Kerry debates anti-war activist in New York

At a question-and-answer session at City College campus in Harlem, semi-retired math teacher Walter Daum accused Kerry -- a onetime anti-war activist -- of supporting an "imperialist war" in Iraq.

"You say you are a stark difference from George Bush," said the 64-year-old Daum. "People hate George Bush, but by the end of your presidency, they'll hate you for the same thing."

Kerry voted for the congressional resolution that gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq, but he said Bush "made a terrible mistake to take us to war the way that he did."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/14/kerry.iraq/

than the real suffering of the victims of this war.

in this unjust war for fucking oil and he will be redeployed next year under bush or kerry i thank walter daum for having the courage to stand up to kerry just like S.brian wilson a vet for peace http://www.brianwillson.com/awolkerry.html

Take this passage for example:

In late September 1986, you, along with some other Senators and Representatives, reluctantly supported the four veterans (myself being one of them) participating in the open-ended Veterans Fast For Life (VFFL) on the east steps of the Capitol building, protesting aid to the Contras. During that fast one of your fellow Senators, Warren Rudman (R-NH), stated in October 1986 that our "actions are hardly different than those of the terrorists who are holding our hostages in Beirut." Shortly thereafter, both our VFFL offices and separate housing accommodations were broken into with many files of our activities and addresses of supporters taken. The FBI initiated a "domestic terrorist" investigation of the members of the VFFL which was revealed later when an FBI agent refused to comply and was fired after nearly 22 years service in the agency.
http://www.brianwillson.com/awolkerry.html

Wilson admits that Kerry supported VFFL and then blames him for something Warren Rudman said, as well as what the FBI did. :eyes:

kerry never said it was ok to go to war for oil. kerry has the best record on the environment of anyone else in congress from the league of conservation voters. kerry supports investing in alternative energy sources and conservation. this would make oil less profitable. and would help a lot in terms of stopping wars over oil.

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
http://ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm

he never said to use force or go to war for oil.

Iraq has the 2nd largest reserve of oil. Unlike Bush, he's not a complete idiot. He knew what their motivations were. Both oil AND the PNAC agenda.

that still doesn't change the fact he never gave permission to go to war over oil.

for the purest of intentions, and where only the evil people die and suffer, and in the end, everyone lives happily ever after, and loves and respects America.

The UN voted to go to war with Iraq -- even though they didn't.

n/t

There was NEVER ONE SINGLE GOOD REASON for this war; not even if Sadaam had WMD, because he was no threat to us, and the war would only have *increased* the likelihood that those weapons would fall into the hands of terrorists. *And* the war aftermath would *inevitably* be chaos and a terrorist breeding ground. What in the hell was Kerry thinking? He was either exercising dangerously poor judgement, or he made a political decision to get people killed for votes (which is also dangerously poor judgement).

And actually fix the problem that would've happened regardless. Even if there had been a strong democratic opposition to the war, all that would've been needed for IWR to pass was Zell Miller and one other democrat. And had it not passed the 107th congress, the Republicans would have won quite a few more senate seats in the 2002 elections. Passage was inevitable and so was the war itself. The problem is that the right has used so many scare tactics after 9/11 that the American public would believe Bush when he told them that Kerry supports Saadam Hussein because he didn't vote for the IWR. The one thing I agree with the Republicans on regarding Kerry is that he is pretending to be conservative on certain issues. But unlike them, it doesn't really bother me.

I'm sorry, honey; Kerry *is* Bush, when it comes to the war. If you want to talk about some other issues where they differ, fine; but supporting kerry is not the way to show you care for Iraq war victims.

So far you have one vote that you have characterized in a different light than the person casting the vote.

Imagine if they gave the left paragraphs of space in every Bush article.

How is this guy a right winger?! WT! This is an attack on Kerry from the left, a good ways on the left I'd reckon.

Not the person questioning Kerry at the appearance.

