world as it presents itself to us now. There is new dynamic in the recent terror attacks that mocks pacifism. There are murderers in the world who don't care what our foreign policy positions are. They are bent on killing Americans and those who support us. There are plenty of forces out there who want us to fall down, slink home and hide. I don't happen to believe that the U.S. is the greatest evil in the world. I assert that the U.S. is largely responsible for most of the vestiges of peace and freedom that currently exist around the globe and deserves credit for its efforts and for the alliances that have kept many destructive regimes and their potential for destabilizing violence at bay. That legacy must be maintained and defended.

That is a position that flies in the face of pacifism, but America is not a pacifist nation. Americans expect to prevail over those forces that bedevil us and threaten our security.

I'd say there's a lot of excellent reasoning & all, but am I the only one that gets the feeling a lot of it is spin to try to rationalize the validity of Kerry saying something that if a republican had said it everyone here, and I do mean everyone, would have disagreed with?

I'm exaggerating this feeling of mine slightly in order to make a point. There's a lot of people out there in the country (they're unlikely to be here on this discussion board or any political discussion board for that matter) who are conscientious, good people who get completely turned off by this kind of stuff and it often leads them to tune it all out and to not vote.
They think (rightly or wrongly) because of this type of discourse when they do happen to tune in to it, that the politicos don't have any real convictions, but just like to go back and forth one upping each other.

These are the people we have to reach.

voted due to the WAR vote (while it is MUCH more likely the results were so OVERWHELMING because Anzar LIED about the ETA) that it MAKES a country vulnerable to more terrorism ...it's like saying "the next time you want something, remember to bomb us again!"

It is clear it was the PM's desire to pull out PRIOR to the vote and the bombings, but it is NOW being FRAMED in large part DUE to his own words as though the pulling out is DUE to the bombings.

presupposes that folks can't think for themselves.

The post said nothing about people being "mere apologists for Kerry". It said that a lot of people were doing what they could to try and rationalize what Kerry said, when if it were a RWer saying it we'd all be up in arms.

Now, in the spirit of good debate and sportsmanship, do you want to analyze the point that was made -- or are you content to misconstrue it into whatever you want in order to make your point?

While 56kid didn't call anyone an apologist, saying that people are "rationalizing" Kerry's statement, and that we would denounce the statement if it came from a Repuke, is about as close as one could get to calling someone an apologist without actually doing it.

Both suggest that the people defending Kerry don't really beleive what they're saying. Both suggest that the statement itself is indefensible.

The big difference between the two, IMHO, is that to call people mere apologists is to accuse them of being duped.

OTOH, to state that people are trying to rationalize what may be perceived as some as a questionable statement (whether you agree with them or not) could mean that you really want to like Kerry so much and pull for him and beat Bush, that you construct justifications in your mind for ideas that might not be that great.

I'm not saying what my OPINION is one way or the other. I'm simply stating the implied difference between calling someone an "apologist" and saying that they may be "rationalizing".

Remember, the first rule to building coalitions should be to NOT immediately look for difference and pounce on it, but to probe for convergence and seize it.

IMO, an apologist knows that it's wrong but looks for reasons to argue that it's right. It's always seemed to me that the word apologist has a connotation of dishonesty.

It seems you see the word as indicating the speaker doesn't know that it's wrong (ie "duped") and the rationalization is the result of their sympathy to the candidate, and not dishonesty.

To be honest, I'm not sure who's right. I'm going to check out dictionary.com

on edit: I'm back, and according www.dictionary.com the word does not imply dishonesty.

Go to post #100 and see what 56kid says his/her intent was.

what's the proper reaction to the fact that we all are biased to some degree? The way I see it, either way the best course of action is to make your arguments as best you can, and then see if someone can knock them down.

"Remember, the first rule to building coalitions should be to NOT immediately look for difference and pounce on it, but to probe for convergence and seize it."

:)
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO

:)

So, no I'm not calling anyone an apologist.
I don't mean at all that people don't believe what they're saying.
I believe that there is a conscious and an unconscious and that the self is multiple and that we can believe conflicting things, that's what I was trying to get at.
It was not supposed to be an attack, sorry if it came across that way.

I read some of your subsequent responses, and I now understand that you were trying to portray how the debate might APPEAR to others.

why deflect past my first post to parse words? What abut the issue at hand? Spain's immediate withdrawal from Iraq and the resulting increased danger to our forces, the destabilizing effect on the future soverignty of Iraq and the introduction of radical influences that a power vacuum would cause, the appeasement of terrorists whose stated aim is our immediate withdrawal, the ned to internationalize the transfer of power there which means more forces like Spain assuming a greater role there?

