Kerry Submits Amendment to Withdraw Troops from Iraq in 2006

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Senator John Kerry introduced an amendment to the Pentagon spending bill on Monday to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by year's end, but the Kerry bill has not received wide support from other Democrats who seem to be more interested in jockying for position than supporting a unified plan for withdrawal.

TrueMajority.org, however, has come out in support of the Kerry Amendment and issued this statement in an e-mail today: "John Kerry just introduced a surprise Senate amendment to get our soldiers out of Iraq, but the House is ducking the issue. Don't let them. When the House attempts its charade this week, insist that your representative speak out for a real Iraq withdrawal plan."

--------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------

Kerry submits measure to pull out majority of troops from Iraq
By BOB DEANS Cox News Service
Tuesday, June 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — Sen. John Kerry introduced an amendment to the Pentagon spending bill on Monday that would require President Bush to bring all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by year's end, leaving behind only a small rapid reaction team to fight terrorist groups and insurgents and enough soldiers to help train Iraqi security forces.

The bid marked the opening salvo in what's expected to be a week of debate on the way forward in Iraq, where 2,493 American troops have died since the U.S. invasion was launched three years ago. The House is set to debate Iraq policy on Thursday, part of an election-year strategy to draw distinctions between the two political parties.

(snip)

"Our troops have done their job," Kerry told reporters in a telephone interview. What remains to be done, he said, is chiefly to hammer out political solutions to disputes between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis. That must be done, said Kerry, by the Iraqis themselves, in a way that enables Iraqis to rid their country of Islamic militants who have come there chiefly to attack Americans.

"Iraq is actually empowering terrorists around the world and giving them greater cause for recruitment than they had before," said Kerry, accusing President Bush and his administration of "misfighting the war on terror."

(snip)

Kerry introduced the measure as an amendment to a bill that would authorize $509 billion in military spending for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. It includes $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus $68 billion in supplemental spending for those operations this year, according to an analysis by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.

complete article

--------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------------

Senator Kerry, in a recent e-mail is asking for support

"Dear XXXX,

No American leader can remain silent on Iraq.

The outcome of what is now a civil war in Iraq cannot be determined by American military force. It has to be solved by Iraqis brought together to hammer out their differences. Period. It is time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq.

Our soldiers are fighting and dying in the third war in Iraq -- not the war for mythical weapons of mass destruction or the war President Bush said had to be fought against armies of foreign jihadists, but an escalating civil war between Sunni and Shia.

Meanwhile, dissent and debate are being stifled here at home. It's time to act -- and this week, perhaps as early as tomorrow, every U.S. Senator will have that chance.

In the next 24 hours, it is likely that the Senate will vote on my amendment which calls for the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq by the end of this year. For months, you and I have been pressing for this step. We've made it clear that we needed to set deadlines in Iraq -- and with the formation of an Iraqi unity government and the killing of Al-Zarqawi, this is a moment of truth in Iraq.

Now a critical vote is at hand. Our brave soldiers have done their work. It's time to put the future of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people.

Urge your Senators to support withdrawal of combat troops by the end of 2006

I don't know how many Senators will stand with me on this vote. But, I do know this: pushing the Iraqi government to coordinate with us on withdrawal of U.S. combat troops and pressing for the convening of a Dayton-like summit to reach a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq is the right thing to do. And we can't stop working for that outcome until we make it a reality.

Every Senator that chooses to stand with us will add momentum to our call for an end to the misguided and self-defeating policies of the Bush administration.

Urge your Senators to support withdrawal of combat troops by the end of 2006

Changing America's course in Iraq is one of the toughest political challenges you and I have ever taken on. But, we won't relent until we get the job done -- and we have to make the most of every opportunity to make ourselves heard.

I will be making myself heard on the floor of the United States Senate -- loudly and clearly. You can make our call for a dramatic change in direction even louder and clearer. Please don't hesitate before acting.

Sincerely,

John Kerry"

 

 

< Another Kennedy Who Will NEVER Be President | Interesting Q & A at Pres Press Conf >
 Display:
This is just another in a long line of flip flops from a pitifully shameful politician.

John Kerry desperately wants to be President, and he knows that 2008 is his last chance. He is way back in the pack for the Democrat Party nomination. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Russ Feingold are all polling better than Kerry.

Wes Clark is more of a warrior.

Russ Feingold is more progressive.

Al Gore is more well liked as a former candidate.

Hillary Clinton has more money.

John Edwards is more like Bill Clinton.

John Kerry has to do something to stand out, and this is it. He is a sad, pitiful joke of a man. "Change the course" indeed! He made course corrections 1000 times in the 2004 campaign and he looked like a fool.

by KenTX on 06/13/2006 09:57:00 PM EST


Wes Clark refuses to endorse a timeline for withdrawel like the flip flopper. I suppose he has jsut doomed his canidacy for prez in 08

by acroso on 06/14/2006 01:04:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Always nice to see Bushbot language used here.


If you are interested in learning about Flip-Flops, take a look and see who's really flipping and flopping and flipping again right here:


http://www.dynamicdems.com/ flipflophalloffame.htm

And of course, whenever Kerry stands up for liberals and progressives who want to end the war, stop Bush's RW apointments, stop illegal spying on Americans, out come the Rovian talking points.

And then, of course, the subject is hijacked from whatever the issue happens to be (in this case, withdrawal from Iraq) to 2008. Nothing like a diversion from the issue.

The old "divide and conquer" ploy. Get Dems attacking other Dems.  Hey, I'm not about to take that bait and attack any of them.  All our Dems are great and while we are still concentrating on Taking America Back in 2006, you won't hear me bashing any of them.

John Kerry doesn't have to do anything to stand out.  He does that wherever he goes anyway. I've seen him in person four times since the election and he drew huge crowds of cheering supporters every time.  Can you say, "standing ovation?"  Kerry's e-mail list has almost doubled since the election and he's raking in money for Democrats hand over fist. I can certainly see why that might be a threat to the right wing.  

All that money going to help Democrats get into office in 2006. Right on the heels of a Jim Webb primary victory in VA after Web was helped by oodles of money from Kerry's KAP PAC and Kerry's appearance at the Webb rally on the eve of the primary. No wonder the Repug talking points are bandied about! Getting a little hot under the collar? 


“The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison. This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer. When it came to Iraq, this Administration chose to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy, cut and run from the best military advice, cut and run from their responsibility to give our troops body armor, and in November, Americans will cut and run from this Republican Congress." - Kerry spokesman, David Wade

by DynamicDems on 06/14/2006 02:12:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are the stay the course dems- Hillary, Lieberman and Clark in that group of "all the dems are great"?

by acroso on 06/14/2006 02:20:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, perhaps not Lieberman because he is doing his best lately to emulate the other side lately, but I'd prefer a Democrat to a Republican any day. Not every Democrat is right on every issue, but they aren't wrong on every issue like the Republicans are.
 
