Could you guys let up on the strong-arm stuff a little?

You know, like making many life-long Democrats feel defensive?

Surely you realize that is a lot of what is happening here. Every time I see a "sour grapes" mention, I feel defensive. When people are put on the defensive, they often post something negative....when ordinarily they would not. I think it is up to the victor and his supporters not to do that. Many times it sounds like that anyone who has sincere doubts is not worthy anymore, where before we were.

I agree some go overboard, and I agree a few appear to be actually trying to agitate. A lot of us here are not that way, and it is so wrong to start thread after thread of warning and appearing to silence dissent.

We are all quite aware that Kerry is the nominee, and we are quite aware that Edwards is his VP. But when did the Democrats get so absolutely frantic at questioning, especially when it concerns a war that is quagmire. When did it become wrong to ask questions?

As to media activism, we have been doing that for two years or more. I belong to Media Matters, Rapid Response, True Majority, and I also do activism with the Campaign for America group in their efforts to correct the Medicare fiasco. So we are quite aware of the media problems, most of us getting 5 to 10 activist alerts a day.

Please don't make blanket criticisms, as some of those with concerns are different than others. Now, it is known that Selwynn and I don't always think alike, but I respect his views. He made a great post here today, and it was calm and sensible. He was treated like I often am, with remarks that have no root in what we are really saying.

When you start a post about the "they" who are displeasing you, why not clarify what they are saying and doing. If this is the America and the Democratic Party I remember from my long years on this earth as a moderate, you will NOT quell dissent. It just does not work that way.

:toast:

for people making compromises.
You would think there would be less condescending attitudes instead of more.

And once we're done, what next?

Do we keep criticizing him even though we've already had the argument?

What's the point of keep repeating the criticisms?

I think everyone here probably appreciates Kerry's weaknesses and just want to get on to the business of winning.

But if you want to rehash some obvious criticisms, let's do it. But then what? Do we really have to keep repeating them?

At the Konvention:

1) "John Kerry, Reporting for Duty!" -corny

2) The mangling of the song "Proud Mary"- not explicitly Kerry's fault

Ok, that's all I've got. Next...

but corny isn't always bad. I can name at least one vet who was swung from the REpug side to Kerry by that speech, if not at that moment.

....the "reporting for duty" did more to make Kerry seem warm to me than anything else. I thought it was an effective strategy, pointing up W's AWOL status, and demonstrating Kerry's candidacy as part of a continuum. More than that, it was just plain charm.

Remember, the target for his speech was not the party faithful. It was the undecided, and those who might be looking for a safe haven other than Bush.

I loved it.

None at all. To me all the issues are ok except one, I trust them to handle things. I do have troubles with this invasion. My concerns are not selfish, they go to the heart of my country's intentions.

I firmly believe we are owed an explanation, not so much of the vote itself....but of the future intents.

I re-read John Edward's column in the WP on September 19, 2002. I was still struck by the tone of it, and it concerns me as to the future. He did not even think we needed a resolution. He thought Bush should have full authority. He makes it clear he thinks we have future plans in the mideast for our own security. It concerned me then, and it concerns me now. I just don't believe that we have the right to make the middle east into a democratic part of the world. I don't think God is on our side in doing that.

I am afraid for our country. I do not consider that I am rehashing. If people would quit trying to anger us, I probably would not post anything about it. I do not post things detrimental to our candidates. However, I do want to know if we are continuing this imperialism.

In NO WAY would we be in Iraq if Gore had been president. In NO WAY would we be in Iraq if Kerry had been president.

This whole IWR argument about how "Kerry voted for the war" or Edwards wanted to give Bush "full authority" are simply missing the main building block of their opinions: To get the UN in and continue inspections and to use force as a last resort and with a much more multilateral force and after exhausting all UN efforts.

Bush threw the UN out and attacked. He did not keep his word. He lied.

Please consider the FULL explanation for Kerry and Edwards' IWR vote. Don't cherry pick parts of it and repeat it ad nauseum while taking their opinions out of context.

who was MOST interested in doing something with Iraq and felt there was enough justification while Clinton was president.

Gore did support the first gulf war and that one was about oil and profits also. in fact wasn't joe lieberman and al gore there only dem senators to support it? i remember it was one of the things that was often brought up when he picked lieberman for vp.

