Question for the 'Kerry = Bush-lite' folks

[WilliamPitt]

Do you really think...



...that this kind of thing...



...would have happened, or would ever happen...



...under a President Kerry...



...and a Kerry-appointed Defense Secretary...



...and a Kerry-appointed Seceetary of State...



...and a Kerry-chosen Vice President...



...and a Kerry-appointed National Security Advisor...



...and a Kerry appointed Attorney General?



Do you believe that?

Last one for thought:



Rummy in you-know-where.

If you believe it, then speak up. I'd like to hear this.

[JI7]

1. the most conservative person talked about as having a position

in the kerry administration on foreign policy/national security area is john mccain.and he has been one of the most outspoken against this.

[ibegurpard]

17. I seem to remember James Baker being mentioned at one point

eom

[HFishbine]

35. Yes

James Baker, the man who guided the Bush legal challenges against the Florida vote count and who is defending the Saudis against law suits by the families of 9/11 victims.

Kerry has said that he might reward this partisan pig with a position as Middle East envoy.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540/

[niceypoo]

48. Bush lite means "Me too!"

Like Kerrys stance on Iraq ("Failure is not an option") of backing Sharon in giving him a green light to rampage through the palestinian areas, etc. etc. Almost everyone I talk to at school sees kerry as "The same as Bush". I realise its only a perception but kerry better start campaigning because people don't know what he is about.

[Cascadian]

116. That is what I am saying.

I wished people would stop being under this illusion that if Kerry wins, the Iraqi people will start liking us again,no terrorists are going to threaten us anymore, the jobs lost will return overnight, and the clouds will part and sunlight will radiate on the world. Kerry is going to have a helluva job to prove himself and pick up the mess Bush has made and it will take days, but years and Kerry should do what he did during the primaries and continue doing playing Dean. It got him that far anyway so why stop there?


John

[laconicsax]

2. It's entirely possible

Sadism is a part of human nature.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Stanford%20Prison%20Experiment

This sort of thing happens regardless of who is running the show (it still is despicable, but predictable). To imply that a President Kerry would have prevented this sort of thing is ridiculous simply because you can't prevent something retroactively.

President Gore, had he actually taken office, wouldn't have invaded Iraq, so then this specifically wouldn't have happened.

[WilliamPitt]

3. So my baseless prediction is bad, but yours is OK?

:)

[JI7]

4. nader said gore would have gone into iraq

[Stephanie]

6. Nader's an idiot

Nader should rot in hell for what he did.

[Skittles]

18. correct

Nader has blood on his hands and he knows it; what a shameless asshole.

[Nlighten1]

45. Nader did nothing but...

try to raise the spector that our system is completely corrupt. The problem is people like you can't properly evaluate what he said because you are blind to the truth.

"Staying the course" and "appealing to the middle" are nothing but code phrases for supporting the status quo and the status quo DOESN'T support us...it supports them.

"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

[silverpatronus]

65. HEAR HEAR! eom

[Ardee]

149. Bravo nlighten

Those who mindlessly castigate Nader and make false accusations against him probably never visit his website, votenader,org, and note his opposition to Bush, his eloquence and his disgust for the current policies of the USA. They choose instead to adopt a false meme as the alternative is to begin to question the actions of their own party's leadership...cant have that now can we?

Who the hell knows, Pitt included, whether such actions would have occurred under Gore or will occur under Kerry. Pitt chooses to believe that they would not have occurred, well that is his choice of course. I myself prefer to hear a candidate SAY SO, not speak like a milder version of Bush.....It is long past time to oust the ruling class from our government, long past time......

[Tinoire]

28. And Clinton did start. Sent Albright & Berger out on a TOUR to drum up

support for it but angry Leftists, unlike sleeping partisans, were on their toes, BOOED them away and stopped them cold at OSU. Thank God for the ideological purists who shut up war-mongering, saber-rattling "half-a million dead Iraqi kids is worth the price" Albright.

Death is no purer on our watch. Clinton, who was ready to start the war, himself said that the one in his cabinet who most wanted to take out Saddaam was Gore.


===

'Things worth fighting for'
Foreign policy team visits OSU
By Mike Spahn
Daily Staff Reporter

COLUMBUS - President Clinton's foreign policy team met yesterday at Ohio State University with a rowdy crowd in a town hall meeting to discuss the current situation in Iraq.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger met for 90 minutes with a crowd that often yelled and chanted in protest of possible U.S. military action against Iraq.

<snip>

The discussion was interrupted early and often. Protesters began chanting anti-war slogans during Albright's opening comments and continued through much of the debate.

<snip>

"We will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what is necessary to protect our freedom," Berger said.

<snip>

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html

==


Clinton team jeered during town hall

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Facing tough questions from America's heartland, the Clinton administration's foreign policy team tried to make the case Wednesday for U.S. military action against Iraq. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Iraq's disputed weapons arsenal the "greatest security threat we face."

<snip>

Joining Albright on a red carpeted-stage in the center of a basketball arena were Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel Berger. They were interrupted several times by chants from a noisy audience that included students as well as uniformed members of the military and veterans.

<snip>

Some of the protesters held aloft a banner that said, "No War,"

<snip>

When one questioner said as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be killed in an attack, Albright replied, "I'm willing to make a bet that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does."

<snip>

"The lesson of the 20th century is, and we've learned through harsh experience, the only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness," Berger said.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983," Berger said.

<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

[Alerter_]

58. I remember this! Clintoned WANTED a PNAC war

and I remember the "tour" to drum up support. Kerry wants to keep us in Iraq for four more years.

[Tinoire]

62. Yugoslavia was step one of the PNAC wars

Globalization. Private contractors all over the place so we would claim plausible deniability. I won't excuse Clinton no matter how much I personally liked him during his Presidency. He was a million times better than Bush for us but millions throughout the world will beg to differ that he was good.

I lived in Germany at that time and the outrage over Yugoslavia was unbelievable. I couldn't believe there was nary a word in the press here.

The war against Iraq has lasted 13 years. 13 years non-stop, with little lulls here and there but millions dying nonetheless- how can we forget that?

[Darranar]

114. More than four...

I'm not about to believe his "withdraw before end of first term" junk...

[goodhue]

75. gore said he would not have

it was one of his themes when he endorsed dean

[gasperc]

88. not alone, not without a plan, not without a credible reason

and as Will emphasized, Kerry appointees would not have allowed the kind of abuse shown in the posted pics
and besides, the demeanor and attitude of Bush have encouraged this behavior

and Nader is a Fuck for putting words in Gore's mouth

[SammyWinstonJack]

105. And Gore said he wouldn't have attacked Iraq

Think I will believe what Gore himself said rather then believe what Nader thinks Gore would have done!

[AlGore-08.com]

160. Once again, Nader failed to listen to what Gore actually said

Gore has always said that he would not have invaded Iraq. He has said that from the moment that the idea of invading Iraq was first floated.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Torture...

Is probably unavoidable in war, there are always the few sadists who take things too far. Although under Bush/Rumsfeld, torture in the Iraqi prisons was US governmental policy; Kerry would have never implemented the policy which means that instances of torture under Kerry are less likely.