The media almost always adds right wing comments to any Kerry related article, but they don't seem to do the same with Bush articles and the left.

Just another effort to stir up trouble on the Left flank with the professional whiners.

People here on DU like to blame anything under the Sun on Karl Rove. Good grief. Listen, dude, this is a legitimate issue to bring up with Kerry. A candidate's foreign policy is critical, yes? And there's certainly nothing wrong or nothing that would necessarily qualify this person as a "professional whiner" in his criticizing Kerry's foreign policy (or proposed foreign policy I guess).

...w/o even knowing it.

He's an old friend. The last thing in the world he would be is a Rove agent. But then, it seems some people here have a "with us or against us" mentality. So, I guess it really doesn't matter what the facts are, now does it?

Martin

Kerry's position on Iraq is much superior to that of Bush--end the American occupation, have US troops there ONLY as part of a UN authority. Bush is for a puppet government and eternal bases. Oh, and more wars, of course.

You've summed it up nicely.

Hold Kerry accountable once he's elected, but this is ridiculous- attacking him before anyone has a clue what Kerry will do. Hell, Kerry has no way of knowing. Iraq might be glass by November for all we know.

If Bush is playing the Lyndon Johnson role in this replay of Vietnam, then Kerry is playing Nixon's role with his plan to "de-Americanize" the war, which reminds those of us that do lived through the Vietnam era of Nixon's "Vietnamization."

This time next year, Iraq will be Kerry's war!

LBJ dragged this country into the Vietnam quagmire on the basis of lies. A subservient Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution with the same lack of balls that Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution.

Had LBJ not dropped out, he would have been defeated in the primaries.

Yes, he propagated an illegal murderous war in vietnam.
Yes, he should never have continued down that path.
BUT..... let's talk about what LBJ did do that this DICK would never do....
I'll just sum it up in two words: GREAT SOCIETY..... that may not mean much to anyone here.... but I work with kids who wouldn't eat, live indoors or have medical attention without what LBJ did.

I'll take LBJ over well.... almost anyone out there.

He was an old-time Democrat- but he was New-Dealer and socially Liberal on many issues too- like Civil rights- that was a pretty big deal...People can mischaracterize Democrats- but who knows- mabey St. Peter Let LBJ into heaven after all!!...

The only distortion is Kerry presenting himself as the candidate that will get us out of Iraq. He won't anymore than the war criminal Bush!

What are you going to say next year when people are still dying in Iraq, and President Kerry is telling the gullible that we must "stay the course" for the "sake of the fallen" and all the other lies that previous presidents have told us?

I am sure that you will still be defending Kerry, even as the casualties creep to Vietnam war levels.

Next year Iraq will be Kerry's war, and a Democratic war.

If you are getting sick of hearing me, fine. No one is forcing you to read my messages.

There would be an incredibly bloody civil war followed by the institution of either a theocratic Shi'ite dominated government or a theocratic Shia dominated government, and either one would quickly begin the ethnic cleansing of the other. Not to mention giving Bin Laden the chance to claim that his movement defeated the USSR and the USA, further encouraging them. There is no good way out of this situation, but the UN is far more respected in Iraq then the US, and if we turned civil control over to them there is a good chance we could regain support from the people. We have to at least try, we broke their government and if we don't fix it we will leave a power vacuum for anyone to fill. Not even Kucinich or Dean called for an immediate withdrawl of troops, they, like Kerry, want to turn Iraq over to the UN. It's just amazing, Kerry won't be elected for another 7 months and you're already calling him a war monger.

if we did pull out

Sounds like more justification for U.S. sponsored bloodshed.
The iraqis don't want to be occupied by the U.N. either.

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

it won't end up killing many innocent Iraqis.

Sounds like more justification for Iraqi sponsored bloodshed
The iraqis don't want to be killed by a US pullout.

to figure out the rest.

