• comment on a post Kerry Donates $1 Million to DSCC over 5 years ago

    He gave millions more to the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC.  He did give even more after the Heyjohn.org fiasco, but the fact is no other Democrat raised or gave more money to Congressional candidates in 2006 than John Kerry.  

    Maybe what has happened here is that before you didn't know anything about John Kerry, and now with his helping Barack Obama, you are paying attention more, and have noticed what has always been true about him:  he has ALWAYS been a team player in the Democratic party.

  • question & McCain before, and handled it just fine.  

    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_07 0608.pdf

    Sorry, diarist, but maybe you should research stuff before writing a bunch of claptrap.

    Formatting messy but this was his answer when Bob Schieffer asked just that:

    Sen. KERRY: John McCain has changed in profound and fundamental ways that I find,
    personally, really surprising and, frankly, upsetting. He is not the John McCain as the senator
    who defined himself, quote, "as a maverick," though questionable. This is a different John
    McCain. This is, you know, not the Senator John McCain, this is "nomination John McCain."
    This is "wannabe president" John McCain. And the result is that John McCain has flip-flopped
    on more issues than, you know, I was even ever accused possibly of thinking about. I mean, this
    is extraordinary, what he's done. He's changed on taxes. He's now in favor of the Bush tax cut. If
    you like the Bush economy, if you like the Bush tax cut and what it's done to our economy,
    making wealthier people wealthier and the average middle class struggle harder, then John
    McCain's going to give you a third term of George Bush and Karl Rove. If you like what has
    happened to oil prices, John McCain is going to continue that policy. If you like what you've seen
    about health care, John McCain has no health care plan. I would've at least expected the John
    McCain that I knew back then to realize...
    SCHIEFFER: Well...
    Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, July 6, 2008
    Sen. KERRY: ...what almost every person in the Pentagon has admitted. I mean, Bob, you're
    smart, you've talked to these people in Washington. There are very few people who walk around
    and say, `Going into Iraq was the right thing to do and we should've done it. I'd do it again if I
    had the chance.' John McCain does. John McCain believes this was the right decision.

  • comment on a post Fire surrogate Kerry! (with minty fresh update) over 5 years ago




    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/ 25966469#25998612

    Kerry never said the surge was working.  Not only that, anyone who says that putting 20,000 more troops in a particular area will reduce violence at least a little is absolutely clueless.  They KEY is that the #1 place where Americans were killed was Anbar Province and those developments occurred BEFORE the surge, which is what Kerry eloquently pointed out today.

  • What a BS diary.  Why is this on the Rec List?  

    Kerry did a superb job using Lieberman's OWN WORDS from 1998 to show what a hypocrite Lieberman is on supposedly being against the "coarsening of our culture" by defending that disgusting Britney ad.  He framed the negativity & ridiculous ads of the McCain campaign as character assassination.

    Kerry did NOT say the surge worked!  I mean, what the hell?  He said the Anbar Awakending began WELL BEFORE the surge.  Then that jerk Lieberman threw in a cheap shot about Kerry not "supporting the troops".  

    This diary is a lie.  But kudos to the dips**ts who rec'd it.  Try doing your homework first.

  • George W. Bush was of draft age and did not serve in Vietnam.  It was a good contrast, and although Kerry didn't win the election, I still think it earned him some votes (he did better with the military vote than Gore in '00).  Also, McCain has the misfortune of following a campaign that focussed on Vietnam.  I think you should dig for some more quotes -- McCain said even more pointed things about Kerry using his Vietnam service.

    Anyway, I plan to ask my winger friends to condemn McCain for using his Vietnam service the way they did against Kerry.  For the record, I don't have a problem with candidates trumpeting their service to their country; I just resent McCain bashing Kerry for doing something that he is doing now.


    Four years ago McCain loudly defended the glorious hero of the Vietnam War, John Kerry. That would be the young naval officer who hid out in an office until he took command of a river patrol boat for a few weeks. He put in for a purple heart every time he got a scratch or bruise. With 3 of those, he rotated out with the intention of running for public office as a war hero. When Kerry saw the level of anti-war sentiment, he quickly morphed into an anti-war hero running for public office and later married the widow of an extremely wealthy, conservative senator who died under highly suspicious circumstances. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have not died. Their affiliate is Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, headed by former Sergeant Ted Sampley, who also serves as vice-president of the half-million member Rolling Thunder Motorcycle Rally.

    Sampley has spent years working toward the return of Vietnam era MIAs and POWs abandoned by our government (which is invariably the case at a war's end). McCann has thwarted him at every turn, dismissing 1,600 credible first hand sightings, 14,000 second hand sightings, and countless radio intercepts that supported the observations.