Gore was a quite hawkish senator, and a cofounder of the DLC. I dont get where people get off thinking that Kerry is to Gore's right, Gore wanted Lieberman to be number 2 in command, just remember that.

of Occidental Petroleum, IIRC.

but I will be willing to prove that he's more moderate than J Forbes Kerry.

aren't tollerant of people criticizing Kerry. So I said, why have that discussion. Let's just address the criticisms. So bring them on and we'll address them.

How 'bout you provide a link to that Edwards column so that we can have an informed discussion. And why don't you cite the text when you make your arguments.

Nobody is trying to anger you. The dynamic is this: we know Kerry's weaknesses. We want to discuss his strengths. We've already spent a great deal of energy addressing his weaknesses during the primaries. What value does it have to discuss them now.

If you want to, fine. Let's do it. But how many times do we have to do it before we just focus on winning?

BTW, please be aware that my husband and I do focus on winning. Signs, pins, buttons, we always buy extra and give them to people in the stores or restaurants. We have always done that. Just wanted you to know that.

Here is the link to the column/article.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020919-usia01.htm

There should never be a time when we don't discuss issues, IMHO. I think some do it wrongly, and excessively. I think this one needs discussion, not just for Iraq but for the future of America as a leader.

And I think that's a pretty reasonable statement.

Edwards's sums it up in this paragraph:

"The resolution should be strong and unambiguous. It should not be a
blank check for the administration, but neither should it try to
micromanage a war from Capitol Hill. It should spell out the broad
elements of a process that will preserve the legitimacy of American
actions, enhance international consensus and strengthen our global
leadership."

What's wrong with that?

You suggest that you want to talkk about Iraq. How do you want to talk about it?

Second, the resolution should call for an effort to rally the
international community under a U.N. Security Council mandate. The
president's speech last week was an important first step, and his
belated diplomatic efforts have already borne fruit. At the same time, we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action.
Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever
allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from
supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against
Iraq."

...things.

And if you think any Democrat is every going to win an election in the USA arguing that the US should do what the UN security council tells them, you need to read up on the Woodrow Wilson administration and the FDR administration. In fact, I suggest you read "The End of the America Era."

Does it alleviate your concerns about Edwards now that you realize you misread that?

I highly doubt Edwards questioned the need for a congressional resolution. In fact that piece is all about what he thought should be in a resolution.

Any other criticisms of Kerry-Edwards?

"Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever
allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from
supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against
Iraq."

Sounds to me like he says unilaterally if UN action not approved. That means he gave the resident full powers.

I don't understand you statement that they won't get votes going to the UN. I think that is wrong, and I feel most think we must get them in there.

I think you are misreading what I saying.

and that internation consensus is the ideal situation, but that Americans can't let the Security Council tie the hands of America.

What if every country on the Security Council hated America and wanted to further their own interests? They'd tie the hands of the US.

This was the very issue that cost Wilson a League of Nations and which FDR had to address exactly in the same way Edwards has addressed today in order to get the US to support the formation of and join the UN.

You said: "Sounds to me like he says unilaterally if UN action not approved. That means he gave the resident full powers."

I point you AGAIN to Edwards own words: The resolution "should not be a blank check for the administration".

Does this exchange give you some insight into why the criticisms of Kerry-Edwards are so frustrating?

and was it not?

Not that it makes much difference, since Bush would have gone with it or without it.

Support your argument with references to the texts.

to vote for. He, like Kerry, would do the same thing again, even knowing what he knows now. The problem was not in the resolution, but that Bush arguably did not fulfill the requirements laid out in the resolution. But the resolution was moot anyway; both Edwards and Kerry supported multilateral action first, unilateral action second, if necessary, and both were and are in agreement that the war and its goals was just, noble, and necessary. Of course, it wasn't; it was and is a crime against humanity.

And if we're talking about how Kerry and Edwards would lead it's important to distinguish the compromises they voted for with their idea of what would be perfect.

So, I invite you to compare Edwards's article with the resolution. Where is it the same? Where is it different?

because ultimately, what those who voted aye on the IWR were voting for, was the extension of American imperialism in the Middle East. Whether implemented multilaterally, with a sharing of the spoils, as Kerry and Edwards preferred, or unilaterally as Bush and Co. dictated, the end result is virtually the same, and the motivations are virtually identical. There was no justification beforehand, and there is no justification for it now.

