Democratic candidate Kerry vows to maintain US troops in Iraq for years

[Aidoneus]

Democratic candidate Kerry vows to maintain US troops in Iraq for years
By Patrick Martin
17 July 2004

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry declared that, if he were elected, US troops would remain in Iraq throughout his first term in office—to the end of 2008. The Democratic candidate also suggested that the Bush administration was more likely to withdraw troops quickly than a Kerry administration.

Both the content of the interview and the choice of publication—the Journal has been the most vehement media advocate of the war in Iraq and is one of the chief editorial voices of the extreme right within the American political establishment—are politically calculated to send a message. Kerry is reassuring the US ruling elite, including the far-right elements who now back Bush, that he can be trusted to carry forward the US conquest and occupation of Iraq.

Kerry set three conditions that would have to be met for removing US troops from Iraq. He said it was necessary “to measure the level of stability” in the country, “to measure the outlook for the stability to hold,” and “to measure the ability...of their security forces” to defend the country. Until then, he said, “I will provide for the world’s need not to have a failed state in Iraq.”

The main difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq boils down to Bush’s continued, albeit cynical and false, claim that the US mission in Iraq is to bring “freedom” and “democracy,” words that were nearly absent in Kerry’s discussion with the Wall Street Journal.

It is worth noting that the three criteria set by Kerry for success in Iraq would describe the regime of former president Saddam Hussein. All three criteria—stability, lasting stability, and security—would be satisfied by the establishment of a military-police dictatorship headed by a new Saddam, such as the current US-backed prime minister, Iyad Allawi.

Kerry represents that section of the US ruling elite that wants to set aside Bush’s doubletalk about democratization. This was necessary for gulling the American people during the run-up to the war, they concede, but now it is time to get on with their real business, by establishing the security conditions in which American capital can extract profits from Iraq’s huge oil reserves and from lucrative contracts with the US- controlled puppet regime in Baghdad.

--snip--

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/kerr-j17.shtml

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Consider the source

And consider that he's running right to get elected. I don't agree with it, but I'm sure he's more persuadable than Bush and I'm more concerned about social policies like jobs, the economy, the defecit, education, healthcare, social security, civil rights, the Supreme Clowns, our freedoms and the dismantling of the Constitution.

Fuck Iraq's needs, we got our own right here. After we take care of our own, we can take care of Iraq.

Choose Kerry Lose Bush - FUCK BUSH - Drop Bush Not Bombs!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Aidoneus]

2. It is an excellent source

All of this is considered, and in my view shouldn't be overlooked. If such is the best that can be mustered up, that says quite a lot..

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. Funny how the headline quotes a year that Kerry didn't give them...

I, too, consider this source to be pretty good. But you have to admit that they have an agenda, and they will stretch or embellish facts to fit that agenda.

In fact, Kerry never stated that U. S. troops would be in Iraq until the the end of his first term, nor did he ever say anything about 2008. Sorry, but the headline is deceptive at the very least.

Here are some actual quotes from the article that describe Kerry's thinking on this issue:

"Though Kerry said the US presence in Iraq was not 'an open-ended commitment,' he refused to give any target end date for an end to the occupation. 'At the end of my first term I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven’t reduced the number significantly,' he told the Journal, but 'I certainly can’t tell you numbers.'"

Extremists interpret this to mean that the current U. S. troop will be in Iraq for a considerable length of time...possibly past 2008. The primary problem with Kerry saying anything definitive on this issue is that it will give ammunition to the NeoCons to reinforce the thinking of the 55%-60% of Americans who STILL believe that we went into Iraq for the right reasons.

IMHO, the NeoCons have adopted a VERY aggressive political, economic, and military stance in Iraq. If that stance could be geared down, and I believe that this is very possible, along with American troops simultaneously being permanently withdrawn, tensions in Iraq could be considerably eased.

Additionally, Kerry has been talking about an increased presence for NATO in Iraq. The primary reason NATO is not in Iraq now is because they know they simply cannot trust the NeoCons on ANY issue. Kerry has to restore that trust as quickly as possible. With the extreme damage the NeoCons have done to our international standing, that will NOT be an easy task.

[Cronus Protagonist]

86. I said consider the source, not condemn the source

One must be aware of the agenda of all news sources. I pointed that out because they obviously have an agenda that may not meet with some people who read that report.

Choose Kerry Lose Bush - FUCK BUSH - Drop Bush Not Bombs!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[rman]

128. what difference does it make?

does it mean the story is not true?

[Emillereid]

3. How long can we deceive ourselves that Kerry is any better than Bush on

Iraq? Everyone keeps saying that he's just doing this to get elected and that after he's elected he'll govern differently. So now he's simply lying? He doesn't mean it? He's really a dove in disguise? He's a chameleon who will say or do anything to get elected; a hypocrite with no core values? Kerry fans -- what or who is Kerry?; what does he stand for? What am I being asked to vote for?

Perhaps he's marginally better on domestic issues -- we in the belly of the monster will be more comfortable. But not to worry. He'll be as ruthless an emperor as Boy Bush. For me the pivotal, moral issue of our time is IRAQ -- and if he can't find the right side of that divide, he's not worth it. I was precinct walking for this man -- but I don't think I can anymore. I have compromised all I can and still have a spec of integrity left. I was willing to sell myself for the ABB, but the price just got too, too high!!

[still_one]

4. Because in reality there is no choice

We already know what bush has done. At the very minimum bush should be fired for incompentence, and what he go us into.

Anyone who doesn't vote for Kerry is saying implicitly that bush should stay in another four years, any other explanation is delusional...

[Emillereid]

13. You are right that we have No Choice!

I live in California -- and Kerry's safe enough here so it won't matter if I don't vote or if I vote for someone I really do admire. But it might matter if I don't work for him! He is probably the most disappointing democratic candidate of my lifetime. And most of the people in my Democratic Club agree -- we have to hold our noses to work for him. I have been working for him, giving money to him and raising lots of money to get out the vote where I live. But I grow sick at heart -- everyday there is some fresh assault from the Kerry campaign.

What many people I know are doing is giving most of their money and energies to our congressional and senate candidates and just sort of passing over Kerry. That's probably the strategy I'm going to have to adopt in order to get through this election. When I walk my precinct, I'll just tell everyone to vote for Boxer and Wagner and (mumble, mumble) let them just figure out who to vote for at the top of the ticket.

[still_one]

17. Kerry may not be the best

or even fair, but if this administration is not stopped this time, it will not matter!

[Emillereid]

23. Like I said -- I live in California and it probably won't matter whether I

vote for Kerry or not. I have the luxury of conscience that I assume folks who live in 'less safe' states won't have. But conscience shouldn't have to be a luxury.

By the way, just who in the Democratic party does Kerry represent, I mean he leaves the progressives in the party high and dry -- and he's even too hawkish and Bush like for the moderate dems in my local club -- so just who or what faction is he speaking to?? Does he really think he's going to win over Repuke votes??

My sister who is not very political or that liberal keeps asking me what she's supposed to like about Kerry -- she sort of gets that he's somehow better than Bush, but she keeps telling me, she's not impressed and can't the democrats do better? All I can tell her is that a vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush. She understands that and She'll vote for him -- but without enthusiasm and she won't talk him up or wear a button. It's not the best strategy for winning an election, I can tell you that!

[still_one]

29. I am in California also

and even though I am quite disappointed about Kerry's position on Iraq, I still will vote for him because there is more than just Iraq at stake, there is our system of government as we know it

[wackywill]

149. Agreed

think of the entire Admin not just the leader. If not for Go F*** yourself Cheney, Rummy the rum-pot, Colin the backside,Connie the white as Rice inside dark on the outside and Asscroft to tell him what to do Bush may not be so bad. Think of Bush with all your favorite Dem's in cabinet positions.......

[Upfront]

65. Better=Dean

Yes, we could have had better with Howard Dean. Every thing he said was true, but he was shot down by the power in the party. Dam sad to think that I have to now vote fot tall Bush. Oh well, tall Bush is more likely to get elected, the power says. Be happy. Not!

[Sugarbleus]

34. Unfortunately, I said stuff like this in here last night...

I was giving to his campaign each month. It was the least I could do. I will not do it anymore. I will concentrate on my local and federal appointees instead.

I will vote for Kerry, but I have to hold my nose to do so at this point. People are calling in to my local radio show saying many of the same things...'Kerry is too vague'. Kerry said he would never send men and women into war for no good reason and only as a last resort. He keeps changing his tone. Edwards is more on the ball but he seems to be upstaging Kerry more and more which is unusual.