Hillary and Clark are wrong on Iraq but they are right about many other issues and the priority now is to bring Democrats together not to tear them apart.
 

by DynamicDems on 06/16/2006 10:37:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"The old "divide and conquer" ploy. Get Dems attacking other Dems."

John Kerry will be going to the old familiar playbook during the nomination fight: “I’m the only war hero in the race.” But this time, his opposition seems determined to destroy his candidacy before the primary race even begins.

This article from a highly respected journalist
completely dismantles the character of John Kerry. The source is not the GOP…we want Kerry in the race. He's a proven loser.

The truth is that Kerry is under attack from forces within the Democrat Party. We have witnessed similar cannibalism recently, with liberals attacking the Hillary candidacy. I am surprised at how much trouble she has run into this early in the process.   

by KenTX on 06/14/2006 03:15:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Kerry is under attack from both sides. It is getting hard to tell who is who because the attacks all sound exactly like the GOP.
 
Kerry was also being attacked from both sides before November 2004. Some of the Democrats who damned him with weak praise were already planning their 2008 campaigns.  You'd see these ass clowns on television every week saying crap like, "Well, he's not very exciting, but I think he'll do fine. He's better than Bush." I paraphrase and I'm not going to mention any names but I'm sure you can think of a few.
 
To their credit neither of the Clinton's were among them. Neither was Howard Dean who proved to be a most honorable and loyal Democrat in his passionate support and defense of John Kerry once the primary was over. That spoke volumes about Dean's character. 
 
The attacks on Kerry from the left seem to be coming from supporters of other candidates (pundits, journalists, etc.) who may run in 2008, but that is as unproductive as tits on a bull when Dems have to first worry about 2006.  
 
The Hillary attacks seem to be coming from the anti-war folks and from liberals who don't like her apparent move to the right. She's been criticized for pandering because she intends to run in 2008.  Again, trashing Hillary Clinton isn't productive. We should be working on building up the 2006 candidates and worry about 2008 after November.
 
For an entertaining take on the Kerry attacks, check out this blog post (they suggest forming a PAC called Fear of John Kerry). It's entertaining but there is also more than a grain of truth there: "John Kerry Rocks! Something Must be Done and Quick!"
 
 
 
 

by DynamicDems on 06/16/2006 11:11:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken TX writes:

"This article from a highly respected journalist completely dismantles the character of John Kerry."

If you look at the end of the Lipscomb article that Ken TX cites, you'll find this:

"Thomas Lipscomb is an independent investigative reporter who was nominated for a Pulitzer for his reporting on Kerry during the 2004 elections."

Do you know what it takes to be "nominated" for a Pulitzer? According to pulitzer.org,

"Entries for journalism awards may be submitted by any individual from material appearing in a United States newspaper published daily, Sunday, or at least once a week during the calendar year."

But to be a Pulitzer "nominee",

"The three finalists in each category are the only entries in the competition that are recognized by the Pulitzer office as nominees."

Lipscomb is not a Pulitzer nominee. If you search pulitzer.org for "Lipscomb", there's this.

Sorry - we didn't find anything matching your term(s).
Please try again.

Lipscomb is a fake and a poseur and NOT a Pulitzer nominee. Anyone who cites him is reaching, and not to be taken seriously.

http://www.pulitzer.org/ind ex.html

by Jerseygirl on 06/18/2006 12:55:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
“No wonder the Repug talking points are bandied about! Getting a little hot under the collar?” 

Here are polls
handicapping candidates for the 2008 Democrat primary from the leading organizations: Gallup, Cook, Marist, CNN, USAToday, Zogby, NBC, Wall Street Journal, Ipsos.

The numbers seem to indicate a trend: The 2006 polls show John Kerry performing more poorly than the 2005 polls. That is a downward trend.

These aren’t Republican talking points, they are Democrat reality points. The Democrat Party is through with John Kerry. They want to run a new candidate…one that can win.
 
Listen Vanessa, face the facts. You and Alexandra will never have Secret Service code names. In fact, they’ve already retired the ones they picked out for the two of you: Condor and Buzzard.

by KenTX on 06/14/2006 06:00:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It is better than the Bush twins codenames: Drunk and Drunker.

by jparsell on 06/14/2006 03:59:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We should elect Sheriff Joe for prez in 08!

by acroso on 06/15/2006 12:22:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
acroso, very few people on this site besides you and me are familiar with Sheriff Joe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Joe_Arpaio

by KenTX on 06/15/2006 02:17:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And Dan, for sure, DA more than likely.

Oh, not for the supporting of him, no no, not me, NO.

The "heard of him" part.

I'm sure Dan can guess what I think of Hangin' Joe...

by MedfordTim on 06/15/2006 04:48:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
tree, did they?

by DynamicDems on 06/16/2006 11:13:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]

in 2004. And they were wrong about his victory in November 2004.  Polls are not rocket science but simply a snapshot of certain individuals at a static point in time.

You might have reasons for bringing 2008 into this discussion, and it would be less than polite of me for speculating on them, but it is unproductive. John Kerry is fighting to get our troops home now. John Kerry is fighting for Democrats who are running for election THIS YEAR. You know? 2006? 

Maybe you should stop reading polls and get out there and attend an actual event. It might broaden your horizons.  At the Take Back American Conference, John Kerry was cheered and I've heard from good sources that they lost count of the standing ovations. By contrast, the current favorite in the Polls got mild applause and was actually booed at times.  The most telling moment came after the speech when Kerry was mobbed like a rock star.

Nobody loves John Kerry? Yeah, right. His mailing list has nearly doubled SINCE the election, a recent appearance in Iowa netted over twice the number of supporters it did when he appeared there in 2004, and he's been become the new darling of liberal talk radio. But the most telling of all isn't what you read or what you listen to: It's seeing the reaction people have to Senator kerry. I've attended four events with the Senator since 2005 and he's bringing in huge crowds of cheering supporters. People mob him like he's giving out $100. bills. And he's not; he's just giving out $1,000,000. smiles! The poor man (sarcasm) needs a clone just to keep up with the hand shakes, hugs and kisses that crowds want to heap up on him. I can tell you from personal experience, you get a Kerry hug and you do NOT want to let go.

However, the best indicator of the Kerry love out there is his fundraising ability. People just can't stop giving this man money. That must be because he's so unpopular. :more sarcasm, in case you couldn't figure it out: Hey, I always give money to people I don't like. Sure, you believe that and I have some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in.

 

 

by DynamicDems on 06/16/2006 11:49:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Listen Vanessa, face the facts. You and Alexandra will never have Secret Service code names. In fact, they've already retired the ones they picked out for the two of you: Condor and Buzzard.

Is Alexandra condor or buzzard?

by Twba on 06/17/2006 03:14:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
“Is Alexandra condor or buzzard?”

Twba, way down south, where I come from, these two girls are not considered attractive.

They have that distinctive northeastern flair.