That's where we're at. America is an empire. Most Americans seem to be comfortable with that. The only question is who is to be Caesar.

Some want to use that vote to impute qualities. You have the article which, I think, says something very different. If you want to know about Edwards, read the article. Don't invent meaning based on an up or down vote. Already, we've seen that Madfloridian has misinterpreted it by about 180 degrees twice.

Are you an isolationist?

I used his words.

about the kind of resolution he thought was needed.

"Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever
allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from
supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against
Iraq."

It is not easy to misconstrue this.

in your sentence saying Edwards didn't seem to think Bush needed a resolution, then I think your post isn't clearly written.

congressional resolution and the security council vote.

I don't think it's a question of inventing meaning. When I hear both Kerry and Edwards, more than once, and at different points in time, repeatedly admit that they would make the same choice they made before, even knowing what they know now, I can only assume that there was something in Bush's plan that they fundamentally agreed with, if not with his methodology. And that something involves long term, non-partisan US policy in the region.

I'm an isolationist only so far as I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar and don't believe in attacking other countries in order to steal their resources and to make it easier to steal other countries goods at later dates.

references, about what it means for them to say they wouldn't change the way they voted.

It just seems like people are being suckers for the media-driven wedge in the left that the whole IWR vote was meant to create.

And if you think Kerry and Edwards want to steal other countries' resources, I just have to wonder where you're getting that information.

I could write up a whole list of their statements, before and after the war started, and it would prove very consistent in tone and content. No doubt, all of it has been posted on DU before, inummerable times, and no doubt, you have seen them all before.

Kerry and Edwards are representatives of the American Empire. They will thusly work to secure and further its perceived interests. The interests of empires everywhere, throughout time, are largely the same, and include making the possessions of other countries and peoples ones own. America has had a long term standing interest in the Middle East. The percieved security of our Empire rests on us controlling it, through means military or otherwise. There's no point in putting a sugar coat on it.

Again, Edwards:

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national
security. It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction"

The debate is not about politics. It is about (perceived) national security. It is about furthering and protecting the American empire. Our involvement in Iraq is not to benefit the Iraqis, it is to benefit America. And most Americans are okay with that.

has been a difference between liberal engagement and conservative engagement.

Obviously, America has done some terrible things abroad that have been racist and imperialistic, but it has also done some evil things by NOT engaging, and it has done a lot of good by engaging on occassion.

Great power requires great responsibility.

And that's what Edwards and Kerry have CLEARLY argued.

You do a disservice to an informed debate about imperialism by painting with a broad brush all American engagement overseas as imperialistic.

And to answer your question, their statement that they wouldn't change their vote means to me that they don't trust that the US has done a thorough job of determining what exactly the truth is about what happened and that they don't regret their decisions based on the information they were given.

You know who didn't want a LON and UN? RW fascists who knew that destabilizing chaos was good for profits and good for getting RW'ers elected. You know who wants stability and engagement in the world? Liberal internationalists who know that when there is stability everywhere we can build up middle classes and we can focus on the productive capacities of human beings: making life happy and rewarding for everyone.

Just look at what happened with Iraq. Ignoring it gave Bush the chance to do more evil to working class Americans than probably anything else. And they have other tiny countries lined up to use as excuses for denying working class americans (and people who work for a living all over the globe) opportunity and happiness. It is best for peace and progress for Democrats to be engaged in the world in awy that denies RW'ers the opportunity to exploit Husseins and Bin Ladens and Khaddafys (which Blair understood).

It's so obvious to me that this is what Kerry and Edwards think. Their statements are filled with explanations of their intentions as being such. It amazes that some people on the left don't understand.

I still have to disagree on much too. Just out of curiousity's sake, which US interventions abroad have not been imperialistic in tone or intent? Are you suggesting that the USA is not an empire? Or that it has designs to expand its empire? If the USA acts altruisticly on rare occasion, is that mutually exclusive to acts of imperialism?

I implied no value judgement in labeling the USA an empire. As with any empire, there are differences in tone and practice, there are differences in technique, there are gradations of brutality, rapine, and altruism and decency. The same applies to the leaders of empires. In the election ahead of us, we are faced with a choice between Nero and Claudius, or if we are more fortunate, Marcus Aurelius. Who wouldn't rather have Marcus Aurelius than Nero?