I'm willing to give Kerry a chance. Perhaps his ideas will pan out later on. Hopefully, he will "define" himself better and all will be well. I wonder about his domestic policies too. I just saw an ad the other day that said he wanted to get healthcare out for NEARLY all Americans........? That's a wee bit different than what I'd heard him say before. I'm rather disappointed and not a little embarrassed.

In the end, Bush has to go, so we do what we have to do. I may change my party affiliation next time around if Kerry wimps out.

[goforit]

102. Ahhhh.....but there is a choice. The people must rise to change!!!!

And the time has come and we are counting down......

A Change of Gov't!!!!

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, ..........

[still_one]

6. At the very minimum

Kerry will get a truely international involvement. bush screwed this up big time, not Kerry. It was wrong to go into Iraq, and bush has now created a terrible situation which needs international involvement. Even Dennis Kucinish(sic) said he would not just drop and run, but get the international community to help...

bush has divided the world. the terror threat is real, and needs international involvement. Iraq was NOT part of this threat, but because of the idiot in the white house, he has given much more strengh to al queada...

[Emillereid]

16. Sure US out, UN in --

I think Kucinich figures that strategy would only take about 6 months. As long as we're in Iraq there will be no stability and I will continue to be in the streets protesting this God awful occupation whether Kerry or Bush are President. Iraqis can handle their own history!

[still_one]

30. I agree

I just want bush out at all costs

[aneerkoinos]

37. How?

Kerry keeps promising true international involvement, but how is he going to deliver? The nations of the world are going to be willing bitches of US just because the new prez has a handsome hair and can utter some sensible words (while saying the same as the previous one)?

Nope, nope, nope. Kerry lies and people are fool to believe he can deliver.

[bahrbearian]

61. Meet the New Boss ,same as the Old Boss.

[SOS]

82. And neither one

has bothered to ask the people of Iraq what THEY want.

[texas is the reason]

72. reconstruction contracts, thats how....

the reason no one wants to help bush (besides the fact that he is an asshole), is that he is asking them to send troops to iraq WITHOUT getting thier corporations involved in the reconstruction profits. bushco does not want to share because they, and all of thier friends are making too much money. once it is made as profitable for the corporations of other UN countries to be there as it has been for halliburton, thier governments will line up to help.

[aneerkoinos]

74. Don't forget

There are still some functional democracies left in the world, like most members of EU, and believe it or not, not everything is for sale when the people have their say.

Besides, after Iraqi people kick US ass and throw them eventually out of the country, the countries that were not involved in illegal occupation of Iraq and murdering her citizens, will be most wellcome to do mutually benefitting business with free Iraq.

[mimzie]

107. Kerry will keep troops in Iraq

The other reason he says he wont let them share in the spoils
is because they wouldn't agree to be part of the coalition to
invade Iraq illegally in the first place. Seems like bush and
bliar were the only two terrorists willing to commit war
crimes. Well, he told everybody to get out of his way, so they
are...

About the picture, one of his better ones, I must say. Wasn't
that taken when he fell off the couch and hit his head on the
cocktail table, resulting in a cut above his eye and a bruised
jaw-- from eating a pretzel? Hmmm, after four or five of those
pretzels I'd be falling down too.

[Bo]

71. Another military complex shill.....

[Ravy]

75. Kerry IS LIGHTYEARS ahead of Bush on this issue.....

Do you think under Kerry there will be a wink and nod towards torture?

Do you think under Kerry that they will be shovelling money into corporations he is closely associated with in a no-bid fashion?

Do you think under Kerry that Veteran's benefits will be slashed again?

Do you think under Kerry we would have even gone to war?

Do you think under Kerry that there will be FURTHER attempts at colonization of the middle east?

Who is more likely to gain help from other counties?

Sure, Bush got us into something, and we can't just get out at the drop of a hat. He got us into something that requires time fix.

Kerry is NOT the same as Bush. Don't equate fixing problems with creating them.

When people say there is virtually no difference between Kerry and Bush on what to do about Iraq, they fail to mention that Bush has moved towards Kerry on this issue. Bush is just now making overtures to loosen our grip on the finances to allow other countries that did not participate in the slaughter to get some of the reconstruction money in exchange for helping in the secuity role.

[Classical_Liberal]

136. Accept for slashing veterens benefits, I believe Kerry will do

all those things.

I believe under Kerry we would have gone to war.

I believe under Kerry, we will continue the colonization of the middle east, particularly if the Europeans are dumb enough to let us save face .

I believe Kerry will reward corporate Chronies.

I believe Kerry would have given a wink and a nod toward torture just as he did the war.

I use his words, his actions and the actions of the party as a whole and more importantly his pnac advisers to make this judgement.

He'll be easier to show up than Bush but only because of his promise to get along with allies better.

However his hostility to the ICG decision on the Israeli theft fence, and his hostility to UN, are showing this claim to be ungenuine. I believe at this point he is going to govern like he is running and I am preparing for it.

[artr2]

78. Oh then please, oh please vote for bush then

a*****e

[Cronus Protagonist]

87. I agree. I supported Kucinich. However, do we have any choice now?

I'll be setting fire to Kerry's pants once he gets in, but on the social issues he's way WAY better than Bush. And that's what counts first and is most important.

What the Kerry campaign is doing is taking the war and "terra" off the table as a bone of contention, so the differences will have to be found elsewhere as each candidate tries to emphasize the differences. When that happens, Kerry/Edwards are totally the opposite of Bush, and that's where the real differences lie.

I don't agree with the strategy because it can backfire, but there it is.

Choose Kerry Lose Bush - FUCK BUSH - Drop Bush Not Bombs!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[freeforall]

105. He is no better than Bush

Not from what I have been hearing. He seems like a chameleon, and frankly, I think the US is screwed no matter who gets in.

Just my opinion. (Sometimes, people outside the country, who do not have a personal stake in the result, can see things more clearly. Kerry has not come across to me as someone who has the best interests of the country at heart. Don't forget, like Bush - he wants to win.)

[shanti]

109. and kerry will be held just as accountable

he's not being cut any slack. they have to earn our trust now!!

[Invalence1]

123. And a candidate who wants to lose

would be a preferable alternative because....???

[StandUpGuy]

115. You are being asked to

not vote for bush.

Thats it.

[doctorbombeigh]

155. You are a fabulous success story for Karl Rove. Congrats! n/t

[Hekate]

21. I agree with you on that...

...we MUST get GWB out of the White House or we lose EVERYTHING. John Kerry is a solid Democrat and I think we can work with him and work on him.

Kerry's positions on foreign policy thus far have been infinitely more intelligent than anything proposed or implemented by the neocons. The neocons we already know we can't trust as far as we could throw them. Kerry (and Teresa) are miles ahead of the neocons if only because they realize we are not the only country on the planet. I already trust both of them a good deal more than the neocons.

Hekate
I want my country back

edited to change thrust of statement

[Classical_Liberal]

137. Excuse me?

He supports staying in Iraq, giving Israel the settlements and all of Jerusalem, and replacing Hugo Chavez with a neoliberal.

His foriegn policy is the neocon foreign policy and he his advisors on foriegn policy are members of the pnac themselves.

If you are seriously making this claim you are not paying attention.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Consider YOUR source

Consider YOUR source: That knee-jerk belief in the American capitalist press that sold us down the river with their lies about WMDs. It was your beloved capitalist press that on the aftermath of 9/11 chose to portrait Bush as the great "Warrior King" (as Chris Matthews called him) instead of asking the hard questions that Michael Moore is asking in his documentary Fahrenheit 9-11.

Socialists want an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops and personnel from Iraq.

Bush wants to invade other countries because GAWD told him so.

Kerry wants to turn the Iraq war into a Democratic war.

[still_one]

31. bush must be voted out

and the only way to do that is to vote for Kerry

to do anything else will be to reward bush

[IndianaGreen]

33. That's not the issue, and you know it!

ABB is a coalition that will come to an end the day after Election Day.

What we are debating is the nation's course in a post-Bush world!

Some of us want to obliterate and reverse everything that Bush has done in the last 4 years, while others seem to be satisfied with a mere change in personnel at the top and some cosmetic changes.

I want to obliterate and reverse the Bush agenda with the same ruthlessness with which we eradicated Nazism at the end of World War II.

How about you?

[Cronus Protagonist]

90. I agree with you

We need to reverse everything. So tell me how attacking Kerry now serves that purpose. Answer: it doesn't it's detrimental to our shared goals and will result in a further entrenchment of all the things that we are unified against.

Choose Kerry Lose Bush - FUCK BUSH - Drop Bush Not Bombs!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[IndianaGreen]

91. We only have ONE shared goal: To defeat Bush

The DLC agenda is as abhorrent to the Left as Mr. Bush, but since we have to get rid of Bush first, we will vote for Kerry in November, but we will oppose him in December.