The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will just dance and sing Kumbya? Tensions are high between all three, with the Kurds wanting independence, and the Shiites and Sunnis both wanting full control of Iraq. Saddam massacured the Shiites and the Kurds, you think they've forgotten about that? Most of his government was Sunni, but I'm sure that everyone will forget past grudges now. Of course, this hatred far predates Saddam, going back to the 7th century, but once we're gone everything will be calm and peaceful. Just like when the USSR fell apart and the Serbs and Albanians finally put aside their ethnic conflicts, the removal of a strong man occupying a region with intense ethnic/religous hatred always leads to peace.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04262003/saturday/51421.asp

that civil wars also kill. Either that, or someone just doesn't care

He supported the war; he has never said the war itself was a mistake, only that bush 'mis-managed' it, and he has said that we're not getting out any time soon, and in fact he has said that we need to commit more troops over there. IOW, he plans to get a lot more people killed for a mistake.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0409-13.htm

Win Without War Proposes Emergency International Summit & Transfer of Management Authority to UN
Calls for End to US Military Occupation of Iraq
No Resolution in Iraq Possible as Long as US Retains Political Control


WASHINGTON - April 9 - Win Without War called today for an end to the US led military occupation of Iraq and for the United States to seek an immediate transfer of authority to the United Nations to oversee the transition to Iraqi self-rule. The mainstream coalition of 42 national organizations called for the convening of an emergency session of the UN Security Council and an international summit on Iraq.

“Our nation is in a death-spiral in Iraq that continues to be fueled by a stunning degree of arrogance and ignorance by our government,” said Win Without War National Director Tom Andrews. “From insulting our allies, dismissing the United Nations, declaring ‘Mission Accomplished’ last May, goading Iraqi insurgents to ‘Bring ‘em on!’ to shutting down a Baghdad newspaper ten days ago, it is clear that this government hasn’t a clue and that is has become a dangerous impediment to resolving the tragedy in Iraq.”

“There is no military solution in Iraq because we have lost legitimacy in the minds of Iraqis who perceive us as occupiers who plan to hand authority to a government we control and that will serve our interests,” Andrews said. “Our reliance on fire power simply pours gasoline onto a raging fire.”

“We are in a dangerous hole in Iraq and the first principle when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. The risk of civil war is growing, and it will intensify as the chaos deepens. The longer the US remains and attempts to impose its will by military force, the greater the danger that the situation will spin completely out of control,” said Robert Edgar, Win Without War Co-Chair and General Secretary of the National Council of Churches.

Win Without War called on the US to ask the UN to immediately convene an emergency session of the Security Council to increase its authority and address the immediate crises while setting a date for an international conference on Iraq. The international conference would include nations who opposed the US led invasion, following the model of the December 2001 Berlin conference that provided international support for the transition in Afghanistan. Germany, France and Russia have called on the UN to convene such an international conference.

A recent report by the International Crisis Group argued that “ultimate oversight responsibility for the political/constitutional process should be given to the UN . . . Such a transfer of responsibility from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the UN is required to endow both the governance and the constitutional processes with the necessary domestic and international legitimacy.”

Win Without War argued that the involvement of the UN would also provide valuable technical expertise.

“The UN has considerable experience in nation building and post-conflict political transitions—in Cambodia, Mozambique, Namibia, and East Timor—and it has played a key role in creating and assisting the transitional authority in Afghanistan. The UN’s knowledge of electoral and political transitions in war-torn countries could be helpful to Iraqi officials. The support of the UN will also ease the suspicions of those in the region and beyond who believe that the United States intends to dominate a future Iraqi government,” said Susan Shaer, Co-Chair of Win Without War and Executive Director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND.)