Here is that famous photo of Heckle and Jeckle being heckled and jeckled and booed off the stage at the MTV Music Video Awards in August 2004.

by KenTX on 06/17/2006 08:59:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Kerry daughters were incredibly good surrogates for their father. They were poised, articulate, well informed interesting young women. Many of my Republican friends were very impressed with them. One neighbor, who still intended to vote for Bush because of his tax policies, mentioned that seeing them at the convention and on some of the talk shows, made her comfortable with a possible Kerry Presidency.

In case you didn't notice, all 5 George and Jebb Bush kids have had run-ins with the law, mainly for drug and alcohol abush. None of the 5 Kerry or Heinz kids have.

John Kerry has every right to be very very proud of his 2 very lovely, wonderful, accomplished daughters. I actually hope that Vanessa Kerry will consider politics herself. She was awesome defending her dad in 2004. She is a doctor, who also studied Public Health policies on a Fulbright scholarship. She seems to have inherited her dad's energy level as she was able to train for the Boston marathon, which she completed, while studying.


by Jerseygirl on 06/18/2006 01:08:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Those Republican asshats flip flop all the time but nobody ever calls them on it.

by Liberal Jim on 06/18/2006 12:39:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They’ve given me so much to work with here that I don’t know where to start. Cursory web forensics indicates these people are John Kerry activists, operating out of a little hot house in Quincy, Mass.

Here’s an example of their lying, deceitful, disingenuous tactics. Look at this quote from earlier in the thread:

“The old "divide and conquer" ploy. Get Dems attacking other Dems.  Hey, I'm not about to take that bait and attack any of them.  All our Dems are great and while we are still concentrating on Taking America Back in 2006, you won't hear me bashing any of them.”

Now go to DynamicDems journal and read how she bashes Al Gore.

“John Kerry ran for President only ONCE. He got the nomination on his FIRST TRY. And he came damn close (or won if you take election fraud into consideration) to defeating an incumbent President during wartime.

Al Gore ran for President three times, which means he lost twice before 2000. And if you also consider that he didn't get the nomination on either of these two prior attempts, it can be said that Al Gore's track record is not nearly as good as John Kerry's.

In horse racing lingo, Kerry had one start and lost by a nose resulting in a second place. Of Al Gore's three starts one was a Photo Finish resulting in second place and in the other two he was an Also Ran.

Kerry: one start - second place
Gore: three starts - second place

I'm not sure if you know anything about handicapping horse races, Karen, but from a mathematical perspective, who do you think they handicappers would prefer?

Not everybody is meant to be the President of the United States. Al Gore was robbed in 2000 and it was a crushing defeat to his supporters, myself included. I loved Al Gore and still do. It hurt for a long time that he all but vanished from the scene for years. Still, he's someone I admire greatly. As hard as it is to admit this, because I truly think of Al Gore as a great American, I don't think he is meant to be President. Seeing him with his beard and wearing tweeds, I saw another aspect of Al Gore that was all but buried during his years as VP. He's not a politician at heart. He's the consummate advocate, an educator and an activist. I don't think he'd be happy or shine as brightly as President.

I never thought his speaking style was electrifying. He was more about truth and honor and being straight-forward than he was about being entertaining. There was an earnestness is his speeches that appealed to me and still does. That said, I do have him on tape narrating "Earth in the Balance" and listening to his voice puts me asleep every single time I play it. But I continue to play it nonetheless.

Now that people are pitting two heroes of mine against each other, I have had to think hard and to consider which man would be the one I would choose to be my President. That man is John Kerry. He was born to be President. He didn't choose it anymore than he chose to have thick hair or to be over six feet tall. He has a calling to politics that I honestly do not think Al Gore has. Day after day, I've followed his work and been astounded by his schedule. For any other person, how he lives would constitute torture. He lives and breathes what he believes and what he preaches. I've never seen anyone so driven by so many causes. After the crushing defeat of 2004, John Kerry did not lie down in defeat or go off and lick his wounds. He stood up, rising stronger and more determined like an avenging angel wielding a sword of fire against the oppression that has a stranglehold on our country. Nobody on this earth is better suited to be President than John Kerry is today.”

by KenTX on 06/18/2006 04:54:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have never been to Quincy, Massachusetts. but I am one of the over 3 million people on Kerry's email list.  I really don't think that makes me an activist. I do like the sound of it. Having a house in Quincy, Ma to operate out of sounds really cool, but does not fit in well with my life as wife and mother in another state. (I really need to go to mapquest and find where Quincy is.)

by Jerseygirl on 06/18/2006 09:28:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"I am one of the over 3 million people on Kerry's email list...."

Which was constructed in 2004, when he was the nominee.

Now, John Kerry is as appealing as three-day-old fish wrapped in yesterday's newspaper.

by KenTX on 06/18/2006 09:46:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
count, isn't it? It just keeps growing.

by DynamicDems on 06/18/2006 11:39:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"The e-mail list is now over 5 million at last 
count, isn't it?"

4,900,000 of the recipients automatically dump this loser's messages as spam.

by KenTX on 06/18/2006 11:45:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you fabricate. Why? I'll tell you why because you fear John Kerry. 

You fear that a man of such stature could make this country GOOD again.

You fear that the HATE that is spewed by the right day in and day out may be silenced, if a man like John Kerry were President.

Most of all you fear TRUTH. Truth hurts, get use to it, John Kerry speaks TRUTH to POWER. Power comes and goes but TRUTH always prevails in the end.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” .

http://www.archives.gov/nat ional-archives-experience/c harters/declaration_transcr ipt.html

by fedup on 06/19/2006 09:53:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll tell you why…because you fear John Kerry.
You are correct with this statement. 

You fear that a man of such stature could make this country GOOD again.
I fear that a President Kerry would destroy the nation. Interesting to note that I don’t have the same fear with a President Gore or a President Bayh or even a President Hillary Clinton!

You fear that the HATE that is spewed by the right day in and day out may be silenced, if a man like John Kerry were President.
Yes indeed. He will outlaw hate speech, and hate think, and conservative countenance, and talk radio, and FoxNews, and freedom of speech.

Most of all you fear TRUTH. Truth hurts, get use to it, John Kerry speaks TRUTH to POWER.
The goal of this exercise is to speak truth to kooks. Are you kooks starting to get a clue yet?

by KenTX on 06/19/2006 10:03:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and the best thing for Democrats is to let the idiots keep running their mouths like this. It really shows how asinine they are.
 
For example, Senator Kerry's e-mail list is an opt-in list, which means people have to ask to be on it.  And it has nearly doubled since the election. But the greatest test of the e-mail list isn't the numbers who read the senator's e-mails, but in the number who respond with COLD HARD CASH! He asked for help for the Fighting Dems and in 24-48 hours he had raised half-a million. All he has to do is ask, and the money flows in like a spigot. Must be because people aren't reading his mail. :sarcasm:
 
A friend of mine said these types are generally immature and insecure and they are basically "girl fighters" who are afraid of real men, so they pick fight with what those they think of as the weaker sex. Perfect example is how they attack the appearance of two young women because they have a different political viewpoint from their father. They are sexist, but are not gentlemen by any definition of the term. He explains the "chickenhawk" mentality as extending to cowardly behavior in everyday discourse as well as how it pertains for war. That sounds like a great blog post to me. I'm going to ask him if it is allright to co-opt his idea. 
 