[Stephanie]

10. Don't be stupid

Torture is not a given in war. The U.S. has never condoned torture. Don't fall victime to propaganda. We are better than this.

[Tinoire]

26. You're kidding right? What about the School of the Americas

They have MANUALS AND MANUALS on this kind of stuff.

Please... please pass me some of whatever you're smoking; I need it badly tonight after viewing those photos and reading the latest prisoner testimonies.

[kiahzero]

30. Problems on several counts

1) The SOA trains other militarys, not our own.

2) The R2I techniques are taught so that soldiers can resist them, should they be captured. In this case, they were taught to reservists without the normal training; normally, those who learn the techniques are subjected to them, so that they understand first-hand what they are doing.

3) I seriously doubt that we have manuals on proper rape technique. I'd count on that one being improvised.

[Tinoire]

39. But ur point is what? That we just teach torture & know nothing about it?

The SOA trains other militarys, not our own.

Who are the instructors? US Military people who just dream this stuff up with no training as to how to do it themselves? Please, please, please! Hang around with a few more vets before you try that one. The cream of the crop in torture skills taught in Advanced Interrogation Courses are selected to go teach there and spread the wealth.

Your second point is propaganda cover Khiazhero. There's no way you can believe what you wrote there. No way.

[kiahzero]

41. I'm well aware of what US Forces did in Latin America

Which has relatively little bearing on the current discussion.

Who are the instructors? US Military people who just dream this stuff up with no training as to how to do it themselves? Please, please, please! Hang around with a few more vets before you try that one. The cream of the crop in torture skills taught in Advanced Interrogation Courses are selected to go teach there and spread the wealth.

I just told you who the military people in question learn the skills. My knowledge of how R2I techniques are taught comes from two sources - someone I know quite personally, who went through the training, and confirmation in stories such as this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html

Despite my avatar, I do not generally post that which I do not seriously believe.

Do we, in fact, have manuals on proper rape technique? If you know this to be the case, it should be no trouble at all to produce them.

[Tinoire]

59. You didn't tell me anything. You regurgitated white-washing propaganda

But ok Khiazhero, you win. Delta Forces are lily white purists who sit around drinking tea all day and Advanced Interrogation courses focus on raising the esteem of captives in order to get them to willingly want to help spread democracy and human rights throughout the world.

R2I techniques are taught purely for self-defense. Quit jiving me. I know Fort Huachuca like the back of my hand and know exactly what is in certain manuals.

You would like to steer everything off course with your ridiculous question on "proper" rape techniques. Forget about it. "Proper rape techniques" are unfortunately something we don't need to teach sick fucks- we just need to let them know everything's A-ok when extracting information to "save American lives".

[tinanator]

112. hey lets start another SOA thread for the apologists!

Id love to read one of those again!

[Darranar]

115. The US has never condoned torture?

When Rummy had the information on his desk, why didn't he stop it?

Why, instead, did Pentagon officials WEAKEN regulations?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/07/rights/index.html

Why were some soldiers TRAINED to do this in the first place?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html

Indeed - let's not fall victim to the propaganda that the US government thinks this is horrible and wants to stop it.

[trogdor]

85. OK, let me rephrase that (a little)

Do you think a Kerry administration would have allowed this "abuse" "torture" or whatever you want to call it to go on for months and months ONCE HE OR HIS STAFF CAUGHT WIND OF IT?

Somebody placed the prisons under the operational control of MI. I guarantee you that person was at least a one-star general, someone who is no more than two degrees of seperation from Mr. Rumsfeld.

Someone allowed these PFCs, Specialists, and various noncommissioned officers to do these things to the prisoners, if not actually encouraged them. THAT PERSON is most likely a commissioned officer in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel AT THE LEAST.

EVERY MEMBER of the chain of command (including Mr. Bush) shares some responsibility for this serious FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP. If it were a couple of isolated incidents that were swiftly dealt with by appropriate application of the UCMJ, there would be NO STORY to report on the news. This was NOT the case.

NOW do you understand?

[Stephanie]

5. I am so horrified I can't stop crying

I keep thinking of my grandfather. This is not his America.

[Tinoire]

29. It's no longer ours either

Take a break for a little while. So sorry Steph. :hug:

[keithyboy]

67. I am crying too because I have come face-to-face with who we are

We are as bad as, if not much worse than those we say we abhor because they don't pretend...but we do.

[freeforall]

8. Who can tell Will?

This is just speculation. I'd like to think it wouldn't, but who can say for sure?

[IndianaGreen]

9. Those things are happening under Plan Colombia

Our surrogates that we trained at the SOA, now known as WHISC, are happily doing those very things under our supervision and guidance.

Who was President when Plan Colombia was promulgated? Hint: it wasn't Bush.

Who voted for Plan Colombia?

War crimes have been committed by the US under Republican and Democratic Administrations alike. Republican and Democratic Presidents have also remained silent while that "shitty little" ally of ours in the Middle East has engaged in ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and human rights violations.

While Bush/Cheney deserve a seat at the International Crimes Court, they are not the only ones that should be sitting there as defendants.

Both major parties have innocent blood on their hands!

[Tinoire]

27. Thank you Indy. These apologetics are a little weak.

The atrocities committed in Vietnam happened under both Republican and Democratic Administrations.

Anyone who voted for this war is AS responsible as Bush is!

[redqueen]

92. A *LITTLE* WEAK?!

You're so kind, Tinoire.

[Tinoire]

117. Kind? Are you being sarcastic? I feel like a total bitch

and it's not something I like.

Nothing would please me more than to be on Kerry's side and thinking that getting Kerry in would accomplish more than just having gotten Bush out.

I wish there were a Kerry or Dem pill I could take so that I could believe. My mother will be voting for Kerry because she doesn't have cable or the internet and hasn't followed Kerry since the Vietnam movement. She remembers the image of young Kerry and I won't discourage her of course this is the woman, who when I was growing up, taught me that "they're all corrupt" with years of dinner table talks to hammer it in.

You're the one who's being kind. I notice your avatar and salute your pragmatism. I'm quite envious of it RedQueen.

[EdGy]

102. absolutely true: US foreign policy contains a common thread

Whether under Republicans or Democrats, US foreign policy is driven by an obsession with remaining on top. An obsession with protecting "US interests," which actually are not the interest of you and me, but the interests of the wealthy.

Much as I'd prefer Kerry to Bush, I have no illusions that a Kerry presidency will result in any drastic shift in US policy towards the world. Yes, Kerry will be polite, diplomatic, and not purposely do things to humiliate other countries. Kerry will use the velvet glove rather than the stick. But when push comes to shove, he will use the instruments that the US always uses, which includes this kind of thing.

[JackDragna]

11. In a word, yes.

If Kerry was foolish enough to be convinced the war was acceptable, I don't see it as too much of a flyer for him to be convinced torture and degradation are acceptable for Iraq to gain some kind of nebulous "freedom."