“Taking these steps does not mean abandoning American responsibilities,” said Robert Edgar. “As the occupying power the United States is bound by international law to guarantee the security and well being of the Iraqi people. The US will remain responsible for helping to finance humanitarian relief and economic reconstruction. Substantial US economic assistance will be necessary to facilitate Iraq’s economic recovery. These obligations will continue even after the transition process is complete and a fully representative elected government is established,” he said.

http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

From the September speech:

First, we need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding of Iraq and the development of its new Constitution and government – including the absorbing of the Coalition Provisional Authority. This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable to securing both troops and financial commitments from other countries.

The Bush Administration must stop stonewalling on the central question of control over reconstruction and governance. The United Nations knows how to do this. It’s done it before. In Namibia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor. Its record may not be perfect, but it is far more experienced in reconstruction and political transitions than the Pentagon. This is not a mission for soldiers, but for civilians. And putting the civilian side under UN authority will enhance the credibility and legitimacy of the effort and encourage other nations to provide much needed funding and technical assistance. The US should not act as if Iraq is an American prize, but treat it as a nation that belongs to the community of nations. Nor is it the booty of war – with contracts and concessions to be handed out by the Administration to favored companies that are less interested in winning the peace than in winning a piece of the pie.

Second, we need a new UN Security Council resolution authorizing a multi-national force under US command – a command that properly should be ours because we are the largest troop presence. We will not put 130,000 American troops under foreign command. But internationalizing the force and placing it under a UN umbrella will spread the burden globally, reduce the risks to our soldiers, and remove the specter of American occupation.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html

They reinforce the message that I've gotten from Kerry all along; maybe not the message he intends, but what I'm left with, all the same. I can see why so many on the left are distrustful and unhappy.

Kerry is playing for votes, which is, of course, his primary goal. He is playing to the fear of terror that the "average american" suffers. He's been pretty consistent with his meme: "It was the right thing to do, but Bush just did it the wrong way. He'll (Kerry) do it the 'right' way." That's fine, if you are trying to pacify the fearful. Or if you are trying to soothe the conscience of war-supporters who must, if they have a shred of conscience in their souls, be facing the possibility that they were wrong.

The voters who never supported the war to begin with; who weren't terrorized into supporting unnecessary military action, who weren't whipped into a frenzy in the need for revenge, who weren't afraid of Saddam, who saw that you actually promote, not destroy, terrorism by using your military or financial strength to bully or boss the world around, aren't going to be impressed with much of Kerry's rhetoric. So he throws in some ideas from Dennis dealing with "allies," and with the UN, to draw them along.

All of the campaign strategy aside, what I get from Kerry is that he supports using the US military to enforce US goals and to influence international relations. I don't think it is disloyal or disruptive for democrats who disagree with this to say so.

Isn't the more worrying thing the fact that Kerry hasn't got near an effective analysis of what's really wrong with US foreign policy (and has been wrong for about 80 years now). Namely that it reserves the right to hold foreign governments accountable for their actions (whether unilaterally or in conjunction with other western governments). Nor is there a renunciation of the criminal practice of interfering in other countries elections through the NED, already responsible for two coup d'etat's against elected governments in the last 3 years.

Bear in mind that the Iraq war is actually the tip of the iceberg in terms of bad conduct in US foreign policy. The REAL crime was the west's past 20 years of involvement in the area, something that Democrat governments have highly complicit in.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

:hi:

just being friendly or have I come across you somewhere else?

She likes to welcome all newcomers. :)

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

if you have beef with Kerry present it in a respectful manner. There stunt has given the media a perfect excuse to not cover his actual plan but to show the clip of a whining math teacher.

Occupying another country is bullshit and you know it.

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

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

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

What would happen?

Now that we bombed Iraq back to the Stone Age and destroyed its infrastructure and ruined its water supply, we would just leave the country in a state ripe for genocide, civil war, starvation, chaos... we made Iraq a headless country without a leader.

By leaving Iraq and cutting and running, we allow the World to see that we are even more stupid than how Bush has made us seem.

Please describe what you think would happen if we pulled out the troops now (or within 90 days).

but the people calling for a pullout never want to discuss that. I wonder if they care

but people calling for staying never want to discuss that. I wonder if they care.