[Cronus Protagonist]

89. You know it (eom)

Choose Kerry Lose Bush - FUCK BUSH - Drop Bush Not Bombs!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Cronus Protagonist]

88. I don't have a knee-jerk belief but you do

Thanks for laying them out for me. I thought you were a Green, now I see you're a socialist or at least you support them. That's fine by me, but again, I say to all that when reading your posts, they also consider the source, as they should with my own.

Choose Kerry Lose Bush - FUCK BUSH - Drop Bush Not Bombs!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[jpgray]

5. An embarrassing article

Full of logically bankrupt arguments. From the interview:

"At the end of my first term I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven’t reduced the number significantly."

Sounds fine to me. Even Nader and Kucinich have admitted that the US needs to maintain security in IRaq, and argue for the UN to take over leadership of political restructuring, security, and reconstruction duties. These are Kerry's positions as well, but only Kerry is the evil ruling class lapdog in this dilletante's caricature.

There's also this bit of utter tripe:

"It is worth noting that the three criteria set by Kerry for success in Iraq would describe the regime of former president Saddam Hussein. All three criteria—stability, lasting stability, and security—would be satisfied by the establishment of a military-police dictatorship headed by a new Saddam, such as the current US-backed prime minister, Iyad Allawi."

Of course! Lasting stability and security are only features of a dictatorship, therefore Kerry wants to put in a dictator and is a pawn of the ruling class! Are we in a sophomore dorm here? Why are you wasting our time with this excrement?

edit: If you want a point by point rebuttal, I'll provide it. I do not subscribe to the WSJ, however, and I'd need a copy of the interview to do this right. However, I will proceed without it if necessary. There is no question that Kerry's foreign policy has lots of things to be very concerned about, but claiming something logically follows when it only does so from a feverishly biased interpretation is just bad thinking.

[still_one]

9. then don't vote for Kerry

but if enough people feel as you do then bush will win, consolidate his power.

There are more issues than just Iraq.

Supreme Court justices will last for decades

[calico1]

47. Exactly.

Supreme court justices last for decades. Scary thought to have an almost totally right wing Court. Scarier that after 4 years with Bush some people are perfectly willing to allow that to happen.

If people think Bush will stop with Iraq, they need to think again. I think this is just a first step for the neocons. The way I see it, Bush has made one huge mess in Iraq. The mess is something Kerry will inherit if elected. While I was totally opposed to going to war because I knew the war was based on lies, we are there. That's a fact, like it or not. We broke it, and therefore we own it. It is simply irresponisible to just pull out and leave the Iraqis high and dry after we have destroyed much of the country. What does that say about us? I would much rather have Kerry stabalize things in Iraq (which is what I believe he wants to do), than for Bush to extend his conquests to Iran, Syria, N. Korea and god knows where else. One thing is for sure: We will not be better off with 4 more years of Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

112. People are dying because of Iraq

Kerry is forgetting who he once was when he asked about who should be the last man to die for a mistake? Iraq is a mistake. Who will tell our troops to stay in Iraq after Bush is gone? Who will tell them to die for a mistake? And why should they?

[mimzie]

111. An Embarrassing Article

I agree. They set up a hypothesis and that's supposed to hang
Kerry? Who invented the logic that stability and security are
only the result of a dictatorship? Couldn't possibly have
stability and security in a democracy under the leadership of
a real president who knows what he's doing?  
I smell the same old repug propaganda at work---tell them a
lie, let the media reinforce it often enough, and the core 38%
will swallow it whole.

[IndianaGreen]

113. Are you saying that the Stepford version of Kerry is the one to be blamed

for the quotes about "staying the course"?

Or are you suggesting that this is the new version of the Manchurian candidate with a computer chip implanted in his brain?

WSWS is a socialist publication, not a GOP mouthpiece, and not one of the imperialism-lite crap one reads nowadays.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

118. Are you actually trying to state that the WSWS doesn't have....

...it's own political-economic agenda to push?

Are you also trying to state that the WSWS is any less biased in their coverage of the news than the captive mainstram media?

IMHO, WSWS prints just as much crap from their end of the political spectrum as the captive mainstream agenda prints from their end. The trick is to compile the information from ALL sources and filter out the stuff that can't be validated and/or is obviously biased.

[ugarte]

7. Two pro-war, pro-empire candidates

I guess they can skip foreign policy in the presidential debates.

[jpgray]

11. Yes, that's why we can't elect Al Gore

Oh wait, I was in a 2000 time warp for a moment. That strategy worked out so well last time to divide progressive votes from Gore in many swing states--let's try it again. Get out the ol' leftist dilletante's 'Bush isn't so bad' jacket and put it on!

[ima_sinnic]

8. screw you, John, and your phony antiVietnam War crap

... as someone of YOUR generation I can honestly say it is quite possible to arrive at the age of 58 WITHOUT compromising my values, losing my idealism, or selling out to the highest bidder. Apparently your antiwar activism was nothing but a calculated phony bid for votes (it was the "in" thing in the 60s & 70s) in your totally calculated, put-on life. I'm tired of you already. Vote? If I have time...

[still_one]

12. were you in Nam?

have you been shot at?

it was the republicans who go us into this mess starting with regean and bush senior, and rumsfeld, selling arms to both Iraq and Iran, responsible for indirectly killing thousands by their actions.

don't vote for Kerry, and if enough of us do that, bush will win, and we deserve what we get. We already know what disaster they have been, at least there is hope with Kerry...

[jpgray]

15. You've lost your critical thinking skills, unfortunately

It's easy not to compromise one's values when all one does is pontificate on an internet message board. Look at me, for example. Like the article's author, you are making a lot of conclusions that don't follow from the available facts. Since you use mostly rightwing talking points to do your arguing for you (how many times did you use 'phony' and 'calculated'?) I doubt your own thought had much if anything to do with what you just wrote. I can probably dredge the nucleus of your argument from dilletante leftist editorials, or Comintern circa 1930. In other words, 'Never mind the fascists! Get those bourgeois social democrats first!'

It's not a question of endorsing one, it's a question of dealing with the more dangerous enemy first.

[still_one]

19. I agree

this election is so critical to stop bush, that if it is not done this time, a neo-con agenda will be forced upon us for years

[ima_sinnic]

22. that was ALL my own

and I've done a lot more than "pontificate on internet message boards."

"the more dangerous enemy"--wow, that's quite a choice. FYI, I don't vote for "enemies," no matter their degree of dangerousness. go ahead, vote for another 4 years of war in Iraq, you're free.

when the man shows me something I can trust and believe in, I'll get behind him. until then, he's lost me. I USED TO buy that argument that we have to get rid of Bush, no matter what, ABB, etc. etc.--but I've gone on to other things after unrelenting disappointments from the "electable" Democratic candidate whose foreign policy agenda appears to differ very little from what we have now. I used to tell people not to vote for Bush because they could expect the draft to be reinstated--well, that argument is out the window, now, isn't it?? you think I can use that to bolster support for Kerry? Even conservative Republicans are dropping their support for the invasion of Iraq, so who in #^%^ is Kerry trying to win over, anyway?

call me whatever you want. Kerry is doing this himself by offering absolutely NOTHING as an alternative to war and pillage. this is still a free country and I'm free NOT to vote for the hypocrite.

[still_one]

28. yes you are

but there are more issues besides Iraq

the environment
supreme court
civil rights
stem cell research
a woman's right to choose
health care

[jpgray]

32. Sorry, you're right. This article put me in a snarky mood

Don't let me tell you how to vote or how to think. You do what you feel is right. It's my opinion that we have three kinds of people here to vote for--one that will cripple or kill the country, one that will (probably) continue to beat it up as usual, and those that can't stop either of the other two from doing what they want to do.

I think Kerry's strategy comes from a combination of conservative (to my taste) foreign policy advisers and the idea that only center votes should be pandered to if you want to win. Also, I think he is looking to decrease Bush's media capital, and the way you do that is pander to the corporate leadership. All that said, he is still superior enough to Bush for me to get really pissed off at articles like the one above. Because in my view, Bush is uniquely dangerous, while Kerry is a run-of-the-mill kind of dangerous.

[demoman123]

43. No, he's changed.

He had promise as a young man, but 30 years as a politician have turned him into silly-putty.

[Laughing Mirror]

10. Years? Decades is more like it.

Fourteen US military bases being planted in that sovereign state shall not be put there for nothing. We have to occupy. It is what we do and what we will continue doing until the money runs out. Kerry knows the money won't run out on his watch, maybe on one of his successors.