I've also been working on one called, "Republicans: the Party of Hate and Fear."
 
Thanks for posting, NJ. Hope you can make it to see JK next week. 
 

by DynamicDems on 06/20/2006 03:36:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A friend of mine said these types are generally immature and insecure and they are basically "girl fighters" who are afraid of real men, so they pick fight with what those they think of as the weaker sex.

Your husband, Liberal Jim, couldn’t reach up and touch my championship rodeo belt buckle. If we put that little queer-man of yours on a horse, he would look like a spider monkey riding on Great Dane.

by KenTX on 06/20/2006 06:30:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's go back to September 18th, 2003, Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. John Kerry was the guest, pushing an amendment to shrink tax cuts for the wealthy and pay for $87 billion. He was asked a question by Doyle McManus of the LA Times, "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the 87 billion?"

KERRY: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq  to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

by KenTX on 06/16/2006 03:50:01 AM EST


a link to the actual transcript. Not that I doubt you, but Republicans typically take one quote out of context and they get passed around the Internet this way.
 
Can you provide the link or are you relying on your memory of the interiew?   

by DynamicDems on 06/16/2006 11:19:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"I can't comment on a supposed quotation without a link to the actual transcript. Not that I doubt you, but Republicans typically take one quote out of context and they get passed around the Internet this way.
Can you provide the link or are you relying on your memory of the interiew?"    

Why, I would be delighted to provide the link. As you see, it was published in the Washington Post.

If I google for Dynamic Dems, I can probably find all mannner of disinformation that you've spread around the web. I'm thinking about gathering together a few indisputable facts, so I can go out on a debunking mission.

Think of it as a small scale Swift Boat operation. By the way, I'm very proud to report that I contributed a heck of a lot of money to the SBVFT in 2004. They had to have cost Kerry more than 300,000 votes in Ohio....dontcha think?


by KenTX on 06/17/2006 01:05:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Don't I hear the Free Republic calling you?


by DynamicDems on 06/17/2006 05:35:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He's probably never been a boat any bigger than the ones at the kiddie park. Probably just some bad case of acne with legs and not enough money to play with himself on the porn sites so this is how he amuses himself.

by Liberal Jim on 06/18/2006 12:50:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From your argument, once you make a choice, nothing that happens in the next two years will change it. So, I guess if you stop at a red light, you will never continue.

In addition to the fact that much has changed since April 2004 when Kerry made that statement and now, there are two major problems.

1) Kerry's plan is not cutting and running - it is demanding that Bush change a plan that is not working. Kerry is suggesting a major diplomatic effort that could help the Iraqis find a workable political solution. The country is now in civil war, our troops are in the middle of it. What can an outside military force do.  Kerry has also pointed out that the pentagon, if it is telling the truth, says that there are over 260,000 Iraqis trained out of the (around 275,000) goal. Bush himself said for months that we will stand down when the Iraqis can stand up. With these numbers we should be near that.

Kerry is also NOT speaking about ignoring the War on Terror. Kerry spoke about the need for an international effort to defeat globalized crime and terrorism in the mid 1990s - when no one else was interested. (Kerry's book, The New War, was published in 1997) In contrast, the Rice speech that was intended for Sept 11, 2001 on national security was primarily on reviving the Star Wars missle dense system. They cut the budget on fighting terrorism. Even in this plan, there would be an over the horizon force that could deal with terrorist based on solid information. (Like getting Zakarwi - this month).

2) Kerry's plan in 2004 looks better in retrospect than it did in 2004. At that time, the Bush/Cheney people argued that it was what Bush was doing - which is clear now was a lie. Among other things, Kerry said:

-Announce that we want no permanent bases (said in the debates and also was a major point in Kerry's Oct 2005 plan). This will help us convince the Iraqis that we are not occupiers. (Bush and Rice have danced around this issue - even when questioned in Congress.)

-Train Iraqis as soon as possible. After he lost, when Kerry traveled to the ME and Europe for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he was told by 4 countries (France, Germany, Eqypt  and Jordan) that they would  rapidly train Iraqi soldiers outside Iraq. This could have led to a full trained army in a short time. Kerry also found, as other Senators had, that very few soldiers were trained in the entire period from mid 2003 - January 2005. Now, 3 years later, there are almost enough soldiers.

- Convene a summit with all Iraqi factions, all the neighbors, and international organizations and us to work out a political solution. The neighbors, as much as we, have a vested interest in a stable Iraq.

-Push the Iraqis to chose a government.

There now is an Iraqi government, with an army. The Iraqi people in several polls have indicated they want us out. Several Generals have said that our presence is itself fueling the insurgency.  By some accounts, the Iraqi PM himself wants us to set a time line for leaving.

I agree with Kerry that it is not right to ask soldiers to die for a failed policy to allow politicians to save face. Bush suggests his succesor will have to find a solution and get the troops out - he clearly is not working on it himself.

So, you can pat yourself on the back for sending money to people willing to lie to tarnish the reputation of Presidential candidate. Did it ever occur to you that the reason they chose to fight John Kerry with lies and smears was because they couldn't win fighting above board arguing policies and politics? I am a liberal Democrat who in 2000 was horrified by the slime tactics used against John McCain, a candidate I am unlikely to ever be for. That behavior makes the US an uglier, meaner place to be and I hate that some people on our side suggest that we need to get in the gutter too. Is this the behavior you would want your children to emmulate?

by Jerseygirl on 06/17/2006 11:03:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Swiftboating is such a cowardly act. McCain was a victim of this kind of slime politics.  And the Swiftboating of Kerry in 2004 wasn't an end of the Swifties for Slander. Remember how they started to go after the AARP in 2005? And then they attacked Murtha and several US Generals. The most recent Swiftboating was against Jimmy Carter. A RW group put out ads calling for the censure of a man who hasn't been in office in over two decades.
 
The tactics are never honest.  Their idea of debate is to take quotations out of context.  There is a post up further in this thread where I asked for a link to a transcript. Instead, I got a link to an article quoting the same snippet. I won't debate the issue with that poster because of the personal threats made toward me in the post; however, it is interesting to note that the transcript is readily available. Now doesn't the quote seem a bit different when you read it in the context of the interview?
 
MR. RUSSERT:  And what you're referring to there at the end is that you wanted to roll back the Bush tax cut in order to pay for the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq.  And yet, just a few weeks before that vote, you were on "Face the Nation" and this is what you said.  "I think we need to roll back the top end of the Bush tax cut."  Question...