On edit: You are aware, Mr. Pitt, of the non-sequitir nature of your argument here? Kerry could be president and the gung-ho, America-first jingoism that led our armed forces to act this way in the first place would still be there. I don't have much faith in Mr. Kerry to do anything substantive to change that. Like too many of our candidates, Mr. Kerry will be afraid of criticizing the troops or making too many changes in fear of seeming "unpatriotic."

[Stephanie]

12. Oh please

On what basis do you make this charge? BushCO LIED to the entire Congress in order to get their war on. Just because they were duped to believe in WMD's does not mean they'd authorize TORTURE OF PRISONERS.

No American President has EVER authorized such inhumane, illegal, sick, disgusting, unAmerican treatment of ANYBODY, especially prisoners-of-war. Only George Bush Junior could authorize something like this. We are now as bad as everything we have ever fought against. We have lost the moral highground. America will never be the same. And the fault lies with George Bush.

[JackDragna]

13. Look at some of the posts above.

Every time our military does something bad, it's not always under the watch of a Republican president. As far as not authorizing the torture of prisoners..I don't see it as such a stretch for someone who approved of the war. You must understand the enormous pressure political candidates undergo to cowtow to the Pentagon. I certainly don't buy Kerry is a choirboy: if you want proof of that, look at his statements regarding Venezuela. He gets after Hugo Chavez, a democratically elected leader of a foreign nation, because Chavez doesn't jump when we say jump.

As for presidents not authorizing this kind of inhumane treatment, it's been done before. Reagan, for example, authorized political assassinations and torture during his illegal war in Nicaragua. U.S. troops have been used as crushers of democratic political dissent all around the world since about the Industrial Age, coinciding with the emergence of the U.S. as a world superpower. I don't know about you, but I consider letting our troops act as jackbooted stormtroopers to be just as bad as torturing people. I don't like Bush, but being melodramatic does not improve your argument.

[Djinn]

14. Johnson was in office

while Operation Phoenix was in full swing.

It is the height of naivety to suggest that there would be no mistreatment (up to and including torture) of Iraqi's were the Democrats in power. Do you REALLY think that if Kerry is elected in November that suddenly all sadism will disappear?

I look forward to a mea culpa from all the Kerry is an angel crowd if it doesn't happen

[greatauntoftriplets]

25. My Lai happened on LBJ's watch as well.

And Operation Whitestar, although started by Eisenhower, continued until 1962 -- under John F. Kennedy.

http://www.specialoperations.com/History/Cold_War/White_Star/

[Cheswick2.0]

46. I knew Bush was full of shit and dangerous and his followers delusional

You knew it too and so did John Kerry. What did he think was going to happen? At the very least he knew innocent people would die for an illegitimate war.
When he can admit what a mistake his vote was I can learn to respect him. Until then, I certainly wont work for bush or Nader, but I won't work for Kerry either.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. That's a major crock, and you should know better.

[JackDragna]

95. Wow! It's a major crock!

I guess you didn't bother to read the rest of the posts in this thread about bad things Democratic presidents have done. Nice one-line response there, by the way. Did you merely not feel like typing more, or did you just not have enough to back up your assertions?

[Paragon]

15. Yeah.

Skipping over the facts that:

1. I am not a "Kerry=Bush-Lite" person
2. Kerry would never have invaded Iraq in the first place

In which case, you might actually have had "6 or 7 bad apples" (which is the Republican line) rather than an order from the top down to dance around the Geneva Convention (which is the reality that Republicans deny).

Enough sick bastards in the world, not to mention the military, to dream up and execute sick shit like this.

ON EDIT: There is an exception in one of those pictures, the infamous hooded picture with electrodes attached to the extremities -- as Newsweek said, that's called a "Vietnam", and could only have come from military intelligence types experienced in methods of torture. No grunt with a grudge towards Arabs could be that sadistically imaginative.

[mr_du04]

16. NO but, if it did

the repukes would be in the middle of impeachment hearings. Assuming they were in power of course.

[KG]

19. snorf!

geez, will. is that the best you can come up with? i thought you were a professional now. :eyes:

[Blue-Jay]

20. No. Not if he *knew* it was happening.

Kerry, admittedly, wasn't my first choice, but I like the guy and I'll not have a single reservation when I cast my vote for him in November. I find it odd that so many DUers are still hurt and bitter that "their guy" didn't get the nod in the primaries.

To all you "leftier-than-thou" folks that like to make "I'll hold my nose when I vote" comments. Get over it. Sure, he's not a perfect man. Nobody is. He's a step in the right direction, though. Are you upset that he's currently courting the voters in the "middle" of the political spectrum? Well, DUH! Of course he is. Is this your first campaign season? Bush did the same thing, successfully, before ordering a hard-to-starboard direction change once he was installed in office.

Kerry IS "my guy" now, and I can't help but smile every time I see one of his ads on the tube. I only hope that he pursues legal action for the upper-echelon people behind the above abuses.

Footnote: "leftier-than-thou" provided by DUer RainDog. Where has she been lately?

[Don Claybrook]

21. So anything this side of Hitler is ok?

This sounds very much like the idiotic comparisons made by right wing radio hosts. Saddam had mass graves. We're not as bad as North Korea. Idi Amin did worse things than we have. At least we don't decapitate detainees, etc.

So sure, Kerry is still a million times better than Bush, but I'm not aiming for low expectations. I'd like to elect a president who wasn't pandering to the hateful right wing.

But not to worry. I understand my choice is not really a choice at all. I'd vote for a house plant before I'd vote for George Bush. Just don't try to tell me how swell Kerry's pandering to the right is by virtue of the fact that he doesn't torture people.

[trogdor]

87. How about a candidate who doesn't chase windmills?

First of all, I DO NOT subscribe to the view that American under Ralph Nader would be some kind of freaking paradise. Ralph Nader has NEVER held any elected office. Ralph Nader would bring new meaning to the word "incompetence" in the extremely unlikely event he were ever elected President, or even appointed to a first or second tier Cabinet position. His claim to fame is almost entirely the result of a single book he wrote in 1965 that caused General Motors to pull one of its more suspect products from the market, and the Federal Government to give serious thought to the subject of automotive safety.

In short, he's already had his fifteen minutes of fame, and wants another; that's why he's running for President. Either he actually thinks he can win, or he doesn't, but doesn't care. No matter which one of these might be true, the man is nuts, and we should do whatever we can to deny him the attention he apparently craves, for the good of the country.

[Don Claybrook]

97. Why are you talking about Nader?

I think the topic of this thread is John Kerry, and how we should never criticize him because he doesn't torture detainees. None of this has a thing in the world to do with Ralph Nader.

[trogdor]

108. Actually, it does.

In a way. The whole idea of Kerry being Bush Lite is a chief selling point of the Nader campaign.

[Tinoire]

119. Maybe because they're something to sell there

:shrug:

If the idea weren't sellable no one would buy it. Nader's not making these things up. His timing may be ill-advised but he's not making anything up. In fact he didn't even start that meme, it started years ago and was said for years at DU based n Kerry's speeches and voting record. There's more to not being Bush-lite than just disagreeing on the environment and abortion.