    Luckily, I have been researching this issue, so to anyone scratching their heads, here are a few helpful links:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/23/ 112348/698#c15

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis cuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum= 132&topic_id=6388234&mesg_id=639 6769

    There are many reasons to oppose McCain.  But his service in Vietnam and work on the POW/MIA issue are not legitimate reasons.

  • against the women Clinton sexually harrassed.  That's the part of the story we Democrats have failed to acknowledge and talk about.  

  • she would be bringing up the "blue dress" every week of every month for the entire campaign.  Obama has been HONORABLE in not dredging up the infinite baggage the Clintons own.  Yet, ONE SURROGATE lets something slip out once, and y'all are shouting "smear"!!!  Too damned funny.  If you could get out of your bubble for one minute you would see how dishonorable the Clinton campaign has been.  That and their inability to count makes them a truly absurd enterprise this late in the game.

  • and spine".  Talking about the Clintons again?

    Oh, and there is no "e" in the word judgment.

  • on a comment on Enough is enough. Please! over 6 years ago

    An anti-McCain alliance.  Every once and a while people take a break from the Dem primary and focus on McCain.  Clammyc had a diary on Kos talking about how McCain is getting a free pass, and that the blogs need to step up to the plate and start attacking.  Perhaps if we all used 20% of our energy normally reserved with blasting our Democratic opponent, and instead used it to fire at McCain, this would help our situation.  I'm ready for anything.

  • comment on a post Enough is enough. Please! over 6 years ago

    And we now know he not only knows little about the economy, but the Middle East, too.  We are headed into a very bad recession, and we damned well need a Democrat at the helm.  I support Obama, but I'll take Hillary over McCain (otherwise known as Hoover for the 21st century).  People need to grow up and realize that we are largely embroiled in a personality contest with the two candidates largely agreeing on the big issues.  Democrats are RIGHT on the issues, and are desperately needed for the trying times coming up.  Shame on any supporter of any candidate saying they won't back the Democrat in the fall.  You care to tell one more family who is losing their home why you couldn't bear to vote for the Democrat because a supporter of the other candidate on the bloody internet called you a name?  Pathetic.

  • conclusion:

    It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

    The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


    Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

    This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

    But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

    As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

    I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

    The last sentence gives the specific fact then he would not go into Pakistan unless there was "actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets".  The troops would be in Afghanistan, otherwise, where we already have bases.

  • matched to an illusive enemy -- al Qaeda -- which requires flexibility.  We have to hit at them on multiple fronts and in multiple ways:

    1.  The information war -- the most important part of it, which I assume interests you greatly.  This is about preventing al Qaeda from recruiting more people in the first place, and it must involve us getting out of Iraq.  It also must mean investing in the Middle East region -- the soft side, like education.  And, of course, constant diplomacy (which Obama has spoken about).  We can all agree that we need to restore America's moral authority by stopping the human rights abuses that are in violation to the Geneva Conventions.  That figures into this equation, too.

    2.  Killing or capturing al Qaeda members.  The real al Qaeda is in the borderland between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Pakistan has been a great disappointment on this front, which is why Obama has stepped up the rhetoric.  The al Qaeda franchise in Iraq is a separate org, but they also need to eliminated (which it seems apparent, that the Iraqis are quite happy to engage in this job).  This is the reason why this is in both the Senate Democratic plan and in Obama's plan -- that forces will need to remain in Iraq for counterterrorism.

    3.  Homeland security.  

    Obama's foreign policy ideas make sense to me because we have an enemy which is fighting an asymmetric war, which even is on the internet.  We need to wage a "global counterinsurgency", and it includes a wide variety of methods.  Mostly what Kerry talked about in '04 -- law enforcement and intelligence gathering.  But it will also sometimes need to involve the military.  Certainly not to occupy countries, of course.  I actually think Obama (or his FP advisors) "get" this threat.  

  • I am distressed that the MSM spin on this speech has become the lib blog spin, too.  Obama was talking about redeploying troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, a position many Democrats have taken.  His comment about going into Pakistan was only if he had good intel.  Such an operation would be limited and would be done by special ops.  Thing is, we're doing that now -- think about Yemen when they used a missile to take out 4 al Qaeda members who were in a car.  This is not about "war with Pakistan", a distortion which I have read on countless blogs, but speaking bluntly to Pakistan, that if they can't do the job of getting al Qaeda (ESPECIALLY Osama bin Laden), then we will.


Advertise Blogads