SEN. KERRY:  Right.

MR. RUSSERT:  ..."If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" 

Kerry:  "I don't think any United States senator is going abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running.  That's irresponsible.  ...I don't think anyone in Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves."

And yet you voted against that very amount of money.

SEN. KERRY:  There's nothing inconsistent in either of those statements and that advertisement displays really how sad and full of distortion, almost pathetic, the Republican approach to this is.  First of all, they had a series of no's:  Mr. Kerry on this; no.  Mr. Kerry on this; no.  It wasn't a series of votes. It was one vote and that is a distortion to the American people.

Secondly, that vote would never have prevented any of the body armor, ammunition or anything from getting to our troops.  That's a lie.  That's just an outright lie.  In fact, the president of the United States himself, Tim, threatened to veto that very bill if we put health care for Reservists in the bill.  The president threatened to veto that bill if we had loans instead of a grant.  Think of that.  The president threatened to veto that bill, and yet he is now accusing me for voting no.

Secondly, I voted to have that bill paid for by reducing the tax cut to the wealthiest Americans so we would be responsible fiscally and that was a way to do it.  Now, when they weren't willing to do that and they weren't willing to change their policy to bring other nations to the table to reduce the cost to Americans, you're darn right I voted against it because one of the lessons I learned in Vietnam is when the policy is wrong, fix it, and I voted to fix it.

MR. RUSSERT:  If there's another bill to provide money for the troops, you'll vote against it again?

SEN. KERRY:  It depends entirely on what the situation is, Tim.  I'm not going to say that.  What I'm saying is even the generals in Iraq said the money in that bill had no impact on their ability to continue to fight.  We had money all the way through January, and if my vote had been the deciding vote, you know as well as the president knows, as well as every Republican knows, that if I'd been the deciding vote, we would have sat down at a table, we have worked out exactly how we were going to do this intelligently and we would have had a better bill.  That's how you change policy.  You stand up for principle.  That was a vote for principle.

And what the Republicans are doing is one of their craven, misleading, distorting ads, spending millions of dollars trying to suggest I'm not strong on defense.  I'm not going to let these Republicans, not for one instant, ever accuse me, who's voted for 16 out of 19 biggest defense bills in our history, who has supported our troops, while they're cutting even the VA budget.  I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism and defense of country.

 
The sad thing is that since 2004, the Republicans have voted against Iraq Veterans time and time again. They take a quote out of context to try to say Senator Kerry is weak on defense, but they undermine our troops and our veterans at every turn.
 
I watch the votes in Congress and watch how time and time again most of the Republicans vote against benefits for veterans returning from Iraq. It's frankly disgusting. I read stories from vets and military families at a veterans site I frequent and it is absolutely heartbreaking to read  how this administration has let our troops and our veterans down. These men and women are heroes but they get screwed by the government of the country they are dying and being maimed to protect. 
 
Time and time again, I've seen Senator kerry speak out for our veterans and our troops and I've watched how the Republicans in the Senate vote NO on everything the  Senator and the other Democrats try to do for our military. Yet, they point to a single vote that Senator Kerry made in protest, a vote that was not going to change the outcome of the bill, and they try to say that is a vote against our troops. What a bunch of bullcrap!
 
Anyone with half a brain can read up on the votes that we've had in the Senate recently and see just who is really for supporting our troops. And guess what? It isn't the Republicans!
 
 
 

 

by DynamicDems on 06/17/2006 01:06:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This thread should be called Democrats submit new plan for U.S. defeat in Iraq.

by acroso on 06/17/2006 01:39:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They don't need to be there. They did their job. Bring them home. Why is that such a difficult concept for some people to grasp?

by Liberal Jim on 06/18/2006 12:44:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
make the situation less disasterous. So, far, President Bush has created a far bigger mess than existed before he invaded. Iraq will likely end up an Islamic Shiite dominated country run by a strongman. Women will have fewer rights than in the secular state.

Saddam was a very evil person, but an invasion that has killed 2,500 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis was not the right answer. The inspections were working and Saddam had even been pushed to destroy missles. If this process was continued, we could have avoided this war. Bush rushed to war.

Kerry's plan is a last chance plan - he is being honest that he believes the Bush plan cannot win and that the soldiers have done all they can. To personalized Kerry's famous 1971 question, "would you be willing to be the last man to die for Bush's vanity?

by Jerseygirl on 06/17/2006 02:39:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Saddam was a very evil person, but an invasion that has killed 2,500 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis was not the right answer. Bush rushed to war."

Slobidan Milosevic was a very evil person. Was an invasion of Kosovo the right answer? Did Clinton rush to war?

Where the hell were you when that happened?

by KenTX on 06/17/2006 08:27:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton went in WITH NATO. What was the death toll there? Did Clinton make up lies and out a CIA spy? I am not a big Clinton fan and do think he should have taken this action to Congress, there is no comparison here.

by Jerseygirl on 06/18/2006 12:51:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken loves to get any fact based conversation about Iraq turned into a Kosovo discussion. He has been shown the facts, disregards them out of pure cussedness, and cackles like an old lady anytime someone gets sucked into his web.

Just ask him how many crimes were committed by outing Valerie Wilson...

by MedfordTim on 06/19/2006 02:39:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"...cackles like an old lady anytime someone gets sucked into his web."

Tim, why would you want to spoil my fun?

It's not often I get my hands on an entire group of gullible newbies to play with!


by KenTX on 06/19/2006 09:51:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm just sick of hearing "Kosovo!"

You guys all wanna waste your time talking about what a great guy/rotten wacko John Kerry is, more power to you.

To me, he is irrelevant.

by MedfordTim on 06/20/2006 03:49:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"You guys all wanna waste your time talking about what a great guy/rotten wacko John Kerry is, more power to you. To me, he is irrelevant."
 
Thank you Tim. Kerry is irrelevant to everyone on this board, as evidenced by the fact that nobody else will even post on the boring subject of the carnival geek.

by KenTX on 06/20/2006 06:37:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Do you support or oppose John Kerry?

Oppose 72%
Support 28%

Total votes so far: 170,744

by KenTX on 06/21/2006 01:27:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
tot wants to do on the porn sites but can't afford to. I'm all for Kerry's plan. He has one. Bush doesn't. No surprise there.

by Liberal Jim on 06/18/2006 12:53:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]

John Kerry on Pentagon’s Talking Points

 

Below is a statement from John Kerry:

“This is disgusting proof that Republicans are thinking about the politics of Iraq instead of a real debate about the security of our troops.  This is how we got into the Iraq mess in the first place. American soldiers are being killed every day in Iraq but somehow Donald Rumsfeld’s crew at the Pentagon has time to write ridiculous talking points that won’t do a thing for young Americans caught in the crossfire.  Add this to Karl Rove’s partisan cheerleading and it’s pretty clear where their priorities are.  Pathetic.  Rumsfeld needs to get focused on our troops, not pages of hollow words and talking points.” 

by DynamicDems on 06/18/2006 01:33:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you for posting the entire section of the transcript. The poster is as slimy as the people he/she supports. I assume his/her family is proud of him/her.

by Jerseygirl on 06/17/2006 02:42:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I’ll step back, play moderator, and allow John Flipflopping Kerry to debate himself.