Read his book "Crashing the Party"; the principle still applies in 2004 even if the examples have changed.

[Forkboy]

22. Ham sandwich or bust!

[durutti]

23. Absolutely.

There's no reason to think otherwise. Similar things happened during Vietnam, under Democratic Presidents.

[Killarney]

24. If Gore was Pres. we wouldn't even be in Iraq right now.

I can't even fathom the naivety, selfishness, and pure stupidity of anyone that votes for Nader in 2004 after witnessing what has happened in the last 3 years. :(

[DemVet]

31. YES, YES, YES, YES, YES

You're fooling yourself if you think this couldn't have happened under Gore...........or under Kerry for that matter. This is the same military Gore would have inherited. Clinton is to blame for some of this also, as is Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon...........

[Cheswick2.0]

44. bull

this is a direct result of an unjust war being lead by an administration of black and white thinkers, using a plan that Rummy approved and ordered by private contractors.

This would not have happened under Gore because we would not be in Iraq.

[DemVet]

73. Simplistic...

....and idealistic thinking, to say the least.

[Cheswick2.0]

141. nonsense bub

I am unhampered by the need to justify a sick and unessesary war. I never supported this garbage so my mind is clear.

[tjwash]

74. How does someone inheriting a military...

...equate to doing a preemptive strike on a sovereign nation? And how is Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter to blame for the buddying up to Saddam Hussein into power by Reagan and Bush in the eighties?

The only reason we went to war in Iraq now, is because this was unfinished business by the first Bush administration. This whole thing was one GIANT screwup by the Bush family dynasty.

Wake up, just two months after Bush the first moved into the White House, he continued to patronize Hussein's government. He even went so far as to try and influence the Exchange-Import Bank to provide loans to Iraq. For Pete's sake, James freakin' Baker informed Bush number one that Iraq was procuring nuclear weapons technology, and he STILL pushed forward with his own agenda to provide MORE weapons and agricultural credits to Iraq. Two days after American intelligence warned Bush of the Hussein's buildup, the United States granted Iraq $1 billion in agricultural credits.

So don't blame Clinton, Carter, and the rest for the Bush Dynasties mistakes, that's the same BS that the Nader supporters did in 2000 to help Jr. get elected in the first place.

[HFishbine]

32. It sure as hell happened under Senator Kerry

Kerry voted for the damn war. This is no longer a question of "mis-management" it's a question of judgment. Kerry had the terribly bad judgment to give the fuckheads permission to go into Iraq. When he atones for this grave mistake, I'll be more sympathetic.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

57. How many Democrats voted AGAINST going to Iraq? Not too...

...damn many was there?

[HFishbine]

63. Nope

There sure weren't.

[Tinoire]

77. Nope. Not too damn many as you say.

When it comes to war, the bi-partisanship is mind-boggling.

Wedge issues like health-care however & social programs, now that's where the fighting begins because the Republicans can't seem to bear seeing crumbs fall to the people ;)

[Carolina]

128. 23 or roughly half of them

[Cheswick2.0]

143. look at the ones in the congress

I believe that more democrats voted against it than for it. The senate were a bunch of gutless wonders.

[Larkspur]

154. Actually, two-thirds of the House voted against IWR

but only 21 Dem senators opposed it joined by 1 Republican (Chaffee of RI) and 1 Independent (Jeffords of VT).

Overall, most of the Dems opposed it. It's the pro-Israeli and pro-liberal hawks and chickenhawks that supported it.

[jonnyblitz]

33. yup.

war is war no matter who is executing it. I don't believe a war run by a President Kerry will be a kinder, gentler war just because he is a DEM.

[John_H]

34. Here they come, the same ol' people.

Notice how the same half-sophisticated freep trolls and one-percenter Kerry bashers come out in every thread that gives them the slightest opportunity to bash Kerry?

We've gone down the "indistinguishable" road in 2k, and look what we got. Sorry, but anyone who wants to go down it again is either a chimp supporter or too stupid to reach anyway.

Save this thread in case the rumors about the freeps revealing themselves on election day is true. We'll se if I'm on the mark or not.

[HFishbine]

36. That should tell you something

If the "indistinguishable" road is a dead end, maybe the candidate ought to quite trying to blur the distinctions.

[Djinn]

145. it'll also be good to see the

people deluding themselves that Kerry is like some kind of people's crusader spin like a dradle trying to justify the CONTINUING war in Iraq and the continuing atrocities committed under a Kerry admin, if and when that happens - I doubt there's anyone on DU that would argue that Kerry is "better than" Bush - but come on people - that leaves A HELL of a lto of room for improvement

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nlighten1]

43. ug

There are plenty of people here who would like to claim the Democrats now have the moral authority because of Bush's mis-handling of the war but your post completely obliterates this canard.

Thank you.

[Tinoire]

51. Thanks & thanks for reading that & commenting

I don't like showing those things but damn how will anything ever change if both sides just bury their heads and point at the other as the bogeyman? I want an end to all of this.

I am ashamed to realize that when Clinton was President I was only half-awake because I really did think we were good. I still think we're better but only because we throw bigger crumbs to the people. So we go from F to D-

I don't know that we will ever recover from this & think it's delusional to think that just because we elect Kerry everything will magically be ok again & the world will breathe a sigh of relief. The world has been aware of all US atrocities for decades now and Democratic Administration or not, they're not going to allow the bully to get back up. I am very fearful of what our future holds now.

[Nlighten1]

90. I wonder why your post was deleted?

Perhaps it offended the moderate Democrats?

[Tinoire]

123. Amazing. It didn't insult anyone. Shows you how much the truth

is unacceptable and how much head-burying is encouraged.

Heaven forbid anyone crush the delusions of the "my country right or wrong as long as my party's in charge crowd".

:puke:

[PsychoDad]

38. Quite possible.

Bush didn't come up with this invasion out of a vacuum, this is the product of his PNAC keepers. Judging from Kerry's record and current stand, he is also a PNAC supporter and would have gone ahaid with it himself.

The fix is in on this election, regardless of who wins, Bush or Kerry, PNAC and AIPAC still win.

And we , the people who dish out the cash for these atrocities done in our name, will continue to lose.

[Sparkly]

49. How can anybody think Kerry is PNAC?

Have you read the PNAC's mission statement?
Are you at all familiar with Kerry's decades-long record?

There is a huge difference between Kerry and PNAC. Please don't think that every military operation = PNAC, or that every Senator who voted for the IWR expected Bush to rush in and create this disaster.

[Tinoire]

55. Have you read of the DLC's collaboration with PNAC? Of PPI?

Of Will Marshall, President of PPI, signer of PNAC documents, and Kerry advisor? Watching him shilling for imperialism on C-Span this week-end was mind-boggling.

February 18, 2004

"It's Time to Get Over It"
Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On
By MARK HAND

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would seek to preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the battle to control the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Project for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for "maintaining global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

In fall 2003, members of PPI joined with other tough-minded Democrats to unveil Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, a 19-page manifesto that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."

