What Kerry offers America

A John Kerry victory offers America something deeply meaningful when it comes to Vietnam, and as it will soon apply to Iraq.

Kerry as president will represent a healing closure to the “Bright Shining Lie” that was Vietnam. A Vietnam veteran as president will complete the circle. Veterans, who served, will now have a fellow brother-in-arms, at the White House. Veterans, who fought to stop the madness, will have a voice of compassion and concern when more calls to new wars are raised.

For those returning from Iraq, who will face the inevitable questions: “Were you in Abu Ghraib? Did you kill any civilians?” John Kerry will be there to support the honorable troops and hold the leadership accountable that allowed such travesties to occur.

And perhaps more importantly, America will no longer be: America by invitation only; but rather America, home of the brave and the free – once again.

Kerry will make the nation stand proud again, we will be beloved not feared by the world.

Awesome statement.

lol lol. and i dont usually go into the future, sure did feel good him there though

Kerry is our next President! Game over for Bush..... :bounce:

Are we to be ignored by the pro-military groups in both political parties? I will definitely protest that.

As far as Kerry being a compassionate voice concerning new wars, Kerry has already said he supported Bush's war in Iraq. He just disagrees with how Bush executed it. Iraq War is immoral, just like Vietnam was. I don't blame the soldiers ordered to go to those wars. I blame the leaders who sent them and Kerry is one of those leaders who authorized troops to be sent to Iraq.

My prediction is that Kerry, should he win the White House, will face the same fate as LBJ, who escalated the Vietnam war based upon a lie -- Gulf of Tonkin. Iraq may be too far out of control by Nov. 2. And with the latest developments in Iraq today, Hell is rapidly approaching our troops now.

Kerry said he supported the authorization - not the “war”. He supported exhausting all avenues before going to war - and has said that war is the last resort. Bush didn't do that, did he?

As for all of you who did not serve in the military - no you should not be ignored. You should be honored for your efforts to support peace over war and honest government over political expediency. You should be honored for your suuport of the troops and your care packages and your fight for veteran rights and military family rights and all the other issues you support to make America a better place.

I think your prediction is a bit off. I believe Kerry will seek and get support from the international community and hopefully find support within Iraq to begin the withdrawl of US troops and getting the burden on Iraq and the rest of the world.

If you think Hell is rapidly approaching our troops, you're wrong. It is already there. The civil war began long ago and the US media chooses not to cover it. But trust me, I left the Middle East six months ago, and there is much more disaster happening than is being reported.

We deserve Kerry. We need Kerry. And we need you.

cheers

is based on a faulty premise.

That's what I call escalation.

And why would Europe, whose citizens opposed the war more strongly than here in the USA, want to send their sons and daughters into our quagmire? Europe didn't bail us out of Vietnam. They won't bail us out of Iraq. Oh, some of them will lip sync some platitude to Kerry, but when it comes down to id, they won't send feasable help.

As far as Kerry's support of this war, Kerry fell into Bush's trap and said that if he knew then what he knows now -- all the lies and unsupported data that Bush used to strongarm Congress to vote on IWR -- he, Kerry, would vote forIWR again. Nancy Pelosi and two thirds of the Democrats in the House voted AGAINST IWR based on the information at that time and they have not said that they would have changed their vote. A vote for IWR was a vote for the war. One had to be naive to not see Bush itching to go to war against Iraq. Kerry supports the war because he supports AIPAC and Ariel Sharon. Israel is our biggest supporter for the Iraq War, and they helped train our troops to use the same brutal tactics against the Iraqi people, that Israel uses against the Palestinians. By using those tactics, the United States is committing war crimes, just like we did in Vietnam.

Iraq is an immoral war, just like Vietnam was. If there was justice in the world, Bush should be impeached and sent to the Hague and all those who voted to give bush "authority" to go to war should also be sent to the Hague.

By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff, 9/1/2003
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/01/kerry_says_army_should_grow_by_40000

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he favors expanding the Army by roughly 40,000 soldiers to relieve troop strain, and would spend whatever it takes to stop the guerrilla warfare in Iraq. But Kerry said he would not send more US soldiers into the country, preferring international troops that include a corps from Muslim nations.

A division is roughly 18,000 people. Under Kerry's plan, one would be dedicated to combat, the other to civil functions such as policing. He estimated that the additional troops would cost at least $5 billion, which he said he would pay for by reallocating money within the Defense Department budget.

"Personnel is the most important thing we should do," he said, explaining that the existing 480,000-strong Army is strained by multiple deployments.