Here is what Kerry said
when asked if he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq, even if he knew there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 (2004) -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.
 
Since last month's Democratic National Convention, the senator from Massachusetts has been under mounting pressure to provide a clearer explanation of his views on the war, including why he voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the invasion yet opposed funding for it. On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

There's a reason that Kerry’s goofy running mate, John Edwards, is far outpolling him in the 2008 nomination race. It's because Kerry has no future as a presidential candidate, and everyone knows it, but him.


by KenTX on 06/17/2006 02:56:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Kerry is outpolling Edwards in the most recent NATIONAL poll. Edwards is beating him and everyone else in an Iowa poll of likely caucus voters. Although polls of "likely caucus voters are notoriously bad as it is difficult to determine - especially over a year and a half out - who will vote in the caucuses. There is no easily available sampling frame, it is very likely that Edwards is ahead in Iowa. He should be because he has spent a large amount of time there since 2004 and no one else has.

I think Edwards will be a strong condender in 2008, but I honestly don't think he will win. As the primaries went on in 2004, Edwards was rejected, in spite of people thinking he was a nice guy and great media, because he had to thin a resume. By 2008, he will not have added much to that resume and he will again pale in the debates.

I certainly don't think Kerry is the front runner at this time. He does though consistently poll in the top 4 - even with only snarky press. What seems true at this point is that Hillary is a less obvious front runner, but still the front runner, and that she won't neccesarily win. Kerry is where he has to be at this stage.

In the remainder of this year and the first half of next, many now mentioned will drop out - either because they realize their is no interest or they can't raise money.

Many many things can happen between then and now. I also think that Kerry is just as focused on Iraq and re-building the Democratic party. One advantage he has now is that he is speaking from his heart on Iraq.

by Jerseygirl on 06/18/2006 02:14:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It seems I've got a pet. Thank you for feeding it while I was away. It also seems from reading  through these many posts and I see that we are the same person.  That sure as hell came as a surprise to me.
 
 

by DynamicDems on 06/18/2006 01:44:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
“The tactics are never honest.  Their idea of debate is to take quotations out of context.  There is a post up further in this thread where I asked for a link to a transcript. Instead, I got a link to an article quoting the same snippet...it is interesting to note that the transcript is readily available. Now doesn't the quote seem a bit different when you read it in the context of the interview?”

For the record, I provided a Kerry quote from the September 18th, 2003 edition of Face the Nation (CBS) with Bob Schieffer. John Kerry was the guest and he was asked a question by Doyle McManus of the LA Times. Then I linked my original reference from the Washington Post, along with the additional links.

Then Dynamic Dems cut-and-pasted a transcript of an interview between Tim Russert (NBC) and John Kerry, and claimed it was from the same Face the Nation (CBS) segment!!!!!

Now then, I ask you dear readers: Whose tactics are dishonest? Isn’t it apparent to all that “JerseyGirl” is merely a phony NIC and a pure contrivance of Dynamic Dems? This johnny-come-lately poster has only participated in this thread, and both identities post in exactly the same voice.

It is time for Dynamic Dems to take leave of this forum, and take all of the other phony identities and personas away as well!

Shame! Shame! Away to Boston with the both of you! 

by KenTX on 06/18/2006 06:35:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX, the Kerry quote is on CBS's website.

by Twba on 06/18/2006 09:43:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Her posts are actually far better than mine as she clearly has taken more time to link to MSM sources to prove points. I admit that I am new to this web site, but I did post in 2004 on the Kerry blog and have read other blogs since then. I have no way to prove I am not DD, but I'm not. I'm a Kerry supporter who lives in Northern NJ.

I did notice a bit of tag team up thread between you and "another" poster. Could this be the Republican habit of accusing others of what you yourself are quilty of.

by Jerseygirl on 06/18/2006 01:43:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You mean we aren't the same person? He almost had ME convinced. 


by DynamicDems on 06/18/2006 01:48:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
While Senator Kerry has proposed this pro-vet, pro-active military legislation in the current session of Congress...

S.AMDT.3143 to S.CON.RES.83 To prevent the imposition of excessive TRICARE fees and co-pays on military retirees.
S.AMDT.2616 to S.2020 To accelerate marriage penalty relief for the earned income tax credit, to extend the election to include combat pay in earned income, and to make modifications of effective dates of leasing provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
S.AMDT.1502 to S.1042 To make permanent the extension of the period of temporary continuation of basic allowance for housing for dependents of members of the Armed Forces who die on active duty.
S.AMDT.1029 to H.R.2361 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for the Veterans Health Administration.
S.AMDT.334 to H.R.1268 To increase the military death gratuity to $100,000, effective with respect to any deaths of members of the Armed Forces on active duty after October 7, 2001.
S.AMDT.333 to H.R.1268 To extend the period of temporary continuation of basic allowance for housing for dependents of members of the Armed Forces who die on active duty.
S.2970 : A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide free credit monitoring and credit reports for veterans and others affected by the theft of veterans' personal data, to ensure that such persons are appropriately notified of such thefts, and for other purposes.
S.2449 : A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 years of age to 55 years of age.
S.2163 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38 of the United States Code, to increase and index educational benefits for veterans under the Montgomery GI bill to ensure adequate and equitable benefits for active duty members and members of the selected Reserve, and to include certain servicemembers previously excluded from such benefits.
S.460 : A bill to expand and enhance benefits for members of the Armed Forces and their families, and for other purposes.
S.240 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow small business employers a credit against income tax with respect to employees who participate in the military reserve components and are called to active duty and with respect to replacement employees and to allow a comparable credit for activated military reservists who are self-employed, and for other purposes.

Senator McCain has proposed the following:

Maybe we should buy McCain one of those yellow ribbon magnets so folks will know that he supports the troops, too.

by GV on 06/18/2006 02:01:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It is the name his parents gave him when he was born. It was also the surname Kerry's grandparents gave his father at birth.

The same is true of my kids - officials at Ellis Island got the surname of his great grandparents wrong. Used to intimidation they didn't question it, nor did their son or grandson. On this issue, my husband is in exactly the position Kerry is and I know he NEVER considered changing the name he has had his whole life.

by Jerseygirl on 06/18/2006 01:26:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My maiden name is the one my grandparents got when they came over from the 'old country'.  I like it, though.  I kind of regret changing it to my ex's name when I married.

by GV on 06/18/2006 02:55:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Senate Republicans Brought Sen. Kerry's Date-Certain Plan To Withdraw Troops From Iraq By The End Of Year To The Floor For A Vote. 