<snip>

Like the neocons, Kerry was not impressed by France's stance against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On page 51 of his book, he writes:

"I hope by the time you read this book that the UN has been usefully employed as a partner in the reconstruction of Iraq and that Jacque Chirac has ceased his foolish rebellion against the very idea of the Atlantic Alliance. America, which has always shown magnanimity in victory, should in turn meet repentant Europeans halfway, not ratchet up the badgering unilateralism that fed European fears in the first place."

<snip>
http://www.counterpunch.org/hand02182004.html

[Sparkly]

81. PNAC/PPI are not Coke/Pepsi

PPI is the Democratic reply to "Democrats are weak on National Security." PNAC says "we need to use military muscle to dominate;" PPI says "we need to cooperate with other countries to maintain security, not pursue unilateralism to dominate."

It's a long thin line from PNAC to PPI to Will Marshall to John Kerry. It seems every Democratic wonk is now a Kerry advisor, from Holbrooke to Jaime Rubin, and I'm not sure where Will Marshall is in those ranks.

More later...

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. _Probably_ not, but

that doesn't alter the fact that Kerry is too close to $hrub's positions in other ways.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. I think Kerry voted for this to happen because he wanted to be President

He is also responsible.
I think had Gore taken office we would have been spared all of this.

[Sparkly]

47. What?! No Senators voted for *this* to happen!

There was no vote on torture in prisons. Are you saying every Senator knew? And all those who voted for the IWR wanted to be president?

I can't believe how Kerry is demonized here.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. most of them voted for this war knowing it was crap

because of their lack of political nerve. Kerry was one of those. He is responsible for how he voted. He needs to face this, apologize and stop trying to pretend he wasn't part of the decision to let this happen.

Are you saying you couldn't hear the Messianic paranoia in Bush's rhetoric? Are you saying you couldn't predict that a man who stole the office of President and began calling people "evil doers" was going to cause something like this to happen? Are you saying Kerry was not smart enough to figure this out too? WTF do you think happens when you invade a country for no cause? We killed thousands of innocent people for NO REASON.

[Sparkly]

61. He didn't vote for torture pictures cuz he wanted to be president?

Not even I thought Bush would rush to invade without evidence, without the UN, and without a plan for the aftermath. It was unprecedented, and I don't think anybody anticipated this level of prolonged devastation and strategic blunder after blunder, nor did anyone predict prison tortures complete with photographs.

I was against the IWR, I would not have voted for it if I'd been in a position to make the decision, and of course we were all against the invasion -- but I absolutely do not believe Kerry or others voted for the IWR expecting Bush to do what he did and expecting such horrors to occur in prisons, because he wanted to be president.

[Andy_Stephenson]

84. " I absolutely do not believe Kerry or others voted for the IWR ....

expecting Bush to do what he did" I have some lakefront property in Florida. It is cheap...want to buy it?

[Sparkly]

93. Why?

If you believe Kerry did expect everything that's happened to have happened, and he voted to make it happen, why? Why do you think he wanted this?

That reflects an extremely low opinion of Kerry, doesn't it?

[Tinoire]

121. Same reason he voted for every aspect of corporate globalization

that ever required a vote and war is just another weapon to demand that globalization- when they balk too much and sanctions haven't worked, send in the military.

Kerry doesn't want to change our "way of life" and like some of his supporters here, feels that anything justifies maintaining it. Cheap labor, cheap resources, cheap oil are all necessary to guarantee it when you're also gauranteeing the corporations that you're on their side.

Low opinion? Sadly, that's about it. My opinion of Kerry is even lower than the one I eventually developed of Clinton; on a scale of 1 to 10, Clinton feel from 10 to 4- Kerry's at about a 1.

Why is this so shocking to Kerry supporters, to the DLC and to the Kerry campaign? Did they not read the writing on the walls over the last 4 years? The first clue should have been what happened to Clinton when he went to the WTO talks in Seattle- that's when the tide changed among many Democratic voters and it started picking up ever since.

American people are basically good. We do not like knowing of the misery we cause throughout the world and the internet has allowed us to see it, has thrust it in our consciences putting us in a condition where we can't condone it.

It's easy to enjoy cheap sugar and to vote for its continued import when you don't know of the blood & tears that go behind getting it from the Carribbean to our table but once you're read the truth and once you've seen the misery of the kidnapped children who process it, it tastes too bitter.

The faces haunt you.

[Darranar]

130. And many of those aspects of corporate globalization...

lead to torture similar to that that occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison.

So, in a way, he's already condoned torture.

[Tinoire]

134. That's how I view it. I found Kerry curiously silent during the sugar

scandals in Haiti under the Clinton administration. We sent pictures of the kidnapped children, their stories and history directly to his attention but he treated is just as he treated the military families who went to plead for his help last year.

I have no illusions about people like Kerry. Better than Bush yes... so the ABB slogan really applies here (could the bar be any lower?) but that doesn't make it good.

Hug to you. I'll maybe be banned soon so I want to start saying my good-byes.

Bush is a devil but that doesn't make Kerry (who only differs from Bush on abortion and the environment) any kind of a saint.

[Darranar]

136. The DLC may be less evil than the RNC...

but that doesn't make it good.

Kerry's statements on Venezuela and his record of approving neoliberal policies (with a few notable exceptions; I'll grant him Iran/Contra, but that was years ago) show that he is not about to oppose US imperial policy.

My position still mirrors that of Chomsky: very, very, very reluctant support of the lesser evil, even though he's still evil and at times isn't even lesser. Nevertheless, I can't criticize anyone for refusing to vote for someone who so clearly has spat in the face of all the efforts for peace and real, humane internationalism (in contrast to neocon/neoliberal imperialist nationalism) in the past thirty years.

[Tinoire]

138. Well written. That's my position too. n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

142. well then neither of you is smart enough to be president

I sure as hell knew what he was going to do and so did millions of people all over the world. We were right.

[Radical Activist]

70. Yes, they did vote for this to happen

When they voted for the war in Iraq. There has never been a war without torture. There has never been a war without rape and the death of innocent people. That's what war is. That's what it does and that is what always happens. Kerry, of all people, should know that. So, anytime you vote for war then yes you DO vote for these things to happen.

[Sparkly]

76. They voted to defend the US

I don't believe Kerry voted for *this* war, in this way, with these consequences; I don't believe he voted knowing the Geneva convention would be trashed. Yes, war is Hell and yes, Kerry knows that as well as anyone -- so do others who voted "yes" on IWR. It is not a reason to categorically oppose each and every use of the military; there are times when not using force costs many more lives. It is also not an excuse for Bush's unprecedented actions in invading Iraq without cause, without the UN, and without a plan.

[Radical Activist]

94. Defend from who?

We all know Iraq was not connected to 911 and was no threat to the US. Your argument might work for other wars, but defense had nothing to do with the IRW.

I hope in the future when the nation is in another rush to war that someone shows these pictures on the Senate floor so that Americans will remember what they're really getting themselves into. Maybe Kerry forgot.