While calling for an overall expansion of the nation's 1.4 million armed forces, Kerry was careful to say that he would not send more soldiers to Iraq, where the current force of nearly 150,000 troops is subject to frequent attacks. He called for a multinational expansion, saying, "the best way to protect the troops is to get Arab-speaking Muslim troops on the ground in Iraq."
_____________________________________________________________________

The Union Leader and ABC News Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate - Part 1
Location: Manchester, NH
Date: 01/22/2004
January 22, 2004 Thursday
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027534&keywo

MR. GRIFFITH: Senator Kerry, in a speech at Drake University, you said in your first 100 days you would move to increase our armed forces by as much as 40,000 troops. You said there was a dire need for two full divisions. I'm the parent of two teenage sons. I-we're patriots, and people are wondering right now about voluntary versus draft. And, as president, how do you hope to lure and attract quality people into the military? And, as a follow-up, where do you stand on the issue of the draft?

SEN. KERRY: We don't need a draft now, and I wouldn't be in favor of it under the current circumstances. But, look, the first place you start to attract people into the military is to have a president who can prove to America that that president will be responsible about how that president deploys the military.

All across this country there are families right now-all of us have talked to them-who are suffering greatly, because the Guards and Reserves have been called up. They're overextended. The troops of the United States of America are overextended. Their deployments are too long. The families are hurting at home because they lose money from the private sector when they're called up, and they get paid less in the military, and nobody makes it up to them.

The fact is if we are going to maintain this level of commitment on a global basis-for the moment we have to, because of what's happened-we need an additional two divisions. One is a combat division, and one is a support division.

And that's the responsible thing to do. I've also said, responsibly, that's temporary, because I intend to be a president who goes back to the United Nations, rejoins the community of nations, brings other boots on the ground to help us in the world, and reduces the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe-and I mean North Korea, Germany and the rest of the world where we can begin to set up a new architecture of participation of other countries.
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027534&keywo

international troops are still troops. unless you think only American lives are worthy.

The primary aim of Kerry is to help Iraqis defend themselves with their own force. Until and whenever that happens there will be a need for some type of security structure. His goal is to get NATO to take on that role after the exixting 'authority' can achieve elections. Kerry has expressed a desire to encourage more Muslim forces to pitch in along with others that he might persuade.

The presence of military forces doesn't necessarily mean destructive militarism. There are many forces deployed around the world who are in place to preserve hard fought for peace. There isn't a clear line of action among nations of good and evil that would dictate our actions in a way that would eliminate the need for defense. Unfortunately, we must often use the same force we decry in our adversaries in order to defend against attacks on our country or on our allies. Even the Pope has a security force.

That is quite different from this president who has our forces bearing 90% of the burden in lives and dollars to help put Iraq back in the hands of Iraqis. Bush won't loosen his grip on the resources of Iraq as Kerry promises and his arrogance keeps our allies at bay. The countries in the region and elsewhere have as much of an interest in a peaceful Iraq as does the U.S. It makes sense to get more nations involved in the restructuring to get the reality of our American occupation off of the table. It makes sense, as Kerry has said, to give Iraq back to the Iraqis.


From the Kerry site:

John Kerry and John Edwards will make the creation of a stable and secure environment in Iraq our immediate priority in order to lay the foundations for sustainable democracy. They will:

Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.

Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs

John Kerry's Op-Ed: A Realistic Path in Iraq
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0704.html

New York Times Editorial: Another Vision of Iraq
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0506b.html

John Kerry's Remarks At Westminster College: This Moment in Iraq is a Moment of Truth
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

Iraq Press Releases

Statement by John Kerry on the Transfer of Sovereignty in Iraq
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0628.html

Statement of John Kerry on Building International Support for Our Mission in Iraq
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0623e.html

Kerry Statement on Iraq
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0602b.html

Kerry Calls for New Strategy in Iraq During Democratic Radio Address
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0417.html

No, Europe did not bail us out in Vietnam, we took over after the French failure and lived to regret it. Perhaps you are right about an unwilling Europe but there are others we need to appeal to and Europe can help.

In the Middle East there are moderate Arab leaders who would be willing to work with America -- if America(Bush) would reconsider ceertain demands and entrenched positions. But America has to face the realities of Arab politics and understand that while we may not like certain cultural aspects and we may have problems with their human rights issues - there are moderates and even underground revolutionaries - not violent revolutionaries but slow peaceful civil revolution motivated forces all over the Arab world.

It would not be instant resoltuion but a political movement over time.

Maybe Kerry and his administration could reach out to these forces in both a direct way and through the old and venerable European network that is there in the Middle East. Which of course would involve some deft dealing with the Palestinian cause and bring Israel to the table. There is support for this approach, even in Israel itself. But Bush is doing nothing.