"The Senate voted unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking Republican leader, Mitch McConnell introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006."  (Liz Sidoti, "Election-Year Jockeying By Incumbents Underpins New Debate On Iraq," The Associated Press, 6/15/06)

Kerry's Plan For Date-Certain Withdrawal Overwhelmingly Rejected By U.S. Senate. (S. 2766, CQ Vote #174: Motion Agreed To 93-6: R 55-0; D 37-6; I 1-0, 6/15/06)

Only Six Senators, All Democrats, Voted For Kerry's Date Certain Withdrawal Plan: 
  • Sens. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), John Kerry (D-MA) And Ted Kennedy (D-MA) All Voted For Kerry's Withdrawal Plan. (S. 2766, CQ Vote #174: Motion Agreed To 93-6: R 55-0; D 37-6; I 1-0, 6/15/06, Sens. Byrd, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy and Kerry Voted Nay)

by KenTX on 06/17/2006 10:29:49 PM EST


Vote Summary
<table class="contenttext" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" width="100%" border="0"><tr><td class="contenttext" colspan="4">Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. 4269 ) </td></tr><tr><td class="contenttext" valign="top">Vote Number: </td><td class="contenttext" valign="top">174</td><td class="contenttext" valign="top">Vote Date: </td><td class="contenttext" valign="top">June 15, 2006, 02:54 PM</td></tr><tr><td class="contenttext" valign="top">Required For Majority: </td><td class="contenttext">1/2</td><td class="contenttext" valign="top">Vote Result: </td><td class="contenttext" valign="top">Motion to Table Agreed to</td></tr><tr><td class="contenttext" valign="top">Amendment Number: </td><td class="contenttext" valign="top" colspan="3">S.Amdt. 4269 to S.Amdt. 4265 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 ) </td></tr><tr><td class="contenttext" valign="top">Statement of Purpose: </td><td class="contenttext" valign="top" colspan="3">To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit.</td></tr></table><table class="contenttext" width="50%" border="0"><tr><td class="contenttext" valign="top" width="25%">Vote Counts:</td><td class="contenttext" width="50%">YEAs</td><td class="contenttext" align="right" width="25%">93</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td class="contenttext" width="50%">NAYs</td><td class="contenttext" align="right" width="25%">6</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td class="contenttext" width="50%">Not Voting</td><td class="contenttext" align="right" width="25%">1</td></tr></table>http://www.senate.gov/legis lative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?cong ress=109&session=2& vote=00174

You like to copy and paste to your choosing, sorry but your tricks don't work.

by fedup on 06/18/2006 12:54:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You like to copy and paste to your choosing, sorry but your tricks don't work. Motion to Table McConnell Amdt. 4269; To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit. YEAs 93 NAYs 6 http://www.senate.gov/legis lative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?cong ress=109&session=2& vote=00174

by fedup on 06/18/2006 01:11:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

commentary of my own to contribute.  This is what really happened in the Senate last week:
 
--------------------------- -------------------
 
Yellow-bellied Cowards in Seersucker

The new color of the GOP is yellow. Red is a noble color, the color of blood, and much blood has been spilled to appease Republican greed and their depraved right-wing ideology, but the blood is always someone else’s. Chickenhawks like Dick Cheney, Bill Frist and Carl Rove are the first to slander the patriotism of combat veterans who question the validity of a political war based on deception, saying that these veterans want to “cut and run.” The bitter irony is that these Chickenhawks know something about cutting and running for real: they now wave the flag and use the word “patriotism” like a mantra, but where were they when they were asked to shed their blood for their country? Not in combat. Red symbolizes the blood of heroes. Yellow is the color for cowards.

After the devious manipulations by Republicans in the Senate yesterday, it’s pretty damn clear that the Republican Party is the party of cowards. Rather than engage in an open and honest debate on Iraq, Senate Republicans instead chose, once again, to resort to trickery and underhanded manipulation of the process of our government. And they did it in seersucker.

Seriously. Thursday was Seersucker Day in the Senate. “At least 22 senators were spotted sporting seersucker suits yesterday in a bipartisan display of Southern-tinged fashion organized by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.)." Of course, most of the seersuckers senators, including, Frist, Chambliss, Cornyn, Stevens and McConnell, were Republicans.

How quaint. And after they made a mockery of honest debate in the Senate, these pastel-clad Republicans enjoyed a lovely ice cream social in the park. How precious is that? Through deception and collusion they subvert the process for genuine debate on the war and then they go to an ice cream party. They stand in the sun in their seersucker suits while our troops are fighting and dying in a desert far away, in a war that these yellow-bellies won’t even debate. 2500 US troops dead and these pastel cowards eat ice cream in the park. And these spineless lollygaggers have the temerity to accuse combat veterans of undermining the war on terror simply because the veterans question our continued presence in Iraq?

Majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn-Chickenhawk) is a real piece of work. Not many people could manage such duplicity with a straight face. In concert with Senators McConnell (R-Ky-Chickenhawk), Cornyn (R-Tx-Chickenhawk), Chambliss (R-Ga-Chickenhawk.) and Stevens (R-Ak-not a Chickenhawk, just an asshole), Frist carefully orchestrated a cowardly and reprehensible ploy to curtail discussion of Iraq by forcing a vote on the Kerry Amendment when the senator was off the floor.

The scene played out as crudely and thinly veiled as a Kangaroo Court. Senators Cornyn, Chamblis and Stevens delivered scathing criticism of the Nelson Resolution. It was almost overkill for such an innocuous amendment.* The republicans argued that the resolution was a political ploy on the part of Democrats to undermine the Administration’s success in Iraq. A few Republican Senators actually stood up and said they were in favor of amnesty for terrorists and that the new Iraqi democracy should be able to offer amnesty to anyone they choose. Senator Stevens went so far as to compare the situation in Iraq to the aftermath of WWII and other wars where enemy troops were given amnesty after the war was over. Haven’t the republicans reminded us time and time again, that terrorists are unlawful enemy combatants? Yesterday, however, the terrorists were discussed as though they were conventional, lawful combatants in a spectacular Republican flip-flop. Apparently terrorists are only unlawful combatants when the Republicans want to torture them and deprive them of and due process. The hypocrisy is stunning.

One didn’t need the nose of a bloodhound to smell the rat in the Senate yesterday. It stank to high heaven. As if anyone with half a brain couldn’t see it coming, the discussion was turned from the issue of amnesty to criticism of “cut and run” Democrats who wanted to discuss a timeframe for withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq. Minority Leader Harry Reid took the floor and addressed this change of subject, making it clear that the debate was supposed to be about the Nelson Resolution and not some other amendment that might come up at another time.