[still_one]

14. If bush wins this time, the neo-cons will control things for at

least 20 years. Kerry is the only hope to stop this insanity, if for nothing else to get the neo-con administration out before it is too late.

Even if you detest Kerry, if the neo-cons are not stopped now it will be too late.

In four years if Kerry is not adequate then vote him out. It will not be as critical as this time because of the power the current administration now holds.

Remember they are talking about halting elections if they deem necessary. If they win this time, there will be no talk...

[Classical_Liberal]

138. It wounds the neocons, but neocons are behind Kerry's campaign

as well. A Dean candidacy would have been a stake in the heart for real.

[Disturbed]

18. This is not a new stand by Kerry

He will try to take away the tax cuts from the upper 2% to pay for the Occupation and call for a Draft. How many US deaths will be tolerable for Americans before they start active demonstrations to bring all the troops home?

[still_one]

20. Kerry does not support a draft

1. He believes Iraq must be an international effort. Unlike this administration he will not insult our allies.

2. He believes that benefits should be increased dramatically for those that do serve in the armed forces, and that it be voluntary.

[Emillereid]

25. Even if Kerry wins I will be in the streets calling for an end to

the occupation/war -- and I and others will keep up the pressure until ALL the troops and bases and contractors etc. are out of Iraq!

[still_one]

26. and I will too

it will not take long if Kerry is elected for them to determine that much of the violence in Iraq against Americans is coming from within, and not without. Because of the mess we have made in that area from Reagan to the present, it is best we get out as soon as possible. We are a catalyst for attacks. Other international forces may not be...

[Laughing Mirror]

27. That's the spirit, Emillereid

See you on the streets!

[aneerkoinos]

39. Money HAS run out already

It did on Bush' watch. Debt is not money, even though it is contemporary purchasing power. 2005 will be the first year of Depression, and Peak Oil, which will also hit on Kerry's watch makes sure that there is no end in sight for the Depression.

[aneerkoinos]

35. ABBOK

Anybody But Bush Or Kerry

[IndianaGreen]

38. We have little choice outside of ABB

because of the undemocratic US electoral system, the only way to defeat Bush is by having the bulk of the anti-Bush vote to go to one opposition candidate, else the vote will be split and Bush would win with a plurality.

The ABB coalition will come to an end the day after Election Day. The debate and the mass struggle against imperialism in all of its permutations will then restart with renewed vigor, even if Bush is defeated.

The Left will continue the fight for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the repeal of PATRIOT, economic justice (including a Living Wage), and for equal treatment of Israel and Palestine.

[aneerkoinos]

41. And left will have no effect on anything

as long as they stay the guttless wonders they are now. So what, if by voting Nader or whomever else they make Bush win? The US imperialism is going to loose no matter what, so why not to use the opportunity to give Dems a lesson they can't continue peeing on the heart of the party, and let the patriotic ubernationalist jesusnutters to take the rap for the utter failure of their mission, take a hit they will never get over. If the goal is to bring real change, this is the most realistic approach.

[Ripley]

92. All I can say to that Mr. undeclared is:

Lose, not loose.

Who exactly is the "heart" of the Democratic party?

In your plan, how far deep into the swamp of Hell will you swim?

How old are you?

[aneerkoinos]

114. And back to you

Heart of the party I understand to be the activists and active donators, who are mostly progressives.

I'm afraid my son will have to swim quite far, and big part of the blame for that is on you Americans, thankyouverymuch.

Most of the posters can think only about the next four years, I try to think further.

[Darranar]

36. Well, what does one expect?

If Kerry were actually going to oppose US imperial policy, he wouldn't be a candidate.

[Malva Zebrina]

63. best logic so far

anyone who opposes it is not "electable". It is no wonder people do not bother to vote.

Imagine that. Anyone smart enough to swim through that beltway morass, to research, to know what the situation is and can figure out that the war would be nothing but a slaughter, which reallyh was not hard, and that Bush was telling lie after lie after lie would be "unelectable"

The hapless voter is slapped from both sides.

That system is indeed broken.

and that is where we find ourselves--and here, whoever gets the most votes wins but it may be directly proportional to how many millions and millions of dollars they can rake in from those expecting a return from the president on their investment and we saw it happen and it will happen no matter who. -if he steals it, or coups it, no one much gives a damn-and if they say so, Bush's brown shirts will remove their statement from the record. -I remember specifically, Kerry saying we have to "get over it"--yes indeed he did say that, well before the race for a nominee and the primaries even began.

This why I supported Kucinich and Dean--but they were, alas, unelectable.

[tlcandie]

69. I tend to agree with you Marianne.

In fact, things like this make a person wish they had never opened their political eyes and remained ignorant. Its truly vexing on the soul and I don't have the answer.

I wish I could talk with people from other countries who are politically active where there is strife and turmoil and find out what would be their tidbits of wisdom regarding an issue such as we face now with ABB/Kerry and *.

I try to reason that we are only just beginning to feel the sting that many around the world have felt for much longer knowing that they have no control over their countries future...knowing that voting is a joke because it is rigged and has been reduced to a pittance of a symbol of its intended purpose.

As an analogy, it seems to me that its like being lost in the ocean in a rubber raft w/o food or water for days and sharks circling. You are dying of thirst, but you fight the urge to drink the ocean's water knowing it will drive you insane. OTOH, you wonder if it wouldn't be easier just to jump in with the sharks and get on with what seems/ feels to be inevitable...death.

Meanwhile, you find a tiny bit of hope or some odd reason to continue with the struggle and bide your time hoping that death's door will be stayed another day.

I'm going to vote for Kerry, but it severely pains me to do it. After that I"m done being a democrat. I will be on the lookout after the election, if Kerry even gets in due to a coup or whatever, I will keep my eyes open for other solutions to the vexing political situation in this country.

I do not ever want to be put in this situation again...ABB! It stinks to high heaven and makes me feel less a person than I know in my heart to be. I fight depression, irritation and more because I feel backed into a corner and made to do something that is against all that I believe. And for what?

To bide our time. To throw a knot in the end of that rope we are sliding down into the abyss. IMO it will take a LOT more than that knot to keep us from hitting the abyss. It will take a lot more than lipstick or icing to pretty us all up again and make us tasty and desirable. And until people are ready to get past all the bullshit that has become politics and move beyond what is comfortable then we will keep going around this damned mountain of bullshit that continues to grow and threatens to explode and bury us while we yet breath.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

122. Unfortunately, that sums it up well.

Circling 'round a turd. Trying to clean up a mess that requires a shovel by using a teaspoon.


Nice post. :thumbsup:

[ze_dscherman]

150. I wish I could talk with people from other countries

Hi tlcandie,

being German, and being a moderate Leftist/Green type, I'm many times quite upset with German Social Democrat politics.

Our voting system is different and allows smaller parties and coalitions, but federal elections always were a close race between Social Democrats and conservatives. Although many times it was painful to vote for them, I always decided to choose the "lesser evil". That's politics - all about compromise. Actually, after the recent course the Social Democrats have steered, they have become unelectable to me - but ...

Regarding U.S. politics, I was very not very pleased with Clinton - but he was MUCH better than George I., and of course, "* the Lesser" is probably the worst president ever.

Is there any choice but to vote the bastard out of office? I don't think so. If I could, I'd vote Kerry - but I would not grant him free pass for anything. Getting * out of office can/will only be the start of an enormous political and social change the U.S. has to go through. It's not enough to change the horses, or even the course - I do think the destination the U.S. (and Europe as well) is going to has to be questioned.

[struggle4progress]

99. But there's a different problem:

having bombed the bejeezus out of Iraq, the US really has incurred some lasting obligations to repair the damage.

Plenty of people despised Saddam, yet were horrified by the Administration's war and its effects on innocent Iraqis, and would still oppose walking away from the disaster produced by our military intervention.

I agree that US imperial foreign policy has been and will continue to be a problem: it arises from specific political forces which will not evaporate overnight. But if our side refuses to participate, whenever some actors have impure motives, we'll never improve US foreign policy; we'll simply snipe from the sidelines, while impotently admiring ourselves as saintly prophets.

[kayell]

40. I'm taking a politics vacation

A temporary one, but I'm off for a while, maybe until the elections.

Yes, I will vote for Kerry, even if I have to crawl over the rubble to do so. And if anything happens to the election, count on me on the frontlines. But...

This is just too cheneying much. It is so discouraging to know (and yes, I've known it for years) that the only people who will ever be allowed to be nominated are imperialist members of the elite. I am finding myself emotionally exhausted knowing that I am fighting to put another member of the ruling class in power.

To all who will have a fit about irresponsibility or such, read my second sentance again. Remember though how many people NEVER vote, and ask if it might, just possibly might, be because they know that some things never change in this country. The system is rigged, and has been long before black box voting appeared.