Kerry and Edwards arguement that great power requires great responsibility, is only a clue as to how they will approach management of the empire. Of course, those on the other side would make the same sort of statements, and we have seen how they approach things. It's easy for anyone to make a statement like that. We'll see how K and E manage it over the next four years. I expect them to be somewhat better on the domestic front, and more light-handed in terms of global policy, while still leading the ship in the same direction.

Happiness in other countries may not look the same in other countries as it does here. How happy are we really, here in the USA, with all our wealth and diversions? We are comfortable, diverted, entertained, but how happy are we? Or better, how satisfied are we? I don't believe we are in any sort of position, other than one of pure might, that gives us a right to impose our view of happiness and social structure on other countries. But assuming we have a desire to do so, our focus on military might, demonstrated and promulgated by both left and right is the absolute wrong way to approach it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412158/002-7986230-2145652?v=glance

?

It makes a very good argument that, for a country of its size and power, America has tended to be much less imperialistic than other countries in historically similar circumstances.

And, in my opinion, the eb and flow of American imperialism tends to correlate with how fascistic the current US admin is, and what their specific policy interests are.

For example, Carter gave up the panama canal (which was pretty much, undoing outright racist imperialism). Bush then interevened in Panama in other ways (using the invisible hand of US imperialism, rather than outright colonization). Meanwhile, I don't think one could say that Carter's Afghanistan policy was all that enlightened.

So, whether American sees the wealth of foreign nations as something that belongs to them (and which America has to earn if it wants a piece of it) or as something America can just take because it covets it has been a matter with a lot of gray area. Carter felt that the Panama Canal belonged to Panama.

I don't think you could say that pre-WWII you could say that about, for example, British Imperialism, which was supremely unsubtle. The British felt that the wealth of the colonies belonged to Britian, without question.

Now, Bush seems to believe that the wealth of Iraq belongs to a few Texans. I don't think there's much indication that Kerry and Edwards (and Blair for that matter) don't feel that the wealth of Iraq belongs to Iraqis and that America has to earn it if they want a fair piece of it.

but it looks interesting. I'm going to the library later in the week, so I'll put it on my list.

I wouldn't dispute that the American empire has been fairly decent, as empires go, but for all that, it's still an empire. Whether it claims outright ownership of another countries possessions, or simply attempts to control how the resources are used and who profits from them, the end result is still the same; the people to whom the resources belong do not benefit from them. If Kerry gets in, (he will) and the Iraqi government decides it wants to nationalize its oil, and kick out western corporations,(it might) how do you think he would respond? What sort of approach do you think Kerry is likely to take towards Venezuela, especially now that it appears that Chavez has won the referendum? Can we expect a change in Cuba policy in a Kerry administration? I don't think there's much question about how a second Bush regime would respond.

and other comments Edwards has made reinforce it.

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national
security. It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction"

'America is united in its determination...' Translation, we will go into Iraq with or without the rest of the world. After all, as Edwards has said elsewhere, we "cannot let the Security Council hold us hostage."

And you have to love this:

"The only chance for Iraq to become a democratic,
tolerant state -- and a model for the Arab world -- will be through
sustained American involvement."

Ah yes, the white man's burden.

fascistic policies at home and abroad. In Iraq, Hussein was largely a creation of the CIA to achieve those ends.

The world will be a safer place when the Republicans no longer have these countries to manipulate and when those countries are using their resources to make their own citizens wealthier (rather than their oligopolies, or Texans).

Look at what Blair did in Libya: sustained British involvement removed the possibility of Bush using Khaddafy as a hobgoblin for fascistic ends. That wasn't white man's burden. I don't think the sort of engagement Edwards imagines in Iraq is white man's burden either.

the problem I had with the statement was the implication that the Iraqis could not manage a successful state on their own, and indeed, that the only model that is worth using is the American one. Unfortunately, Democrats as well as Republicans are in the empire business, and Iraq is slated to be a "colony" regardless of which party is holding the reins. The trouble is that the Iraqis may not enjoy wearing a yoke.

There's a huge difference between liberal internationalism and racist imperialism.

With great power comes great responsibility. The threat of evil racist shit is as great from the US NOT engaging in the world as it is from the US engaging as racist imperialists. As a world power the US has an obligation to engage with the rest of the world in positive ways, and I don't know how many different ways kerry and edwards have to make this argument before some people here get it.