Because it explains why Kerry supports having the UN take over, a policy that might help reduce the bloodshed.

That is, if you care about reducing the bloodshed.

that is not what's happening right now. Kerry supports having the UN take over I don't have a problem with that idea. I do have a problem with 8-10 months or more of fighting a senseless fight that we can never win. If the US pulled out I believe the UN and other countries including our own (I hope) would help the Iraq's. I don't see the logic in waiting until Kerry gets in Office and manages to get support and all that time the Iraqi's and our soldiers are continuing to be killed.

I support pulling out now and stopping the senseless killing that george w starting, It was wrong when it started and it's wrong now.

it will take months, if ever, for the UN to get into Iraq. Either way, it takes time, and sacrifices will have to be made. The only question is who dies, us or them.

support pulling out now and stopping the senseless killing that george w starting, It was wrong when it started and it's wrong now.

I agree with most of that but there is one big problem - Pulling out right now won't put an end to the senseless killing. I think your intentions are obviously good, but you proposal will do nothing to achieve the goals you seek.

by the Kerry/Bush war, it only ameliorates the future negative consequences (and that only minimally, because the situation in Iraq is really beyond anything the UN can handle.) Besides, *why* would or should the UN and other countries have to come in and fix the mess left behing from a war that they didn't want to happen in the first place. Frankly, i think kerry's got a lot of nerve talking about 'sharing the burden;' nobody else wants this burden, and they are certainly not obliged to take it. If they did, it would only be out of the goodness of their hearts and pragmatism, but no doubt it would be repaid by more scorn and disdain from the US, whether led by kerry (macho-man) or Bush (macho-macho-man).

die as long as we remain there, and then when we finally pull out, MORE will die in the ensuing chaos. At least if we leave now, the number who will die at our hands will be spared. There is also a small but not insignificant possibility that the iraqis will split into three countries relatively peacefully (which is what is going to happen anyway, although whether it happens peacefully remains to be seen). If we want to help them reconstruct their country, i am sure they would be glad to take a big fat check from us and do the work themselves.

Daum asked the question with obviously no idea of what reasonable solutions would have to be faced. Daum (is it pronounced "dumb"?) probably wants our troops out now and allow Iraq to become a genocidal humanitarian disaster beyond anything we've seen before and would have the effect of imploding the Middle East into an even worse scenario.

Kerry handled this numbnut well. And Daum probably left the venue mumbling some tinfoil hat garbage about skull and bones.

Whether you or not anyone likes this whole adventure in Iraq or the sorry state of our occupation of that country presently, we cannot pull out our troops without fulfilling certain responsibilities, because we are now committed.

To pull our troops out now would almost certainly mean years of civil war for Iraq and the whole region. Our nation's culpability for our recent crimes in Iraq and against law do not excuse us from the immediate concerns for Iraq, and right now, the U.S. army is about the only thing keeping it from falling apart or into an Islamic theocracy.

We are committed in Iraq, period. The real question is how we deal with the situation now. We can either stay the course like Bush says we must do (and we know how THAT'S going...), or we can go with Kerry who wants to bring some honor and dignity for all concerned parties, and who will win the battle for the hearts and minds.

This is the same bullshit excuse used to keep us in Vietnam for years and decades. And then, finally, mercifully, after 50,000+ soldiers died, after 2,000,000 Vietnamese died, after failing to achieve our goals in Vietnam, after the American public woke up and finally forced the issue, we pulled out of Vietnam, leaving that country to it's fate. After a series of sharp short clashes, NV took over the entire country, and there was peace.

This is the same scenario that will play out in Iraq. As long as the US is in there, they will be considered an occupying enemy force, and will be treated like one by the Iraqis. Sunni and Shi'ite are already bridging the gap that divides them, unifying in order to force us out. We are not, cannot win this war, all we can do is prolong it. But ultimately in the end, we will leave. And Iraq with still be left to deal with the mess we will leave behind.