[OETKB]

48. Remember Thomas Paine

T. Paine talked about the "summer soldier" and "sunshine patriot," and "These are the times that try men's(and women's) souls." He did not disdain those who would not step up to plate in hard times, but understood whoever did would be "forever in the debt of their country." Make that vacation a little briefer. We need everybody for this one.

[glitch]

103. well said - and welcome to DU! we need you here nt

[OETKB]

42. Eye On The Prize

Mr. Kerry's election will be a needed pause to stop the neo-fascist drumbeat of this administration. Never in our modern history has this country been tied to such an elite few with war as their dominant policy.

As I have written before I went to a presentation by Scott Ritter in Nantucket on 7/15. This man was a conservative Republican with bona fides in the military, arms inspection, and first hand knowledge of Iraq spending 4 years or more inspecting that country and speaking to its top leaders. He feels things are so broken that only 10% of Iraqis support us. It is a downward spiral from there for each day our troops stay there. It is his opinion that the people of Iraq have to sort out the direction of their government themselves and we must stand ready from the outside, not inside, to help.

I believe him and if Mr. Kerry is elected we must take to the streets, write and speak to our representatives demanding that they bring the troops home. Now there are reports that Mr. Allawi has reverted to his true form and has executed detainees by shooting them in the head(Report from Paul McKeogh, Australian reporter). Is this what we want to be associated with? Let's get out of Iraq now before even greater calamity befalls this nation, and we truly lose our leadership to foster a more livable world.

[ugarte]

66. Elect Kerry, then take to the streets

I like that. Great post.

[Luna_Chick]

80. I agree, take to the streets!

As a newcomer to the boards, I am probably repeating many of the sentiments on this "vote for Kerry to end the current regime/vote not for Kerry because he's not a candidate to get jazzed about" issue. Excellent points have been made on both sides. So let me just put in my two cents' worth, with the choices we basically have this year.

- Vote for the chimp: We already know that, with the current regime, what remains of our sacred Constitution is in serious jeopardy. And more. As pissed off as we all are right now with the American Reich, I would be truly ashamed to VOLUNTARILY give chimpie my vote.

- Vote for Nader (or Spiderman, your dead neighbour, etc). While it may be considered "making a statement", it is essentially identical to the first option above. Sorry folks, we just can't afford it this year!

- Vote for Kerry, aka "the lesser of two weevils" scenario. No, I'm not really fussed on John, either. But he doesn't scare me NEARLY as much as Chimp & Co. Dim Son and his puppeteers frightened the bejeezus out of me prior to the election theft four years ago; it's only gotten worse, I hardly need to count the ways here.

- Don't vote at all. Too many people have given their lives in order to secure my right to participate in the voting process. Too much has happened under our current Occupation to either frighten me from exercising that right or to thwart the process by any (criminal) means necessary. The first thing I did after school on my 18th birthday was register to vote. Yes, I voted four years ago, only to be slapped in the face when one of our most cherished freedoms was stolen from us and reduced to a debate over chad, failed voting machines and electronic hacking issues. Do I sometimes think "well, what's the point then? If my vote didn't count, why bother at all"? Sure, I do. But by not voting, by staying home and griping about how disillusioned we are, we not only dishonour those who fought so hard and died for this right, we also accomplish exactly what the current regime wants from us the most. By fighting amongst ourselves, by speaking wistfully of how much we wish we had a different candidate, by refusing to go out there and at least TRY to change what is happening to our country, the Regime has already won. Sure, they might steal it again. Sure, they'll probably do their best to muck things up this November. No revolution guaranteed success; does that mean we give up without an attempt? Is the idea of America not worth the fight? It was over 200 years ago. It should still be now, especially now.

Idealistic, certainly. But please don't dismiss it as cheeseball, overly passionate "rah rah." This is America. This is my country, too. She is not without fault. We can do better. But we have to get out there and do our duty, people. Get out and vote. Take to the streets, or we'll lose her. Get dirt under your fingernails, refuse to bend over and take it. Demand that the officials under our employ are held accountable, or fire them when they slack off on the job. "Stand beside Her, and guide Her." We owe her that much. :grouphug:

[FlemingsGhost]

81. You are getting bent over regardless.

The only diffrence is Kerry is using lube.

[Luna_Chick]

83. Point still stands..

as previously stated, I'm not crazy about Kerry either. But I'm not giving Chimp my vote..not giving it to Nader..and not staying home doing nothing. :)

[Invalence1]

124. Thanks. I needed that.

[masshole]

44. your belief in Kerry shaken a bit?

Then the RW did their job with this story.

[IndianaGreen]

45. You equating the RW with a Trotskyite publication?

Or is that the old reliable strawman argument that the defenders of a "stay the course" policy in Iraq always bring up as their only defence?

[demoman123]

46. Heheh

The people at WSWS would get a chuckle out of that "RW" epithet. :) "RW" is what people around here use to refer to anything they disagree with.

[masshole]

50. you read way too much into it

The WSJ (the quoted source) is not shy about who they support.
I believe articles such as this are simply meant to destabilize parts of the left, in an effort to weaken Kerry's base, in the same way Nader's campaign does.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Explain the other source posted on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x691612#691820

No matter how you look at it, Kerry said what he said!

[Aidoneus]

51. my "belief in Kerry" is only confirmed by such things..

And as for your "RW" comment about the WSWS:--yikes.

[masshole]

52. Have some more coffee

then try to understand... the comment was about THE SOURCE of their story, the WSJ.
I never said the WSWS was RW.

[Aidoneus]

55. don't drink coffee..

would take a swallow of Le Fee Verte, but fresh out at the moment.

Kerry cannot be judged by his own words and stances? Zoinks.

[OKNancy]

49. Another source about the same interview

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-7-2004_pg4_3

WASHINGTON: Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he would set three conditions for withdrawing US troops from Iraq if he were elected, and warned that President George W Bush might cut troop numbers ahead of the November 2 vote.

In an interview with the The Wall Street Journal, Kerry said the conditions were “to measure the level of stability” in Iraq, “to measure the outlook for the stability to hold” and “to measure the ability ... of their security forces” to defend Iraq. Until each condition is satisfied, Kerry said, “I will provide for the world’s need not to have a failed state in Iraq.”

Kerry, who will be formally picked to run for the White House at the Democratic National Convention in Boston July 26-29, has been calling for more international involvement in Iraq, but has refrained from advocating a withdrawal of all the 140,000 US troops.

However, he told the Journal aboard his campaign plane that “at the end of my first term I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven’t reduced the number significantly.”

[liveoaktx]

53. *Reduced the number significantly* versus "virtually all US combat troops

out by end of his first term- http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/federal/20040519-1317-kerryinterview.html

Questions: Does this mean that Kerry plans to keep troops in Iraq past the end of his term of office? Is the sticking point whether one defines the troops as *combat* troops or not? (in my opinion, all the troops in Iraq are combat troops due to the guerilla war nature of it). What does he intend to do with the 14 military bases purportedly being bulit there (can't find a primary source for that, incidentally).

[Rose Siding]

56. US troops in Iraq = combat

...just like Afghanistan. How will this not continue to be, not only a drain on the 'real' fight against al qaeda, but incentive to swell the ranks of terrorism?

"US soldier killed" will be NO easier to hear when there's a dem in the WH.

[BiggJawn]

57. Well, that's just cuts IT..C'mon, we go vote for Lyndon LaRouche...

Ralph was RIGHT, wasn't he?
<HEAVY, HEAVY SARCASM>

Who pays Patrick Martin?

[Barkley]

58. What's the cost of keeping 100,000 plus troops in Iraq until 2008?

What do the Iraqis think about keeping that many foreign troops in their country?

Kerry also wants to increase the Army size by 40,000.

I don't think the U.S. Gov't has the money; our projected deficits are enormous.

Kerry will need to raise taxes.

Iraq is "The White Man's Burden":

"Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child."

- R. Kipling (1898)

[Darranar]

59. All that's necessary is the gutting of a few more social programs...

the worsening of the lives of hundreds of thousands more Americans, greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich, etc.

And, of course, more slaughter, more anger, more injury, more death, and more violence, in Iraq and elsewhere.

At least it's bipartisan....

[Barkley]

67. I don't think the war cost can be completely offset with spending cuts

Bush couldn't do with Republican control of Congress;
Bush is running record deficits because of his tax cuts.

But even if social spending is going to be sacrificed so
that we can occupy Iraq, Kerry needs to say so and tell us
exactly how we're going to finance occupying Iraq until 2008.

