Will John Kerry Report for Duty?

[Twist_U_Up]

Early in Campaign 2004, Sen. John Kerry challenged George W. Bush’s operatives to “bring it on,” fully expecting that they would try to smear his patriotism despite his Vietnam War medals. In accepting the Democratic nomination, Kerry again highlighted his national service by snapping off a salute with the words: “Reporting for duty.”

Yet one of the biggest disappointments for many Democrats was that the “bring it on” John Kerry didn’t show up at key moments in Election 2004. He failed to respond aggressively when a Republican front group spread lies about his war record. He then meekly conceded defeat on the day after the Nov. 2 election rather than fight for a full examination of voting irregularities.

Now, John Kerry may have one more chance to “report for duty.” On Jan. 6, after the new Congress convenes, he could join with Reps. John Conyers, Maxine Waters and other members of the House of Representatives in supporting their expected motion for a full-scale investigation of Election 2004, particularly the widespread allegations of voting fraud in the pivotal state of Ohio.

For the House motion to have any standing, it must be signed by at least one U.S. senator. So far, no U.S. senator has stepped forward despite petition drives from rank-and-file Democrats demanding that Bush’s victory be contested.


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/010405.html

[rucky]

1. If he does, I have a whole list of people that I need to call "asshole" to

but I'm not holding my breath.

that's alright, tho, I'm kinda getting used to repeated humiliation.

[meisje]

2. He's AWOL

[babylonsister]

3. Try this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=229715&mesg_id=229715

[seito]

4. lol

[Twist_U_Up]

7. lol

try reading the article Its very well written

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq,

[LittleClarkie]

10. Oh, then he should know tons about Kerry

and his involvement in Iran/Contra.

It may be well-written, but it is also quite wrong.

I emailed them with this response:

"Four things I would like to point out.

1. Kerry will be in Iraq for the first two weeks of January. He will therefore not be in Congress on Jan. 6th, nor is it fair to expect him to be when he's not even in town. Hardly makes him a coward, being in Iraq. I'm proud of him for going there. I just hope he doesn't get "Wellstoned."

2. It was not a crime that he conceeded on Nov. 3rd. There was nothing concrete that he could have hung on to, no hard evidence to point to at that point. He didn't even have the popular vote (near as we could tell right then, anyway.) The very last thing we needed in this process was another "Sore Loserman" or the media circus that would have gone with it. The Republicans would have been on high alert and fighting tooth and nail. As it is, I've been happy to see Kerry sticking his nose in the recount in Washington, the runoff elections in Louisiana, and in keeping the lawsuits going in Ohio. Quietly, mind you. But he is indeed there. So he is involved in the investigation of voter irregularities. He's just not grandstanding. Smart, I say.

3. It really, really needs to be someone other than Kerry or Edwards who stands up at this point. It needs to be "We the people" not the candidate himself.

4. Many Democrats are shouting about fraud, but many are not. I would dare say most are not, at least none by me. While I want to see election reform, I have no delusions about getting a President Kerry at this point. What I do have is a Senator Kerry, one who has promised to fight for children's health care, election reform and against the Bush agenda. I don't need a "Gore-d" toothless Senator laughingstock. I need someone who is still viable on his home turf, the Senate.

Sincerely
One of those intensely loyal Kerry supporters you may have read about in Newsweek
Erica ________"

[LittleClarkie]

5. HE'S IN IRAQ

No, he will NOT be there. No, it shouldn't be him anyway. No, he's not AWOL. Yes, he should have conceeded due to lack of concrete evidence. No, it was not a sign of weakness.

Gee, what a novel article. Haven't heard any of this before :eyes:

Why don't we have a smilie for banging ones head against a wall?

[New Earth]

6. does this work?

[seito]

8. perfect

[ginnyinWI]

9. LOL, Little Clarkie n/t