[Sparkly]

150. "without cause"

I realize that, obviously -- I said "without cause." It's not *my* argument.

[Tinoire]

122. If anyone knew what that vote would do it was Kerry!

We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But we found instead that we were killing women and children.
John F. Kerry


... war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971
===

Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

-- Crosby Noyes, Washington Evening Star

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

[Cheswick2.0]

146. DEFEND the US?

FROM WHAT?
Those kids over there dying are not defending the USA. They are defending PNAC, corporate interests and Israel.

[Sparkly]

151. Yes, I know

But if you recall what was said to the Senate, and by the senators, "defense" was the #1 rationale for the invasion.

[CTLawGuy]

148. If you sign somebody's

death warrant, but claim you are signing an order to give that person a medal, the person still dies, and you are still responsible.

[Tinoire]

78. Well said. n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

144. yes, exactly

That is why if we go to war it must be a just war. We must only go if we are attacked or if there is ethnic cleansing going on (at the time, not 12 years earlier).
No one will ever convince me that Edwards and Kerry didn't vote for it because they were running for President. They both disgust me.
Even at that I am working on myself to vote for Kerry. He had better not chose Edwards, Clark or Gephardt as his VP. If he does, all bets are off.

[Beam Me Up]

50. I expect more from you WilliamPitt than this. . .

Frankly, I'm offended by your having started this thread. I have criticisms of Kerry and Democrats in general for not, collectively taking a hard-line stance AGAINST not only Bush's policies, but American Imperialism. This doesn't mean I think a Kerry Presidency would be the equivalent of the Bush cabal's fascist regime. Kerry isn't "bush lite"--but by damn, he DOES represent US Imperialist hegemony, does he not? He did vote to authorize Bush's war, did he not? And don't give me any garbage about he and the Congress being "misled" by the Bush maladministration. They weren't fooled any more than I was or you were about WMD or any other of the half-assed lies that were offered up as a "rational" for this INVASION.

These photographs are shocking--but to be frank, I don't find them any MORE shocking than the photographs I've seen of men, women and children killed and injured in this war--not to mention photographs of those affected by sanctions that were in place during a Democratic Presidency. WHAT IS THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE? It is all PAIN, SUFFERING, DEATH that WE have caused these people--most of them completely innocent--to advance our Elitist's hegemony.

I am voting for Kerry because I hate BushNazis, not because I support US Imperialism. Kerry has not inspired faith in ME and people like me that he WILL make bold changes in those areas needed to break the grip of elitist hegemony: 1) GUARANTEES that our electoral system will not be compromised by technology; 2) STRONG campaign finance reform; 3) LEADERSHIP toward the development of renewable and sustainable energy infrastructures -- to name three absolutely essential issues.

[Tinoire]

52. Can I just add "Ditto"? Thank you.

I am too demoralized to write as clearly as you just did right now but you expressed my sentiments exactly.

[Paulie]

64. Amen!

Thank you!!!

[Forkboy]

111. I dont

[Nlighten1]

120. Never mind that my friend...

We have to protect the fragile sensibilities of these "moderate" voters.

These oh so important "moderate" voters must be coddled and stroked at all costs or we may lose the election.


Dripping with sarcasm.

[CWebster]

54. Right before these pictures broke wide open

Kerry dismissed, or at least minimized his own outrage over war crimes in Viet Nam as "over the top".

Anytime he wants to express outrage, we will all be waiting.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. I thought Kerry was referring to part of his statement where he...

...desribed an act In Vietnam that he did not personally witness as being "over the top". I don't think he ever attempted to minimize his own feelings about the abuses he actually saw or knew about while in Vietnam.

IMHO, your post is either deliberately or accidently misleading...which is it?

[CWebster]

66. his own words:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

[Beam Me Up]

69. There it is in black and white:

We are being led to believe that if Kerry takes a STRONG outspoken, CRITICAL position about ANYTHING, it will work against him politically.

I believe that LEADERSHIP means taking a strong, forceful, outspoken position in opposition to criminality and injustice. It is an ethical matter, a moral matter, a matter about which one feels strongly, deeply, passionately.

My whole life I've been told by "well meaning liberals" that we progressives have to compromise. WELL LOOK WHERE A GENERATION OF COMPROMISE HAS GOTTEN US! All of the reforms that have been brought about by three generations of struggle are about to be undone in the term of ONE or (GOD HELP US!) TWO malAdministrations.

I'm sick of compromise. When do we get LEADERSHIP? When do we get VISION? When do we get a President who is willing to take a strong, outspoken stance in opposition to the criminality that pervades our society? It isn't just within the military, you know! It is in the White House and the Congress and the Judiciary--and it is in the way BIG MONEY, especially OIL, especially MILITARY, and MOST especially the National Security State, has taken the reigns of power and is driving not only the United States but the whole of humanity to the brink of extinction.

Unfortunately, very very unfortunately, that last sentence is NOT an exageration!

I truly do have to :puke:



Edit: typo

[Tinoire]

80. Damn Beam_me_up

Where have you been hiding all this time? That was right on the nail.

[Radical Activist]

68. Kerry: "we must stay the course" in Iraq

Well, Kerry has pretty much said it will continue, but with a few more troops from other nations. This is what happens during war, all wars. As long as Kerry supports the continued occupation then things like this will keep happening. So yes, I'm sure it will continue to happen under Kerry unless he changes his course and gives us a quick exit strategy that gives control to UN peace keepers.

[leesa]

71. Is there a reason to believe he wouldn't?

He blindly supports the atrocities in Israel and has promised to back them 100%, and I imagine they look quite similar. Why do you think he wouldn't tolerate this?

[Tight_rope]

72. Here's my take on the Bush Administration....Joke for the Day!

A MAN DIED AND WENT TO HEAVEN. AS HE STOOD IN FRONT OF SAINT PETER AT
THE
PEARLY GATES, HE SAW A HUGE WALL OF CLOCKS BEHIND HIM. HE ASKED ''WHAT
ARE
ALL THOSE CLOCKS?''

SAINT PETER ANSWERED " THOSE ARE LIE-CLOCKS. EVERYONE ON EARTH HAS A
LIE-CLOCK. EVERYTIME YOU LIE THE HANDS ON YOUR CLOCK MOVE"

''OH'' SAID THE MAN, " WHOSE CLOCK IS THAT?'' THAT IS MOTHER TERESA'S.
THE
HANDS NEVER MOVED, INDICATING THAT SHE NEVER TOLD A LIE.

"INCREDIBLE SAID THE MAN "AND WHOSE CLOCK IS THAT ONE?"

SAINT PETER RESPONDED "THAT'S ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S CLOCK. THE HAND MOVED
TWICE
TELLING US THAT HE TOLD ONLY TWO LIES IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE."

WHERE IS BUSH'S CLOCK? ASKED THE MAN. SAINT PETER ANSWERED, IT'S IN
JESUS'
OFFICE, HE IS USING IT AS A CEILING FAN ."

[tom_paine]

79. NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NONO NO!!!!!!!!!

Vote Kerry for President.