[Darranar]

68. That is true...

nevertheless, even the repeal of Bush's giveaways to the rich may not be enough for this, since Kerry intends to keep the tax cuts on the middle class and is not going to cut military spending.

Kerry does need to explain how he will finance the occupation, though he may well not, especially if it will involve cuts in social spending.

[GreenArrow]

120. Privitization of EVERYTHING

will take care of that.

[Barkley]

135. Haliburton has proven that 'outsourcing' is not necessarily cost effective

and there is an opportunity for overcharging by private vendors.

Most of the military equipment and weapons are already produced by private companies.

[hansolsen]

60. Fine. First we get rid of Shrub, then limit Kerry to one term. N/T

[Darranar]

62. And replace him with who?

The incumbent usually has enough power in the Party to guarantee his nomination for a second term anyway.

[Geo55]

64. Come John....almost the truth

He said it was necessary “to measure the level of stability” in the country, “to measure the outlook for the stability to hold,” and

“to measure the ability...of their security forces” to defend the country.

...(read OIL )

[Robb]

73. Flash: also vows to keep troops in Germany, Iceland, and Kentucky.

:eyes:

[Larkspur]

76. What will Kerry do if Sistani and the other Islamic clerics in Iraq issue

a fatwa to oust foreign troops from Iraq? Would he order their execution or withdraw troops?

[FlemingsGhost]

77. Once again, It's going to take a revolution ...

This is where I get off the Kerry/Edwards Express. Never was comfortably seated, anyway.

[Pastiche423]

79. I was never onboard

Din't like the direction it was headed; even moreso now.

[TheWraith]

84. This entire thread is bullshit.

A great big suicide dove circle-jerk where they can exercise their Cassandra complexes, moaning about how there's no absolutely difference between fire and ice, how they've known all along, and how no one will listen to them even though they have the one and only Truth. Fuck all of you. I don't like having troops in Iraq either, but that's no excuse for getting all pissy and drooling over a bullshit propaganda article.

Reelecting Bush means wars in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Electing Kerry means no wars. Very simple. The only excuse for thinking different is if you ignore all worldly evidence.

[aneerkoinos]

85. Your countrymen dying in Iraq are no bullshit

If you are willing to take moral responsibility of thousands of Americans getting killed and maimed in Iraq (not to mention the locals) during the next four years, then do so by voting Kerry or Bush or any other pro-war candidate with no questions asked. But please don't come here bitch about this thread where people wrestle with extremely difficult questions of conscience and pragmatim. The tone and willing ignorance of your post earns the least respect of all the posts in this thread so far, IMO.

[TheWraith]

93. No.

You're not wrestling with questions of conscience and pragmatism. You guys are deliberately twisting reality to suit your apocalyptic notions of doom. You're comparing Kerry's statement--that not withdrawing the troops would be a serious failure--and saying that that is the same or worse than Bush's stated intent to keep ~150,000 troops in Iraq for at least 5 years. And you have the balls to accuse ME of willing ignorance? You're equating somebody who's been a prominent peace activist to a warmongering monkey and saying they're the same. You're ignoring the fact that, while it was still Russian Roulette to criticize Bush, Kerry got up on the Senate floor and said that if Bush was bullshitting the Senate on the Iraq war, Kerry would be coming for him. And he is.

Whether you like the fact or not--and I personally don't--an immediate withdrawl isn't a good solution. The only thing preventing a dissolution of the country or the rise of a dictatorial theocracy is the fact that all the factions in Iraq hate us SLIGHTLY more than they hate each other. You want to talk about the locals getting killed and maimed? How many would die if we just upped and left without a plan? Thoughtless action got us into this mess. Thoughtless action can't get us out.

And as for respect, I choose to display the amount of respect someone's earned. The far-left complaining in this thread is pathetic. It isn't enough that we've got the American Fascist Party to battle, but we've got to defend from fellow lefties who want to sacrifice our one chance to stop this disaster on an arbitrary alter of unreachable perfection. I don't expect total agreement, but is it so much to ask for everyone to recognize the clearly superior choice when they see it?

[aneerkoinos]

95. Bada-bim

Who are you adressing in plural? Personally, I think apocalypse and doom are fitting descriptions for the future of US and global capitalism in its current form, so if you wish to discuss those issues, read what I have written and take your best shot if you disagree. But making generalizing strawmen with no poin lead nowhere.

In fact, I think the article is right saying that Bush is more likely to withdraw from Iraq than Kerry adm (not high in either case). I don't see Kerry saying anywhere that he commits to respecting the popular will of Iraq, if elections succeed and they tell US to go to hell. Bush adm. has committed to this through UN at least to a degree.

Kerry has been very clear and vocal about increasing the number of US troops in Iraq and blaming Bush for sending too few soldiers.

And keeping in mind Kerry's line on Venezuala, who is showing willfull ignorance and baseless over-optimism?

Kerry may have had his heart in the right place few decades ago, but now all his actions and words point that he's just another warmongering, antidemocratic monkey.

What you call "theocratic dictatorship" with a clear bias I understand to refer to what I guess is the current majority opinion in Iraq, anti-Israel, anti-US, Islamic-nationalistic socially progressive and culturally conservative form of governement, whether we agree with that or not. It's not for Kerry, Bush or you to decide, but for the Iraqi people, and I condemn your colonialist "white mans burden" attitudes. Attitudes with a twist, I admit.

And whom and what do you mean by far-left? I don't see any Stalinists here. I see believers and moderates who disagree with me, but who can express themselves politely, and I can respect them, but I have no respect for the far-out moderatedefeatist, gutless, attitudes your posts show at least so far.

I don't deny that Kerry may be slightly preferable to Bush on domestic issues, but I'm looking at things from the other side of the pond and consentrate on Kerry's statements on foreign policy, which is the topic of this thread. Vote for Kerry is clearly a vote for continued war just as much or even more that a vote for Bush. Some people can hold their noses and take the pragmatist attitude of lesser evil and vote against their consciense, I advise against that because I think there are at least equally convincing pragmatist reasons of cold reasoning why principled ABBOK stand would lead to better result in the final count. And I haven't yet seen anyone trying to refute the historical megatrend analysis I base my view on, though attempts would be wellcome.

[DemMother]

110. bravo

[leesa]

121. If I see a clearly superior choice, I'll be sure to do just that.

Kerry would do anything for Israel and fighting her wars is just one of those things our government is more than happy to do.

[mountainvue]

130. My friend

"You're ignoring the fact that, while it was still Russian Roulette to criticize Bush, Kerry got up on the Senate floor and said that if Bush was bullshitting the Senate on the Iraq war, Kerry would be coming for him. And he is."

Do you have a link for this? I could convert a few with it if you do.

[True_Blue]

94. Here is a direct link to the WSJ article

Kerry doesn't say anything about keeping troops in Iraq until 2008, in fact, he says he will involve the world community and significantly reduce the number of troops in Iraq....

<snip>

WSJ: If you become president, do you think that by the end of your first term, that troops will be out of Iraq?

KERRY: "I certainly can't tell you numbers. But I can tell you this. At the end of my first term, I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven't reduced the number significantly."

WSJ: I understand you have a difference with the president on how do we get there. Give us more of a vision of what the "there" is? How will we know when we've reached that point?

KERRY: "I'll tell you."

WSJ: Can you define it any better now?

KERRY: "It will not be a failed state that threatens the world. I hope it will be moving towards democracy. And democracy will have taken hold. But I can guarantee you this. I will get the world involved in ways that this administration hasn't and can't. And I will reduce the risk to American soldiers and I will reduce the cost to the American taxpayer."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB108998730422865863,00.html?mod=todays_free_feature

[aneerkoinos]

96. How?

"But I can guarantee you this. I will get the world involved in ways that this administration hasn't and can't. And I will reduce the risk to American soldiers and I will reduce the cost to the American taxpayer."

I ask again how? "Guarantee" is such a strong word :D when Kerry says not a half word on how is he going to convince the world to side with him when in fact he plans to continue the same neocon policies that he supported from the start, with the only critical claims that Bush has not been effective enough in promoting the PNAC agenda.

And yep, sending 40,000 more soldiers to Iraq will surely reduce the risk, as will the fact that Kerry is even more likely to introduce draft than Bush. And how will he reduce the cost to the American taxpayer, send the soldier less well armed and supplied?

[moondust]

106. How?

Half the world's reluctance to do much before the election is the ongoing danger of Bush* and his cowbody diplomacy. Get rid of him and the PNAC brigade and I would expect a welcome return to relative sanity and far more international cooperation. Show them a fresh start, sound reasoning, responsibility for one's actions, and appropriate partnerships and I guarantee the situation will improve albeit not overnight.