Surely Kerry could offer hope?

accounts where they twisted his words as you did.

If you place so much value in the IWR vote (which you micharacterize: the bill gave authorization for war as a last resort. There wouldn't have been an invasion under a President Kerry. search bigtree and IWR), then you can't ignore the massive bulk of good that Sen. Kerry has done in the Senate:


He and John McCain negotiated an agreement with Vietnam to provide a full accounting for POW-MIAs.

He wrote the first bill reducing acid rain.

He has repeatedly led the charge in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling.

He has passed legislation that shut down money laundering activities of terrorists and drug traffickers.

Kerry helped pass the 100,000 COPS on the Street bill.

Kerry co-sponsored the Global AIDS Legislation Bill in an "effort to end devastation many countries face in the fight against HIV/AIDS'." (Office of Senator Frist, press release 7/12/02)

58 bills and resolutions John Kerry has sponsored over the years have passed the U.S. Senate. Countless others have been improved because of his work, including the Clean Air Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program and the COPS program.
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/legislation.html

John Kerry has taken on the special interests and won. He fought against Newt Gingrich's anti-labor and anti-environmental regulatory reform. He has fought to raise the minimum wage. He has worked to shut down wasteful corporate subsidies. And John Kerry played an important role in the effort to reach a settlement with the tobacco companies that ended marketing to children and teenagers.
http://www.johnkerry.com

a mistake?" Well, if he wins in November, he could very well be in that position. Iraq won't get better in the short term.

IWR gave tepid restraints on Bush's use of his powers. IWR should have required Bush to return to Congress BEFORE starting war against Iraq. Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war, and those in Congress who voted for IWR abdicated their constitutional powers. Yes, I hold the Repukes responsible for this deadly charade, but Kerry and the othre pro-war Dems have innocent blood on their hands also.

To suggest that Kerry has blood on his hands is based on the misconception that the IWR was a mandate for war. The IWR was a mandate for U.N. inspections backed up by the threat of U.S. force, much like the last inspection regime that is credited with the removal of the bulk of Saddam's weapons. Blix was well on that path before Bush balked and invaded.

The IWR wasn't going to restrain bush any more than a 'no' vote but it was an attempt to place restrictions on bush's rush to war. Remember, bush had gone around for days claiming that he had all of the authorization he needed with the passage of 1441 by the U.N.. He would have gone into Iraq, no matter what Congress did. But, there was no chance that the Democrats were going to prevail with any outright opposition. That doesn't make them wrong, but Kerry's vote doesn't make him responsible for Bush's rush to war, either.

If there was any chance that the resolution would fail then bush would not have tried for a vote, and would have committed forces anyway. At that point, a resolution would have been drawn up. Congress would be loath to withdraw forces in the middle of a commitment. It would never happen.

Kerry sought to influence the president's behavior by getting restrictions on the president's authority included in the bill. The president disregarded that and pushed foward. Check and checkmate. It sucks, but that is the system with republicans in power.

came up for a vote, and Bush didn't need IWR to use troops presence to pressure Saddam to keep complying with UN inspectors. The Democrats, who controlled the senate at that time, didn't do anything to force Bush to prove his WMD accusations. The Dems controlled the senate in the run-up to the IWR vote on Oct. 10, 2002, and in off-Prez election years, the party that rallies it's base the most, wins. When the Dems capitulated to Bush a month before the election, the bulk of the Dem base. already PO'd at Dems for failing to fight Bush on corporate corruption, stayed home and Bush's base showed up, especially in the swing states, to boot out Dems and regain control of both Houses.

Bush and Rove clearly outmanuvered the Democrats in 2002, but they had help from Democrats, like Lieberman. The fact that Lieberman, who sits on advisory boards on pro-Zionist groups, enthusiastically supported invading Iraq, proves that the Dems were being pressured by Israel and her supporters, to support Bush's adventure. That's why I think Kerry ignored his constituents and voted for IWR. AIPAC is the 4th most powerful lobby in Washington. By voting for IWR, Kerry was sanctioning Israel to discreetly hijack US Foreign policy in the Middle East. Bush already had allowed this to happen, but IWR gave Congressional blessing to it. Should Kerry become President, do you think that AIPAC/Israel will want US troops to leave Iraq and thereby leave the door open for an Iran-friendly regime to rise? Don't think so, and that is why I think Kerry will end up like LBJ. Iraq (and Bush's other foreign policy blunders) will do to Kerry what Vietnam did to LBJ.