The only question that is relevant is when are we going to learn the lessons of history, and pull out of this quagmire * has put us in. Sad to say, but judging from Kerry's statements we are going to be there awhile. After all, you can't have a Democratic president looking soft on the war on terror with an election coming up, can you.

This is the same bullshit excuse that kept us in Vietnam for that many years. Nothing we did could alter the final outcome, a victory for the Vietnamese and a defeat for the colonial power. The only thing we accomplished is getting more names on a war memorial.

The war party back then was the Democratic Party, it was replaced by a "peace" candidate that turned the Democratic war into a Republican war and expanded the conflict into Cambodia.

The war party today is the Republican Party. Let's see how history repeats itself due to our unwillingness to learn from our mistakes.

which is why they never discuss the issue. Instead, they accuse others of being "pro-war"

We are hurting them!!!! We are killing innocent iraqis!!!!! We are killing our own people!!! We are increasing the terrorist threat against us daily while our economy and standing in the world tanks!

We are talking about withdrawal after getting other countries involved, and that can happen only if the US gives up all claim to controlling the Iraqi government indirectly and any claim to permanent military bases. I really wish Kerry would disavow this.

Kerry flubbed the answer.

Or is it just chickenhawks only?

We're all "anti-war" here

:evilgrin:

There is an undercurrent of racism at play here! Americans are so much better than any other peoples in the world, and so much blessed by our GAWD, that we know best what is good for Iraq and the world without bothering to even ask them what they want.

Each day of occupation is another day of war.

The war criminal Bush will be replaced by Kerry, who in turn, will become a war criminal himself by continuing the occupation of Iraq using the UN and NATO as fig leafs for imperialism.

Surprisingly, there are other nations and other institutions besides the US and Iraq, like the UN.

using the UN and NATO as fig leafs for imperialism

So now the UN is an instrument of imperialism? lol

:crazy:

the UN route really has a very limited possibility of success. I don't believe that myself about the UN, but it is time Bush and Kerry started dealing with *reality,* rather than with what they *wish* reality was.

Don't know much about the UN, do you?

Martin

the country would be destroyed and hundreds of thousands would die... is THAT anti-war??

We have to internationalize the troops and leadership and clean up the mess so we can get out as soon as possible but definetly not just pull out now or in the near future.

And the open hostility from Kerry supporters towards anyone opposing the PNAC/PPI agenda (and Kerry's endorsement of it) should be your answer.

Bullshit.
It's just that some people want to make Kerry a supporter of the current Iraq War when Kerry has always been clear about his position.
It's also about some people who have some irrational ideas about how to deal with the current situation.

Many, I would even say that most people here aren't pro war.
As was the case with being 'liberal' or 'left', there is yet again a group that wants to claim a label exclusively for themselves and everybody else who doesn't share exactly the same beliefs is getting excluded.

they just call themselves that becuase they want to misportray others as being "pro-war"

It's dishonest

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

speak louder than words, though.

I guess war is OK if "our" guy is at the helm...

War is never good!

at least hes adopting a more Kucinich like postion. They do need to come home ASAP.

As long as the US is seen by the people of Iraq as an occupying force, the country WILL NOT "stabilize".

The US needs to relinquish control not only of the ground situation, but also of any rights to Iraq's assetts: including its oil reserves and revenues.

We may have "broke it", but it should be up to the Iraqi people to determine who "fixes it"-- NOT US. We should also leave it to the people of Iraq to choose THEIR OWN form of government. If they choose one that isn't "agreeable", or doesn't fit in with our "vision" of that part of the world, so be it.

Our presense is responsible for most of the "instability" at this point. The long we stay there, the worse it gets. There are still parts of the country without regular electric power and clean water over a year after we "liberated" it. How is it, again, that our presence is "stabilizing" this country?