[Cat Atomic]

97. I'm not a big Kerry fan, but I think this is RNC spin.

They're trying to make Kerry seem just like Bush. They're hoping to split the Democratic vote this year by making Nader's "they're both the same" message seem more appealing.

There've been a glut of this stories in the last couple of weeks.

[Uzybone]

98. The sanctimonious whining

displayed on this thread is the reason why the left has not been able to make any reasonable progress in the last decade. Acting as snipers while the Reich wing pulverizes democrats isn't what we should be doing at this time.

[IndianaGreen]

100. No one put a gun to the Democrats' heads and forced them to vote for...

PATRIOT and IWR (or the equally infamous Syria Accountability Act which opened the door for a future US invasion of Syria).

[goforit]

101. Now thats a SKULL N BONER TRUE N TRUE!!!!

Vietnam all over again.

[Carolab]

104. To quote my hero

Howard Dean, "don't make the perfect an enemy of the good". John Kerry, he points out, has an overall progressive record in the Senate and would make "a far better president than George Bush". We need a Democrat in the WH so we can at least have a chance to work some change. If Howard stands behind Kerry, then so do I.

[Sven77]

108. i hope this is not true

he is speaking to the wall street journal, that audience is concerned mostly with money and oil. this is what they wanted to hear, more iraq oil while kerry is president. i hope he just said this to get elected. we still have tons of voting machine problems. gropinator in california assigns the voting workers, so does jeb in florida. looks like the best bonesman will win come november. :argh:

[The Animator]

116. As much as I detest this War...

... I can see how an extended U.S. military presence may be necessary now. Please allow an analogy.

You have a nice house. You have some very expensive things in it. It's your house, and while it's not perfectly clean or flawlessly designed, everything works, the plumbing, the electric, and your security system all suit your needs.

One night you awaken to the sound of a rowdy party, not nextdoor, but from the first floor of your house. Apparently about fifty drunken Frat boys (of the Fraternity comprised mostly of Jocks) have broken into your house and are throwing a party there. The drunkest of them is pretty much the ring leader, and you come down stair just as he has thrown your 42 inch plasma TV into your jacuzzi, the tv fries the jacuzzi's electric water pump and both arr ruined.

"What the hell are you doing in my house!" You demand. You get no response, but the other frat boys follow their fearless leaders example and do their part to trash your house. Your sofa has been reduced to it's basic elements (torn fabric and stuffing), your microwave has turned itself inside out (Some one decided to put all your silverware in it), Some one left the bathroom sink running and, since the sink is already clogged with vomit the water/vomit has started to soak into your hardwood floors. Another guy has just tried to hang from your designer ceiling fan, since he weighs about 300 pounds, not only does he break the blades, he pulls the entire unit from the ceiling and it comes crashing down onto your etched glass coffee table. If that were not enough, a couple of rocket scientists take to slinging your dvd player around by it's power cord, like it's an olympic sport and send int flying into your pride and joy, your 10 Gigahertz AMD, with an Invida Video card, and 17" flat panel display.

Everything you have worked for is now a steaming pile of shit. All the money you have sunk into this house and everything in it has gone up in smoke, along with most of your kitchen.

Then a new person shows up, he's another member of that Fraternity, only he's sober, and he's very pissed off at what is fellow frat members have done. He knows that were it not for the lead drunk, his frat would have never broken into you house and wrecked you life. He bitch slaps the fucking lunatic, who was in the middle of trying to screw your pet cat, who someone had decided to spraypaint pink.

The new guy takes charge of the situation and all the other drunken asshole fratboys start taking his orders. Now that he is in command there is some heavy decision making to do.

Does he simply pull all of his fellow frat boys out of your now crumbling and smoldering house and say "sorry, I'll sure give these guys a talking to and it won't happen again"?

Your security sytem is gone so your trailer trash neighboor could come over and loot you blind at any time. That crazy stalker person you've been avoiding could stroll in and take over where these buttmunches left off. If the new guy pulls everybody out, the frat boys who destroyed your house will be gone, but you will have to start all over again with nothing. The new guy doesn't owe you anything, after all, he didn't destroy your house, these other guys and that drooling dipshit with the big ears did.

Or Does he make the hard choice? "Look I'm really sorry for what these guys did to you and your house, I feel really bad about it. I'm really ashamed to be a member of this Frat right now, and I would like to help set things right if I can. My Frat did this, my Frat is responsible for all this damage, and although I did not have a hand in any of this chaos, I feel that it is now our responsability to repair your home.

These guys are doing what I tell them now, a lot of them are starting to sober up. For starters I'd like to put a lot of these guys into making sure your neighbor stays on his side of the fence. I'll put some more of these guys to work on cleaning up this mess. In the mean time I'm going to make a few phone calls and get some other frats and sororities to come here and pitch in."

Over the next couple of weeks, a great deal of the structural damage is repaired. The original fifty frat boys have really turned themselves around, except for the Lead Drunken dipshit, I hear he got expelled over this little incident. Also about 250 people from different frats and sororities that had nothing to do with the party that night, have come together to fix or replace everything that was broken. It's overwhelming having three hundred people working on your house, but eventually they fix it up even better than before. You've had a chance to see the original fifty frats in a better light, I still don't like them, first impressions and all, but there not all bad. You've also had an opportunity to meet a lot of new people, and see them put their best foot forward. Sure, you wish that this whole ordeal hadn't happened but, what's done is done and, afterward it was a hell of alot better having the extra help than to try and fix your broken house alone.

We should never have gone over there, but Bush got us into this. He's made a big mess of things over there. We may not be responsible for this mess, but our country is, and should be held accountable for the damage that's been done.

[komplex]

117. Perfect...

Can I use this on other sites to explain everything.

[aneerkoinos]

119. Fitting analogy?

Nope, the Iraq war is no frat boy prank.

But to go with your analogy. Why should the family be forced to face their tormentors and relive their horrors again and again, tormentors who raped their privacy, sexually abused their son who tried to throw them out and killed their pets?

A just society puts people who engage in illegal activity and harm others in jail and orders them to pay compensations the damage they have caused (in money, not labour, so the family can hire and buy what suites them). A just society does not inflict more harm on the victim.

So, is Kerry going to turn Bush and neocon gang to justice? Does he intend to apologise to Iraqis and pay compensations for the war crimes of US? That's what the "responsible" frat gang leader should do by your analogy.

[komplex]

126. When you get back to reality...

Who's going to protect them from Iran, Al-Queada, Syria, Turkey & Russia? If we leave before we can stabilize Iraq, we run a huge risk of handing Iraq over to new version of the Taliban.

Kerry is going to bring in the UN, he'll be able to bring in France & Germany, maybe even a few Arab Nations as well.

As far as compensation for War Crimes, with their actions about the Iraqi debt, the Bush Administration is laying the groundwork for a smart international lawyer to forgive billions(trillions?) of third wold debt.

[CWebster]

127. What the hell is stablizing?

Appointing another CIA puppet strongman exile to keep Iraqis from pursuing their own autonomy and fight for true liberation from their occupying oppressors--while enriching themselves while holding open the door for corporate looting.

Who will protect them from us?

[komplex]

129. Wild Eyed Idealists got us into this mess and

Wild eyed idealists aren't going to get us out.

Stop kidding yourself.
If we pull out, we hand the women of Iraq over to the Taliban.

Only a person who truly hates women would want that to happen.

[IndianaGreen]

131. The Taliban are in Afghanistan which is in Western Asia

If we pull out, we hand the women of Iraq over to the Taliban.

Iraq's women were free from religious oppression under Saddam. America's invasion of Iraq has condemned Iraqi women and girls to a life of terror and subjugation. Thank you Amerika!

Afghan women were also free from religious oppression when they were under the Marxist government. Thanks to Cold Warriors like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, who backed the mujahedin, Afghan women have been oppressed ever since the Marxists were toppled. And they continue to be oppressed even under the American puppet Karzai. Thank you Amerika!

[komplex]

132. So tell us

Which Factions fighting against the Americans are secular humanists and which ones are radical islamofascists. And can the Anti-American Secular Humanists in Iraq defeat the radical islamo-fascists?

[demoman123]

134. I'll tell you.

We should withdraw and allow the people of Iraq to decide what kind of regime they want. If they want an Islamic Republic, or a return of the Baathists, or some other alternative, that is their business. It has always been their business, not ours.

[komplex]

140. So you are saying

Arm every man, woman and child and let them fight it out for themselves.
Good.