The only reason Kerry has a chance to win in November is because Reality is flaying the Neo-Con ideology. Unfortunately, our troops and Iraqis are paying the price with their lives. But Kerry wants to add 40,000 more troops into Iraq. He prays that Europe will bail him out, but why should they? And even while they bicker about this, Iraq will continue to exponentially spiral out of control. If Europe doesn't bail out Kerry, then Kerry will either have to "Declare Victory in Iraq" and pull out our troops or return the Draft to staff the Armed Forces. Either way, Kerry is in hot water that he helped make.

You can easily make your point without repeating the falsehood that Kerry has proposed 40,00 more troops for Iraq.

Also, it appears that you are willing to attach all of the sins and motivations of Bush to Kerry. I challenge you to do the same using Kerry's actual words and not your own biased interpretations.

I just, like many Democrats, are po'd at the poor quality of leadership against Bush that the Democrats have displayed. Yes, Kerry attacks Bush now, but Howard Dean, not John Kerry, made it fashionable to do so. And I will remain cynical of Kerry, Edwards et all until they prove themselves to me.

In the meantime, I will be helping Dean's group to get progressive candidates elected and to help challenge the Reichwing rhetoric poisoning out political discourse.

than Howard with their respective careers. Both were DLC members, Howard, in many ways, more conservative, at least fiscally.

Also Howard was not far behind Kerry with his support for the authorization with his support of the Biden-Luger amendment which contained a weak notification clause.

opposed it. It would "tie his hands" he claimed. Biden-Lugar was also championed by the ACLU because it protected Congress's Constitutional ability to perform checks and balances on the Executive Branch.

Note: I owe poster Bill Todd credit for his research on IWR vs Biden/Lugar.

The Iraq War Resolution Which Passed vs. The Biden/Lugar Variant

Biden/Lugar

"(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1)."
( http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resoluti... )

Since Bush made a mockery of the UN and did not obtain the UN authorization that the IWR/Biden-Lugar amendment specified, the Biden/Lugar amendment would have forced Bush to provide Congress his evidence "that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary", BEFORE starting the war. This clause specifies a very specific assertion of need for which Bush could be held accountable and impeached. This is why Bush didn't want Biden-Lugar. It wouldn't just tie his hands, it would be a noose around his political neck. ( http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/02/eng20021002_104296.shtml. The ACLU held that view as well ( http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html ).


The Iraq War Resolution
(See http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A3... IWR version, Oct 3, 2002).

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

The Iraq War Resolution that was passed merely required Bush to assert that war was necessary to protect our 'national security' or to enforce "all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions", which is a vague clause to cover Bush's political behind. Furthermore, IWR conveniently ignored the fact that absent U.N. approval, the U.S. had no right under international law (nor under U.S. law, by virtue of the fact that we have ratified the U.N. charter as a treaty) to attack Iraq for any reason save self-defense against an imminent threat (a point that was not lost on Paul Wellstone at the time - see http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100413.htm , right at the end).

Well said.

********

Kerry, the Congressional Record, 1971:

"Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, frankly it does not appeal to me if American men have to continue to die when they don't have to, particularly when it seems the Government of this country is more concerned with the legality of where men sleep than it is with the legality of where they drop bombs. (Applause.)...

...But at the present moment that is not going to happen, so we are talking about men continuing to die for nothing and I think there is a tremendous moral question here which the Congress of the United States is ignoring...

...But I think if we can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrel programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country. (Applause.)

And this, Mr. Chairman, is what we are trying to convey."

he would have gone to war. The president pushed past Congress and the American people. It was clear that the president intended to go to war no matter what Congress did. The IWR doesn't give the president that authority. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which gives the president the authority to commit forces for 90 days without congressional approval if he just notifies them in 48 hours. Bush would have gone to war no matter what. Congress would have faced an IWR at that point and would have been loath to withdraw forces in the middle of the assault.

The IWR has direction that Bush ignored. What makes you think a majority 'no' vote would have restrained him? If there was such a prospect then Bush would have avoided Congress altogether, as Clinton did with Haiti.

Bush wanted cover for his invasion, but the IWR doesn't mandate what Bush ultimately did, it counsels against it. I calls for a re-convening of the U.N. Security Council before any military action. Bush ignored that. It calls for the exhaustion of all peaceful means. Bush ignored that.

At the very least, Kerry and others voted to hold Bush accountable. Never, in words or actions, before or after the IWR vote, did Kerry authorize or support what Bush ultimately did.

edit: not a response to A_Possum

of all those Vietnam soldiers finally getting closure b/c one of their own is elected to the White House. It is touching to think that some may actually find peace for the first time because of it.