DK's platform is the best to go buy but Kerry seems to be adopting a pretty Kucinichlike position, that is getting the UN in and putting them in charge of the operation. It is a perfectly legitimate question, I repeat. That said, how Iraq is handled by a Kerry adminstration will be way better than that of a Bush adminstration. So weird I am, far left yellow dog. It is their choice to choose government, I agree totally. I want that US troops out because they are in harms way IMO, those UN troops will too but they will be safer IMO, and it will be more safer. People call the DK plan reckless but if it were truly reckless, he would say leave without doing a thing, he wants to as I am sure Kerry is to pay for the damage we have done. As you saw in the article, Casper Weinberger who btw should be interviewed from a jail cell not as a bush campaign adviser but he didnt like it. Senator Kennedy was right, this is turning in to Vietnam.

Next year at this time the blood of both Iraqi's and US soldiers will be on John Kerry's hands. Why do we attack this person who questioned Kerry's position and call him names or claim that he is a Rove plant? The guy is legitimately opposed to the war and wants the US to stop killing innocent Iraqi's. The only way for this to happen is for Kerry to pull the US troops out of Iraq within 90 days of his becoming the president. Let the Iraqi's form their own government with the help of the UN.

If he did, he would be calling on the UN to take over, which is Kerry's position.

That person only cares about attacking politicians.

to bring the UN in. Just curious because I seem to recall something like that.

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

Damend if you do, damned if you dont, old sayin is.

which he DID!! And NATO is just waiting to be asked to help, they have already said they are willing to go into Iraq and stabilize the situation. What is W's response? NO NO it would be too confusing to have a multi lateral force that the US can't control.

Look, i doubt anybody here would be opposed to the UN taking over, but that's beside the point, which is that kerry supported getting us into this war, and has no intention of getting us out of there anytime soon. And, like Bush, he refuses to admit his mistake.

Even though I disagreed with his vote for the war.

By well I mean he wasn't rattled...and he did a good job articulating his position that Bush was wreckless and did not adhere to the promises he made ie. (seeking international support and the war being a last resort) before he waged the war.

Kerry maintains he did not vote FOR a war, but voted to give the authority to * as a last resort.

Granted I am disapointed with his though process.

evident. I agree with Walter Daum and am just as disappointed in Kerry waffling. Kerry's indorsement of Bush/Sharon agreement is just another disappintment. Kerry will lose more support among Dems for his support of Sharon.

Both major parties are pandering to Sharon and his supporters in America. This bilateral US/Israel deal will guarantee war in the Middle East for generations to come.

The pox on both!

Analysis
Move Could Help Bush Among Jewish Voters

By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 15, 2004; Page A16

In declaring that Israel should be able to keep some of the occupied territories and block Palestinian refugees from settling in Israel, Bush followed a familiar pattern of finding common cause with Jews and increasingly pro-Israel Christian conservatives. That Bush's move was good politics was evidenced by Democratic rival John F. Kerry's quick move not to let Bush outflank him among pro-Israel voters.

"I think that could be a positive step," the Massachusetts senator said, approving of the Bush-Sharon action regarding both refugees and Israel's borders. "What's important obviously is the security of the state of Israel, and that's what the prime minister and the president, I think, are trying to address."

<snip>

Republican officials in Washington said that while they are confident Bush made his decision for sincere policy reasons, they believe the potential impact on the politics of 2004 could be substantial. "This will make it that much harder for John Kerry to win Florida," said a Republican aide on Capitol Hill who refused to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. Associates said Bush's strategists believe that even small inroads into the Jewish vote could mean the difference between winning and losing Florida, and several Republicans believe the announcement could further inhibit Kerry's fundraising in the Jewish community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12952-2004Apr14.html

As an unqualified statement (which at least according to the above context it seems to have been), that's more than somewhat disturbing: it would be even in a vacuum, and is even more so given the way that the Islamic world currently sees us.