What happened next is about as low and rotten as it gets in the Senate, at least when the cameras are rolling. McConnell introduced the Kerry Amendment for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq by year’s end as his own. Leader Frist rushed to the Senate floor to force a vote on the McConnell Amendment. Senator Reid asked for a vote to table the Amendment. Senator Kerry arrived in mid-vote. He had been in conference with other Democratic Senators working on the amendment when Frist pulled this maneuver behind Kerry’s back. Kerry spoke. He was angry and he made it clear that he’d told Senator Warner (R-Va) earlier in the day that his amendment was being hashed out with other Democrats and that he was not ready to present it for a vote. Then Senator Warner stood up and clarified that he did indeed tell Leader Frist that Kerry’s amendment wasn’t ready for a vote and suggested that they vote on something else instead. Warner also pointed out that the decision to propose the Kerry Amendment as the McConnell Amendment was done while he was absent from the Senate. In short, Frist and his cohorts pulled this underhanded stunt behind both Senator Kerry and Senator Warner’s backs.

In essence, these cowards curtailed the debate on Iraq by killing the Kerry Amendment that was to be voted on as an attachment to the Defense Authorization Bill. They were afraid of an honest debate so they chose a dishonest way of making certain the debate did not happen. What a bunch of lily-livered cowards! Any noble ideals the Grand Old Party might have once had are all but a memory. The Republican Party has become the party of corruption and cowardly attacks.

The Kerry Amendment will be resubmitted next week and the Democrats are planning to have an in-depth discussion about bringing our troops home at that time.

The question is: what cowardly stunt can we next expect from the Yellow Party?

*Text of Sense of the Senate resolution:

(1) The Iraqi government should not grant amnesty to persons who have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving heroically in Iraq to provide all Iraqis a better future.

(2) President Bush should immediately notify the government of Iraq that the United States government opposes granting amnesty in the strongest possible terms.


http://www.usnewswire.com/

by DynamicDems on 06/18/2006 02:06:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On seerSUCKER day? 
Made me want to buy some ice cream, then throw it up.
LOL.  What a maroon.

by GV on 06/18/2006 02:13:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and the seersucker lavendar. I admit to once having a pink seersucker suit but I was a pre-teen girl and it was the early 60s.

by Jerseygirl on 06/18/2006 02:25:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He's not exactly a manly man, now is he?

by DynamicDems on 06/18/2006 03:15:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Mitch McConnell introduced legislation..."
 
...and yet, it's somehow "Kerry's amendment."

Kinda reminds one of Duncan Hunter submitting a bill everyone referred to as the "Murtha Bill" - Murtha's version never made it to the floor.

Why can't the Republicans let these guys write their own bill and support submitting it to their respective floors instead of leaving them languishing in committee limbo while pushing through faux representations of what the REAL bills try to accomplish?

Or maybe even come up with some actual solutions to real problems instead of game playing?

by MedfordTim on 06/19/2006 02:59:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Mitch McConnell introduced legislation..." 
...and yet, it's somehow "Kerry's amendment."

Here are the facts:

Kerry's Plan For Date-Certain Withdrawal Overwhelmingly Rejected By U.S. Senate. (S. 2766, CQ Vote #174: Motion Agreed To 93-6: R 55-0; D 37-6; I 1-0, 6/15/06)

Only Six Senators, All Democrats, Voted For Kerry's Date Certain Withdrawal Plan: 
  • Sens. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), John Kerry (D-MA) And Ted Kennedy (D-MA) All Voted For Kerry's Withdrawal Plan.
So maybe we should have called it the Kerry-Byrd-Feingold-Harkin- Kennedy Bug Out Amendment? They damn sure voted for it!

by KenTX on 06/19/2006 09:47:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
John Kerry in the first 2004 Presidential Debate:
 
“I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning!”

"Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq."

John Kerry today:

“I'm not talking about winning. I'm talking about leaving!”

by KenTX on 06/17/2006 10:53:27 PM EST


Kerry '04 - Change the course. Bush '03, '04, '05, '06 - STAY THE COURSE Bush's Press Secretary Tony Snow : Q Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that? MR. SNOW: It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something. http://www.editorandpublish er.com/eandp/news/article_d isplay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1 002689186

by fedup on 06/18/2006 01:20:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bush and Cheney to me. You know two birds (loonies) of a feather flock together.

by fedup on 06/18/2006 01:28:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
First, Mitch McConnell did not propose Senator Kerry's amendment.  That was a cheap trick, really beneath what our legislators should be doing.  Senator Kerry will propose his amendment next week.

When you quote someone, you really should provide a source.  Unless you're citing fake Pulitzer nominee and resume padder Thomas Lipscomb, which you did earlier.  Nothing Lipscomb says should be taken seriously.  Anyone who claims to be a Pulitzer nominee and is not one does not deserve recognition.
http://www.pulitzer.org/

Why, Mr TX, do you choose to attack Senator Kerry's daughters?  That, to me, just seems a bit over the top.  Unless, like John McCain, you just enjoy bashing women for giggles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/John_McCain
I would think a proud Texan like you would have a little more respect for women than to sink to that.  Or have I assumed too much?

by GV on 06/18/2006 12:33:09 PM EST


Mr. Cheney. He's a real dick.

by DynamicDems on 06/18/2006 02:28:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
comment and I believe you're right. 
 
Just like Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove was afraid the communists were sapping his "precious bodily fluids" (ie: he was having trouble in the sack) today's Republicans seem to have a similar problem.  No dicks or very tiny ones, or maybe it's the complimentary part of their anatomy they lack. In any case, they will keep our troops in the middle of a bloody civil war just so nobody accuses them of pulling out.
 
What a bunch of limp biscuits who have to WAGE war and WIN wars  (as long as other people fight in them) so that they can appear to have big dicks. You know, like Bush with that stupid cod piece he wore on "mission accomplished" day.
 
Ironic how many of them never did any combat duty whatsoever. You are probably familiar with the Chickenhawk Database (most military are) but just in case, it is quite interesting.

 
 

 
 

by DynamicDems on 06/18/2006 07:42:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny stuff.
http://www.symbolman.com/ch ickenhawks.html

And login to your IM. Your email is coming back as undeliverable. Got some old photos I dug up that you might like to see.

by Liberal Jim on 06/19/2006 05:13:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
earlier and missed you. That e-mail is old and it overflowed because I don't check it.  We have to connect up. I'll be around for IM tomorrow after 7 EST. 
 
I've got an invitation to extend, if you think you can make it to Boston next Monday (Sen. Kerry event).
 
Thanks for helping here. 
 
I can't wait to see those photos.

by DynamicDems on 06/20/2006 03:53:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
but it's great. I'm going to add it to my site.  Thanks for the tip.
 
 
 

by DynamicDems on 06/20/2006 05:19:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Now this is what a leader looks like!
 
"America has always rejected war as an instrument of raw power or naked self-interest. We fought when we had to in order to repel grave threats or advance freedom together with like-minded people everywhere. But our current leadership, for all its rhetoric of freedom and democracy, behaves as though might does make right. They discard alliances and institutions that served us so well in the past as nothing more now than roadblocks to the exercise of unilateral power. " - Senator John Kerry
 
 
"And here today we mus