Restore the Old American Republic!

May save the whole goddamned human species or give it (us) another 50 years fo life!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Over the course of the 4 years he's proposing? Hell, yes.

Not to mention that he voted FOR this mess.

Not to mention that he saw in Vietnam what American soldiers are capable of, no matter what party the president belongs to.

[Vladimir]

83. Maybe, maybe not

the hypothetical, in this case, is the ridiculous. The implication of your post is that no Dem president could ever preside over the above, and if you really believe that then we are all in far deeper shit than I thought. Think back to 1999. Then tell me, Will, how is torture and abuse worse than bombing makeup girls in a TV station (I picked that because it was a deliberate targetting and not 'collateral damage')? And that, as you know, was Clinton's government.

Anyone here who thinks that electing Kerry will work like a magic bullet on American foreign policy needs to think again. Kerry must be elected, but that's when the real political work will start.

[dave29]

86. Yeah, I'm still voting for him

but Kerry's vote helped make this possible.

Flame away.

[the_real_38]

89. Well, actually...

... Kerry admitted to participating in war 'atrocities' himself in interviews in the 70's.

And BTW, he does want to send more troops to Iraq, and he supports Ariel Sharon.

I hope that answers your question.

[markomalley]

91. War crimes are not the sole property of the Republican party...

...Democrats have plenty to be "proud" of in that regard, as well. Although I hope to believe that Kerry would not have been the klutz that Bush was in getting the country into this mess, I have no illusion that the uniformed, professional military would still take a "mission first" attitude and get the information they needed to get without moral regard for how they have to get it.

Remember, the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were done under Democratic presidents. The US Strike Command (precursor to the US Readiness Command and the current US Special Operations Command) was established under a Democrat in 1961 -- the real "pros" are aligned under that command, like the Seals, Force Recons (some), and Deltas -- those are the ones who are committing prisoner abuses heinous enough right now that, if pictures were published, would make these ones look like "hell week" in a frat (that is a comparitive statement, not an apology for what we are seeing in the media).

No, I don't think enough about Kerry to believe that he would do anything about that (although I do believe that he would not explicitly give the order to abuse prisoners). He has shown himself to be able to take multiple sides on issues when politically convenient. If, in the wake of an attack on the US, the fury of the public was ignited, I believe that Kerry would act like a politician and respond to "the will of the people." (just like he initially voted for Patriot, for the Afghan resolution, and for the Iraq resolution -- two of which he subsequently changed his position on conveniently in time for the primaries). This is not necessarily to blame Kerry...he is just a politician and will respond as a politician will respond. He was a more viable candidate than Kucinich, but I don't believe he has the moral backbone of a Kucinich (not a slam, just stating my impressions).

But, I wouldn't have any illusions about Mr. Kerry. He is certainly a better human being than the shrub, but he is still a politician, not a saint.

[robbedvoter]

96. Thread turned out to be a magnet for the loony, uninformed tinfoiled crowd

To quote Conason:
"From cranky left to triumphal right, commentators compete to insult the Massachusetts Senator. "
I think the cranky left should be allowed to stew in it's own malcontent. Anyone who still didn't see the difference between fascists and the rest of us should stay away from voting.

[AudreyT]

101. Kerry is as much a facist as anyone else in Congress who voted for the

Iraq War. Has he said anything about pulling those troops out? NO all he wants to talk about is HEALTHCARE. I tell you sometimes there are thing more important than HealthCare and the 10s of thousands of innocent civilians dying and being tortured at the hands of American soldiers is one of them.

[markomalley]

104. I guess if I need tinfoil to say Kerry is a "politician" then...

...pass the tinfoil please. I'd rather wear tinfoil than drink cool-aid.

[tinanator]

109. right on

good call

[Nlighten1]

118. Too bad you missed Tinoire's earlier post...

it got deleted and it would have made a laughing stock of your comments.

Bush 41's war became Clinton's war and the devastation didn't stop because a Democrat was running it...

Now Bush 43's war may become Kerry's war and given the past history of our conflict in Iraq...the devastation will continue.

[Darranar]

135. "loony, uninformed tinfoil crowd"?

Is it "uninformed" to point out that US atrocities have often enjoyed bipartisan support?

Is it "loony" to point out that Kerry voted FOR this war and for other things that involved torture, whatever "righteous anger" about this he pretends to have?

Is it "tinfoil" to speak about the atrocious record of US foreign policy?

[Rebellious Republican]

98. Hey Will, let me add to that list if you will (no pun intended).

This is the true face of war........

[AudreyT]

99. yup

Kery said he would name McCain as Secretary of Defense. McCain called Israel and Turkey democracies. Not only would that be happening in Iraq, it might end up happening here in America.

[tinanator]

100. I dont think it would have happened under President Gore

But not one Senator stood up for the CBC.
Where was Kerry when we needed him?
I dont think it would have happened if the PATRIOT Act had been blocked.
Where was Kerry when we needed him?
I dont think it could have happened if the IWR hadnt been passed.
Where was Kerry when we needed him?
I dont think a million DU'ers saying "I believe" or "I have faith"
that Kerry will do or act differently from what he says or does during the campaign (let alone the last 4 years in the Senate), after "winning" another rigged election, is reason enough to get optomistic. This is a continuation of a long term pattern of behavior that can scarcely be described as democratic, and people are justified in being concerned enough to want to exert appropriate pressure before consigning their "vote" to a war and coup enabler.

[tinanator]

103. aw heck no, of course not

He will pre-empt the need with selective assassinations, right?

[Tinoire]

106. You're too damned astute my friend

Imagine if you had no principles, you could shill for a living ;)

[Astarho]

107. Absolutely

Kerry may not be Bush-lite but he will follow the same foreign policy that we have had since the end of WWII. Kerry is not different enough to change that. Any student of history knows atrocities such as this and worse have been committed under R and D administrations alike.

Disgusting.

[eurolefty]

110. Absolutely.

The abuse of civilians is nothing new. What has changed is that now digital cameras are present.
American troops are not much liked anywhere. They have raped Japanese school girls and beat up German teenagers even in peace time.
Nothing to do with Kerry being Bush-lite, really. Please, bring all your uniformed freeper morons back home, from all parts of the globe.

Thanks.

[Darranar]

113. Yes. n/t

[Tinoire]

124. Well. Since my earlier post was deleted for killing your argument dead

let me just say "YES", it damn sure well would have because it historically has under Democratic administrations.

If you want to "push" for Kerry, please do so without insulting people's intelligence. The Geneva Convention was no more honored in Vietnam when US troops used to force the Vietnamese to swallow a ton of uncooked rice and then drink hot tea to make their intestines burst.

That's torture anyway you call it and Kerry knew of those things (or so he said) & he knows those things were sanctioned and taught to our interrogrators.

No need to even drag what Democratic administration sanctioned in Yugoslavia (white slavery of 14 year old girls aka sexual torture), the murder of US nuns and activists in Latin America, or the legal torture of Palestinians with our money, into this. Wouldn't want to shock the delicate sensibilities of people whose heads are so far down in the sand that it's a medical wonder they're still breathing.