... and you'll see where I stand. I'm not going to waste time restating things just because you entered the game in the 4th quarter and suddenly want a recap of every play from the first three.

Then, if you have specific questions for me, I'll be glad to answer them.

I put forth my view and expanded on it.

You jumped on me for declaring that folks could think for themselves and shouldnt be dismissed out of hand as apologists (n. ones who make an apology: ones who speak or write in defense of a doctrine, faith, action, etc.,) who don't actually have their own views on the underlying issues.

I wasn't cursorily dismissing. I was trying to describe how I think a lot of other people would perceive the different posters. People that it would be good to get energized enough to care to vote.

Also even if I think a poster is an apologist, that in no way means that I think that they can't think for themselves. In any way at all.
I'm not sure where you're getting that as a presupposition.

Anyone who has gone to the trouble to type out "excellent reasoning" which is the phrase I used , is obviously thinking for themselves quite well.

than from the right wing..I need to look no further than all the funders of the AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE who are benefiting from the war in Iraq and where their campaign contributions go to discern INTENT in a statement coming from a Republican versus Kerry.

Yes, I do think intent has a lot to do with it.

In the original quote though, there was no way of knowing the intent of the speaker. That's related to the point I was trying to make. That people might change their view of the statement once they had placed it in the context of Who said it.

It is necessary to understand the context of the statement, it is dangerous to separate a statement out from its context.

to go back to the apologist question -- For me, if I called someone an apologist, I would be saying that they have the definite conscious intent to obfuscate. I don't think that's what's going on in this thread.

apologist is not a dirty word, has nothing to do with obfuscation, has everything to do with advocating, and was used by me to point up your dismissal of posters as mere advocates for Kerry as if that was their only motivation and concern.

I do.
Get over it sounds so meee-e-e-an.
Ok I'm over it now.
No hard feelings I hope.

Actually I think apologist is a dirty word, but if you don't fine.
Be aware that some people do though, the next time you use it.

since the new PM claims he intended to pull our PRIOR to the trains being bombed:

Rich's statement:
Give up? You will note that the speaker seems quite determined to continue the crusade, n'est-ce pas? He is sternly lecturing the new socialist prime minister of Spain, letting him know what Spain's responsibilites are, to contribute manpower in support of US military seizures of other countries. The tone is one of lecturing arrogance, thoroughly supportive of US militarism & the project of US global dominance. The speaker doesn't say that the new Spanish government has the right to make its own decisions, and he expresses no respect for the fact that Spanish voters threw out the Aznar government, PRECISELY because they found the US crusade so repulsive, & despised their own government's complicity in it.


Rich doen't even tell the truth about why Aznar was thrown out...it was for LYING about the source of the attack and attempting a cover-up.

is the argument that Kerry's Iraq policy is just like Bush*'s because Kerry said something that sounded vaguely Republican once it had the context removed.

"Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes." -- Dave Barry

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

Read up.

Bush is considerably worse. He must be defeated, one way or another.

Ideological purity, in this case.

I wonder if they apply the same test to liquor.

Howard Dean quoting Ted Kennedy (he said) "Purity should not go to war against the good."

Definitely.

which I was at, that's where I heard it.
So it will be in the transcript and on DFA blog.
He also said that he will endorse Kerry soon.
Sounded like it would be within the week.

and he has no business being president.

Oh, it must be true because you say so.
Your other well thought out posts in that thread speak volumes.

on what kerry learned in Vietnam.

Kerry would knew best what he learnt. You claimed he learnt nothing which I think is a false assumption.
He firsthand learnt what war is really like. Which is something that several guys who send people to war don't know.
He might have learnt something about what it's like seeing your best friends die in a war. Or what it's like to live for months or years in an environment where you risk your life on a daily basis, where one mistake could be your last.
He probably learnt what it's like when people are sent into a war that possibly didn't have to be fought.
I can't really speak for Kerry but neither can you.

I had a problem with some of your phrases that more or less simplified important issues. Most of your posts here after the post I replied to, where you used more than one sentence to explain your opinions well, made you appear more calm and reasonable. They were indeed thought out, so I do retract my former statement in regards to these posts.

But since then, experience has finally triumphed over hope. And who needs to divide the left; it's already divided. I mean, would repugs ever even float the idea of a dem VP? Of course not. Some how they manage to keep their base *and* win the middle. And yes, you would think dems would have gotten their left covered after 2000, but sometimes it takes a while for lessons to be learned. But frankly, after 3 years of Bush (and total dem capitulation) i don't really care who wins in 2004.

Fidelity Southern Europe Fund losing value due to the inevitable loss of Spanish companies' reconstruction contracts if Spain pulls out of Iraq.