- bill

impression of us, what would have Kerry say and/or do about this issue, and how would that help improve the Islamic worlds impression of the US, and how would that help prevent imperialism?

I'm sure you have a sure-fire plan on how Kerry can do all that in a speech, and I'm anxious to hear it. After all, since you're so very concerned about imperialism and similar issues, I'm sure you've done a lot of thinking about this.

This would improve the situation in the islamic world, because they would think us even handed instead of completely one sided.

Math teacher, not english. ;)

With the international obligations that Bush going to war in Iraq has placed on the U.S. It would be virtually impossible for Kerry to criticize Bush for violating international laws by going into Iraq pre-emptively, and then violate international laws by walking out and refusing to repair the damage the Bush war has caused, which international laws require. No matter what, the U.S. is stuck there until more interantional involvement can be brought to play.

Kerry already has more than a bit of a problem criticizing Bush for violating international law by going into Iraq pre-emptively, because

1) Kerry voted to give him that specific authority (the IWR had no requirement for the U.N. approval which would have legitimized the action, just an understanding that such approval would be sought),

2) Kerry failed to speak out (as he had committed to do if Bush failed to meet the obligations that his vote for the IWR had assumed) in the weeks leading up to the war, when Bush's failure was evident to most of the world, and

3) even subsequently Kerry has only criticized the manner in which Bush conducted the war and its aftermath rather than addressed the essential illegality of and lack of necessity for the war itself.

That said, I certainly agree that the U.S. has incurred both moral and legal obligations for fixing what it broke in Iraq which would be left unmet if it just cut and ran. My impression is that the people here who favor a more precipitous exit do so because they do not trust us to meet those obligations without further exacerbating the problems that we created - i.e., that they suspect (as I do) that if we stay there to meet those obligations, we'll consider (incorrectly) that doing so gives us some right to a say in how the country is run.

If Kerry came right out and stated that we would

a) immediately cease performing anything but public-safety and rebuilding activity in Iraq,

b) hand over complete control over all aspects of Iraq to the U.N. as quickly as they could be prepared to assume it with the understanding that the U.N. would in turn be handing over as much control as possible to indigenous authorities in Iraq as soon as they were ready to assume it without the threat of massive civil disruptions and without other regard to the kind of government that might ensue,

c) continue to provide the economic and logistical support required to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure until it was self-supporting, and

d) work actively (read: provide incentives if necessary) to get governments more acceptable to the Iraqi people more involved in the process,

I'd stand up and cheer (well, at least for that aspect of his candidacy). But it would take a real leader to assume such a clear, ethical position on a matter where the country is still significantly divided.

- bill

"People hate George Bush, but by the end of your presidency, they'll hate you for the same thing."

He's right. And I feel sick at the "choice" we have.

.

From the article...

"I have consistently been critical of how we got where we are," Kerry responded. "But we are where we are, sir, and it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake."

...

A banner hanging at the campus forum demanded a U.S. withdrawal, but Kerry said that would leave "the potential for civil war."

...

"The course that I have proposed is to turn over to the United Nations the full responsibility for the transformation of the government and for the reconstruction," he said.

"Because I believe that as long as it is an American occupation, we will have great difficulty in staying any course and achieving the kind of stability we want to achieve."

At news conference after the forum, Kerry said: "We should not only be tough, we have to be smart -- and there's a smarter way to accomplish this mission than this president is pursuing."

Yes, his vote for IWR was a mistake. But his position on the war is very different from Bush's. Kerry says he will turn over to the UN the full responsibility for transformation and reconstruction in Iraq.

I don't see what the brouhaha is about. There are no comfortable plans or happy outcomes from this fiasco, and most of the Democratic candidates had the same proposals: bring in the UN, give up political control, and hasten the exit. There is no other way. (I also went to Nader's site to see his proposal -- it's one paragraph and says "UN in/ US out" too.)