[tinanator]

126. no real wonder actually

I have a fully aquatic turtle that breathes through its rectum.

[Tinoire]

132. LMAO. Thanks n/t

[GeronimoSkull]

129. What was in your post?

And why was it deleted?

[Tinoire]

131. I have no idea why it was deleted

but what was in it was the atrocities committed under Democratic administrations. I refuse the garbage that only Republicans are evil. Republicans are traditionally MORE evil in that they would begrudge American citizens even the crumbs that fall from the table but when it comes to the international arena, both parties are despicable and work very well together in a bi-partisan kind of way.

It was probably deleted over a technicality but I fear the real reason is that I gave examples and in this day & age, with so much at stake, it's better to pretend that the Dem party is pure in order to herd as many people into voting for Kerry as possible.

What the hell. Almost all of us are planning on voting for Kerry but sheesh, it seems the DLC has this horrid fear that if too much truth gets exposed we might end up 500 votes short.

KMA DLC. You want 500 more votes? Shift to the effing left because swing voters ain't where it's at.

Probably deleted because I'm too angry and no longer mincing my words. I hold Kerry and others who voted for IWR (and this is a great crime) as reponsible as I hold Bush because they have historically voted to, ahem, "protect our way of life". When our "way of life" is exploiting other people and bombing them into submission then hell yes I'm going to speak out!


Bush is the greater evil. That doesn't make the lesser evil any good. even if we do HAVE to acquiesce and vote for it. You can make me vote for Kerry, but you can't make me do it quietly.

Now, can we please confine this shit to GD 2004? Kucinich is still in the effing race so Kerry is not quite "crowned" yet.

[Andy_Stephenson]

137. The lesser of two evils is still

evil.

"I hold Kerry and others who voted for IWR (and this is a great crime) as reponsible as I hold Bush because they have historically voted to, ahem, "protect our way of life". When our "way of life" is exploiting other people and bombint them into submission then hell yes I'm going to speak out!"

Amen!

[Tinoire]

139. Hi and damned typo!

:hi:

Make that "bombing them into submission". Think I need to slow down, lol.

:hug:

[LWolf]

125. No.

Not on this scale.

[Carolina]

127. no, but it was predictable that BushCo

would do this. Kerry could have anticipated this sort of horror from the Bush crowd if we went to war, and thus he should never have given the village idiot a pass, the benefit of any doubt by voting 'aye' on the Iraq War Resolution. PERIOD. He, Hillary and all the others who gave Bush the authority are culpable now TOO. After all they represented us, the people, and the people said no to war especially in MA and NY!

[Gregorian]

133. One administration versus an entire country.

No, however- He and his picked member would probably avoid facilitating aggressive actions, unlike what Bush (ie. Rumsfeld) did. But the driving forces are still there, regardless of whom is in office. We are users. And we need our goods. We will do whatever we have to do, as long as we don't know how it's being done. That last part is key. IF we knew what was going on in our names, we would be screaming in the streets. All of us. So it's much more than who is in office. But they certainly can make a difference in the severity.


edit- I am confusing two things. Imperialism versus aggressive support for consumerism.

Kerry is not an imperialist.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

147. Maybe it's time you looked at

some photo's of the damage done in Yugoslavia and Iraq (that's right Clinton was bombing there too) you might find that photo's of bloodied and limbless bodies are just as upsetting when the bomb responsible was droppped under a dem admin.

[Violet_Crumble]

152. I'm not a Kerry = Bush lite folk, but the answer is yes....

n/t

[tinanator]

153. does anyone else hear that sound when they open this thread?

sounds like a gunshot, but I think its just a backfire.

[Larkspur]

155. If Kerry is following the liberal-hawks, like Biden and Holbrooke

and Albright, then yes, this incident would have happened under Kerry. PPI is the Dem version of PNAC, and PPI supported the ouster of Saddam, even if it meant using war. PPI also supports American domination of foreign resources.

The purpose of controlling Iraq is to help Israel as much as satisfy our oil addiction. Under PNAC and PPI views, Iraq is to supply Israel with oil and water, whether the Iraqi people want to or not. For us, Iraq is to be a base to launch covert and overt attacks against Iran and Syria, and any enemy to our oil addiction and to Israel.

[JVS]

156. Makes one wonder why Kerry voted for those things to happen

[Forkboy]

157. Why no reponses from you Will?

Your pos attempt at emotional manipulation fell flat on it's face.Why no answers to the people who pointed out the fallacy of your "arguement"?

[Forkboy]

158. kick

:kick:

[Paradise]

159. wow, great, effective post! thanks WilliamPitt. n/t

[scrotim]

161. the entire fucking WAR is the problem, not just Abu Ghraib

by focusing on the torture "scandal" and photos, we are diverting attention from the treasonous, murderous campaign of lies that got us into Iraq in the first place.

i become ever more persuaded that the U.S. invaded Iraq mainly to divert energies, attention and resources from the debacle of 9/11, from the Enron and related scandals, from this horrid, abominable administration as a whole.

this is where we, and john kerry, should be focusing energies now, not abhu ghraib. i think the bushies will take the torture controversey as the main topic of discussion any day.

[AlGore-08.com]

162. I'm not a Kerry=Bushie, but I object to the premis of this thread

Are you telling me that no attrocities have ever occurred under Democratic Presidents? Or Progressives?

How about some of the things that happened in WWII under FDR's watch? Are you saying that the CIA took a nap during Kennedy's administration - - or that Kennedy didn't escalate the Vietnam War?

I think that this insistance that we Dems (and I am a real Dem, I have worked for the party since I was a kid and have never voted for any other party's candidates) are morally superior beings is a dangerous one to promote. That is how the GOP got in the mess that they're in. They stopped looking at the individual candidate and accepted that, if the candidate was a Republican, they must be a good Christian, incapable of corruption and dedicated to helping people.

We are human beings, all. As individuals, we are all equally capable of massive corruption and snafus as the GOP or the Greens or the Libertarians or whoever. Our strength, as a party, used to be our ability to look at ourselves critically, and try to remedy our short comings.

John Kerry voted for this war. He had his reasons for it, and we can accept those reasons as valid or reject them. Personally, I reject them. I and millions of others could see that it was a bad idea to vote the way Kerry did. I question his judgement - - if he can't tell the Bush administration is lying to his face, how is he going to tell when the Russians or the Chinese - - or somebody like Chalabi - - are doing it? It's a serious question. It doesn't deserve to be brushed aside with "oh, we're so much more moral than Bush, the quality of Kerry's decisions as Senator do not matter".

[bigbillhaywood]

163. THANK YOU! Wartime atrocities occur under Democrats too!

War is a nasty business. Atrocities are unavoidable in war-- this is why it is important to avoid war in the first place.

[GeronimoSkull]

164. That post has all the integrity of a Willie Horton ad

But the thread was very informative

[Forkboy]

165. You are correct on both counts

It was an informative thread,both the answers and the disappearance of the thread originator.