"The ONLY chance for Iraq to become a democratic,
tolerant state -- and a model for the Arab world -- will be through
sustained American involvement."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020919-usia01.htm

America is the "only chance" for Iraq to become a democratic, tolerant state, etc., neverminding that American style Democracy may not be in Iraq's own interests or desires. Too bad for them. That sort of paternalistic attitude is only a latter day version of white mans burden. While I feel Edwards is probably sincere in desiring these things for Iraq, it might be better if this country focused on achieving democracy and tolerance here at home, the better to set an example for poor, benighted countries in the Arab world, rather than trying to instill democracy at the point of a gun. This war is a waste in so many ways. You know, if this country weren't so arrogant, and so convinced of its exceptional role in the world, it might find that it could learn valuable things from from Iraq, and the Arab world in general. But as it is, I suppose we'll have to teach those buggers a lesson.

What do you think he means by involvement?

do you agree that US involvement is the "only chance" for Iraq to become democratic etc.? Are the Iraqis incapable of governing themselves without our assistance?

Certainly, Iraq will need our involvement in rebuilding its wrecked country, a situation which we have been only too gracious in assisting with over the last 15 years. Our involvement in that respect has certainly been invaluable to them. Our installation and support of Saddam when he served our purposes no doubt warmed the cockles of the Iraqi people's hearts. Surely, our involvement in carrying out sanctions against them, that killed over half a million of their children and polluting their environment with depleted uranium and god knows what else has further endeared them to us. What a joy it will be to give up the free education and heath care they enjoyed under Sadaam, (who foul as he was, at least had the decency to offer his people these basics) and replace them with US style for profits. The Iraqi people are so happy with our involvement that they could just shit for joy.

I thought the sarcasm was clear. The result of US involvement in Iraq over the years has not been a net postive. It has not even been close.

manner?

I agree that the US -- when RW'ers dominate the debate -- tend to be engaged in the world in an unproductive manner. However, there are plenty of examples where US engagement can be and is productive. (Psst. FDR.)

the only choice is who is to be emperor.

Same ends, different means.

that Bush might win in November that we see any attack on Kerry, and often even well-meant criticism, as a threat to species survival.

We are all scared to death. We can rah rah here all we want, but someone has to do it in the public arena somehow, forcefully. Remember that most of us seldom see Kerry on TV, not for that long a time. Yes, it is the media doing it, but it is not all the media.

People are not getting what they need to hear. I live in a very conservative area, and I know. Most folks are angry about this war, and they feel helpless and scared....many Republicans as well.

But to their minds if both parties agree on the war they don't have options.

Kerry is speaking more forcefully than he was, and Edwards is a good speaker. But these folks I refer to don't get the long explanations as to why we went to war. Their attention span is too short.

I posed a question on DU the other day, just asking if Kerry should be fighting back harder and I got trashed by someone for it. I asked this question because I'm scared to death that Bush will get in again.

I think most of us seek out comfort and re-assurance on this board. I don't know how I could have gotten through the last four years with DU. Let's go a little easier on each other.

I think that the criticisms of how Kerry's handling unfair attacks by * are not being seen for what they are: an honest effort to prevent * from stealing this election. Let's not turn on each other. We are all on the same side.:dem:

country. We DEMs are NOT immune to fear, we just need to be aware of what we're doing with it. When we get so wound up with fear that we take it out on the first person who is voicing *their* fear, we're doing the RWs work for them.

"I think most of us seek out comfort and re-assurance on this board."

You are soooo very right, Miss_Bevey! There's nothing wrong with having the fear...... looking at what is happening to our country makes fear very understandable. But using that fear to push others away, and alienate them is not making any sense. Just listening, and allowing each other to vent what we're really feeling and giving space for that comfort is just what a lot of people need in order to go back out into the fray again.

"Let's go a little easier on each other."

Thank you. So very well said, and so sorely needed. Would that it be heeded.

Kanary

You are speaking for many.

Peace,

Maggie

If you have been doing it, you haven't been doing it well enough. Anyone watching TV can see that. Sorry to be blunt, but right now Bush is kicking our ass and we won't be singing in the Rose Garden unless things change dramatically.

Whatever you have done, I applaud you, but that doesn't change the fact that Kerry's message isn't hitting home.