[aneerkoinos]

141. Strawman-award of the week!

Besides, they are already armed everyone, and in the middle of a war. And you present nothing but the age old colonialist pretext that the barbarians/children/etc cannot be trusted to take care of their own matters. The current violence is because of invation and resistance to continued occupation, there is no reason to assume that Iraq's various religous, ethnic and political groups would not be able to settle their differences and find suitable compromises peacefully once the occupiers go away. The likelihood of peacefull solution after the occupation ends is impossible to estimate, the likelihood of continued violence if the occupying troops remain is 100%. Easy choise, now isn't it?

[komplex]

144. You are making the same bet * is making...

Like * and the NeoCons were hoping to be greeted like Liberators without any evidence to back them up, you are hoping that the various Islamofascists, Ba'ath party Saddam Wannabes, Kurds with dreams of statehood are all going to lay down their arms and discuss the future of Iraq, without any evidence to back up your point.

The NeoCons were wrong and this is the mess they got us into, if you are wrong at worst we're getting a genocide in Iraq or another Congo.

It comes down to who should die for the neocon mistakes, our armed Us Soldiers or the women and children of Iraq?

Idealists got us into this mess, Realists are going to get us out.

[aneerkoinos]

148. Ignorance and prejudice lead nowhere

And they are not only found among neocons. You still accept the Washington consensus view about the situation in Iraq, and parrot their talking points and propaganda. Haven't you learn anything?

[komplex]

151. Do you actually have any evidence that

Iraq won't turn into a bloodbath if the US leaves, if you have any evidence, I would like to see it.

[aneerkoinos]

154. The burden of evidence

is actually on the shoulders of those who claim that the ongoing bloodbath will NOT END if the US leaves, US that is the cause of the current bloodbath. We all should be aware of the current situation, there is no excuse for such ignorance, especially if you follow the DU newsfeed instead of Fox and CNN.

Nobody can say for sure what will happen if and when US leaves or is driven out, it is very complex situation with multiple unknown variables. Reading what informed observers like Juan Cole and some Iraqi bloggers is recommended, they help to shed some light on the complexities of the situation. Anyhow, like I said earlier, it impossible to give any accurate predictions on the likelyhood or scale of violence in the post-occupation Iraq, and that is naturally dependent also under what kind of circumstances the US withdrawal will take place. What is a near certainty (based on well known lessons of history) is that the longer the occupation continues, the worse the bitterness and violence and attrocities by both sides will escalate, and the likelihood of all the power falling into hands of various warlords will grow. Especially bad the situatian will get if US sabotages the elections or refuses to respect the will of the people after elections. I have not yet heard Kerry saying anything about respecting the outcome of the elections (80% against the occupation troops, so in that respect the outcome should be no brainer), and that is extremely disturbing when taken together with talk about sending more troops and keeping significant amount of troops until stability somehow miraculously emerges, and not acknowledging that most if not all the instability is directly or indirectly caused by the occupation, presense of foreign troops is Iraq.

It's really not so difficult calculus, even for the pea-brained should be able to understand it. 100% likelihood that the bloodbath will remain the same or get worse if the occupation continues vs. unknown but definately smaller likelihood that the situation remains as bad or gets worse if the occupation ends. And even simplier put: you and Kerry choose certainty of continued violence horrible suffering for all sides involved against uncertainty of continued violence and horrible suffering.

What is really insulting to mine or anybody's intelligence is to use that uncertainty as pretext to "stay the course" of certain violence and suffering. Sure, most Americans seem have had their intelligence insulted by their politicians and media to the scale that their intelligence has gone hiding, so maybe I should show understanding and be more kind to you? Well, I'm trying, as proven by this lengthy post and making the same self-evident points again and again in answer to what is nothing but the "group thinking" Washington excuses, myths and lies, to which you have presented no supporting evidence or even half intelligent thought of your own.

[komplex]

157. Do you honestly think

That the same people who want to bring Sharia law into Iraq are going to allow free elections?

[IndianaGreen]

142. They are all nationalists right now

and they all want our asses out of their country.

If we were the country being occupied, we would be applauding every suicide bomber that kills the occupier's army.

Have you seen the film Red Dawn?

[komplex]

145. But what happens when we leave?

We have to look at this longterm. If we pull out and a genocide occurs are we responsible? Do we go in to stop it?

In Iraq, there are no good options left. I would love to pack up and bring our soldiers to the front lines of the real War on Terror, but we have to look at reality.

Would you really be cheering every Christo-fascist suicide bomber if you knew once the occupying army left you were next?

[aneerkoinos]

139. I've seen the reality from the beginning

None of Iraq's neighbours is going to invade, why would they? They see what is happening to the strongest army in the world, demoralized, short of manpower, expensive gear starting to fall apart, they are unable to do any serious damage to the popular resistance. The imperialist's troubles give a good warning example, and the neighbouring countries, like all the world except USA want stability, not war; justice, not oppression. And in Middle East US (together with Israel) is the main source of instability and injustice.

"Kerry is going to bring in the UN, he'll be able to bring in France & Germany, maybe even a few Arab Nations as well."

How? I've refuted this falce promise enough times. Kerry can't bring anything, the coalition is getting thinner and thinner all the time. Only if there is democratically elected and legitimate Iraqi governement, if they so wish and invite foreign help (after kicking invaders out), other countries may agree.

[komplex]

152. Oh my God

You are starting to sound like Safire.

[CWebster]

125. Only one problem

It is not our household to run. Sending in more frat boys to occupy the house isn't going to make it a home again.

[Emillereid]

133. We have seen the enemy and it is us! That's why any talk about the US

bringing security or what have you, with or without international support, is so very, very misguided. It's unhinged from reality. The fact of the matter is that we are the aggressor, the invading army. Iraq is presently engaged in a war for national liberation against us -- we can never bring peace. Our very presence is provocation! Iraqis will write their own history. It is not up to us. It's not ours to pacify or to dictate the terms. We should be more careful with our actions If we don't like the shit that flies back at us. The ONLY way out of Iraq is OUT the way we came. Kerry understood this very well in Vietnam, but he now seems to be suffering historical amnesia. Too bad -- more Americans and many, many Iraqis will die before we finally get it. In fact, I fear that the Iraqi adventure could very well be the beginning of the end for our so-called empire -- we don't have the economic infrastructure. We're mortgaged to our eyeballs -- and I fear history is going to be calling in the IOUs!

[nolabels]

153. "Iraqis will write their own history" some people just don't get that

All for a LIE - Demand Justice - Bush/Cheney Prison



http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/107605.php

[Selwynn]

143. Ooohh the world socialist website hath spoken!

Look, I agree with a lot of the arguments that would be found on this site, but when it comes to characterizing Kerry, this is the last site I would go to for fair analysis.

I read the article, the title of the piece is extremely misleading. Basically the piece quotes Kerry saying a lot of other things beside "I vow to keep troops in Iraq for years" and then chooses to infer that conclusion on its own based on other statements.

That's fine, maybe that's true, but I don't appreciate such a skewed way of trying to present what really boils down to a opinion piece.

Edit - I would also like to add that the site is lying. Kerry did not promise troops would remain in Iraq until 2008. He said he promised to have troops home by the end of his first term. There is a difference. He is not garunteeing they'll be there till 2008. He's "garunteeing" they'll be home before his term is up.

Whether you think that's quick enough or not is fine - but I really don't apprecate who this piece is presented. I don't think it is presented in a fair manner.

[nolabels]

147. Do you see any handwriting on the wall?

Iraq issues threat to Iran over insurgents
By Adrian Blomfield in Baghdad
(Filed: 21/07/2004)

Iraq threatened military retaliation against Iran yesterday, accusing its former foe of backing terrorists who have begun to focus their campaign of violence on the interim government itself.


Hazim al-Shaalan, the defence minister, denounced Iranian interference, saying that Teheran was supporting foreign Islamic militants fighting alongside remnants of the Saddam era to destabilise Iraq.

"They confess to the presence of their spies in Iraq who have a mission to shake up the social and political situation," he said. "Iranian intrusion has been vast and unprecedented since the establishment of the Iraqi state."

In the past Iraq has levelled similar accusations against Syria and Mr Shaalan warned: "We are prepared to move the arena of the attacks on Iraq's honour and its rights to those countries."

Meanwhile, gunmen shot dead Basra's acting governor, the latest in a series of attacks on members of the three-week-old government. Two of Hazim al-Aynachi's bodyguards were also killed.
(snip)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/21/wirq21.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/21/ixworld.html
http://www.antiwar.com/

[Selwynn]

156. Irrelevant.

My only point is that the article itself is a bit misleading in its title and disingenuous in at least some of its content. Whether or not larger beliefs are true or false is not part of what I am saying here.

Even if we believe in the general beliefs expressed there, I feel they could have done it in a more intellectually honest manner.

[saigon68]

146. kick