Proof of that fact is that Bush is still leading as a "strong leader." OUTRAGEOUS


Check the emotions at the door and get to work.

Democrats tend to lose for many reasons, three of which are firing squads, over confidence, and yes, laziness.

Someone just had to tell me I was not doing enough, check my emotions at the door, being lazy.

Please stop it now.

Now I've been quietly reading this whole thing and I didn't see anything in that post to get offended or hurt by. You sound like you almost want someone to insult you just so you can be proven right. I was under the impression that the people here want to get a Democrat elected President. That's why I'm here. I'm not sure what it is that you feel you can't say but if that one message is any indication of what's been upsetting you, I'm afraid you may get upset too easily.

Just my two cents. Not a personal attack. No offense meant.

I am not going there.

:yourock:

I am wondering what happened to the "big tent".

I try to be nice about it, but I have to say it.
:hi:

Tent shrunk.

:)

Kanary

But helps Bush that Bush puts what he says on the table. The whole IWR thing is a good example. One of my customers stated it pretty clearly today. A lot of people see Kerry doing this, "I said this, but this is what I meant."

We are on here everyday discussing a wide range of political issues. A lot, I do mean A LOT of people are not going to look at the semantics of what was said ("This is what I said, this is what I meant")like we do. People want clarity. If they do not get it from Kerry, too many swing voters are going to vote for the Devil they know out of frustration than the Devil they don't know.

Look at the polls, they are tight. The numbers are going to break one way or the other soon. The voters in the middle, the ones with their minds still clouded by doubt are not going to be brought in except by a forceful clear message. These coming weeks are probably the most dangerous time in the campaign.

I realize that many people are trying to clarify what is being said, what actions are taken, and what the "strategy" is.
Maybe that's fine for DUers, but it certainly isn't playing in Mainstreet, USA. Voters want to hear PLAIN TALK, and they want it straight up. Any kind of having to explain pushes their button for "flipflop".

We keep hearing that Kerry is running for the "undecideds", the "moderates", not us. Well, those "undecideds" aren't going to spend hours on DU trying to figure out what it all means. They're not interested in "strateregy". :)

For months, expert after expert has said that the DEMs need to give a strong, clear message. When that doesn't happen, no amount of blaming the media is gonna fix it.

As was reported, (I forget now by who), this election is Kerry's to lose. He damned well better not.

Blaming the people on DU who say these things doesn't fix it. There're many echoes of columnists saying the very same things.

Kanary

Kerry campaign. Just to cheerlead while stuffing down anxieties as we see how "it's playing in Peoria" is like the brown noser sucking up to the boss and not helping the company one bit. I think we should definitely hear what people are feeling and thinking from around the nation (and we have people here from all over the country). It's useful information to the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party. Too often these people are out of touch with what is really going on in the country. The successful campaign listens and taps into the concerns. If you feel Kerry is being stomped on by Bush, then he needs to know it. If you feel that people in your community are just not getting the Kerry message, he needs to know it. If you think of ways that would reach people in your area, he needs to know it. How else are they going to know it??? Perhaps if there had been more websites like these and idea and info sharing during the Gore campaign, they would have made adjustments that would have left Bush in the dirt. It doesn't do us nor Kerry any good to just stick up posts that predict a "slam dunk"---it's not going to be that way and the more kinks that Kerry can work out, the better chances we have of winning this.

with strikes for violating the no fly zone and was supportive of taking out Saddam but did not want to do it as outlined in PNAC. As he has stated, it was too extreme.

Maybe it is not about getting rid of Saddam but how to do it and the Democrats keep saying that it was the wrong time, the wrong plan and the wrong man planning it.

There are such varying views of Clinton's actions in Kosovo, that it makes my head spin. But when the Dems say the wrong time, wrong war, wrong way, it does sound like they want to do the same thing...just do it differently.

I don't see a reason to do it at all.

the war was wrong when prosecuted unilaterally, and would have been equally wrong if prosecuted under the aegis of the UN. It was nothing but a war of conquest, a pirates raid. Maintaining Pax Americana Inc. (TM) is a real drag sometimes, but the price is worth it.

:yourock:

You are what more of US should be. Active, involved and not afraid to question.

:hi:

Go take a look in GD, mzmolly. Howard Dean has his new book ready to be released in September. I posted about it there.

:hug:

:hi: