Fom the extremely left wing Village Voice.

John Kerry Must Go

Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else

April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean."

"By the standard of previous presidential candidates running amid wartime quagmires, Kerry has been unusually forthcoming in his critique and prescriptions for Iraq. All Eisenhower pledged while seeking the office during the Korean conflict was, 'I will go to Korea.' In 1968 Nixon said that he had 'a secret plan' to end the Vietnam War. Kerry, by contrast, foresaw the perils of unilateralism and has consistently proposed a more workable occupation policy than Bush's. By its growing dependence on [UN envoy] Brahimi and its increasingly plaintive calls for more nations to send troops, even the administration tacitly acknowledges that Kerry was right."

-- Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, April 14, 2004

4salt,


The support for the UN in the US right now is less than 30% of the people 44% are against the UN and the remainder neutral. If Bush were to go to the UN he would go to the security council. China could care less. Russia was in Iraq making money right up until the eve of the invasion and would do anything to queer our efforts because of the money we cost them by invading. That leaves France. What are they going to do send troops to teach the Iraquis how to surrender? So what exactly is Kerry's plan? Give me the merits of his paln. Secondly that guy is yanking the readers chain about Bush seeking UN support. He always has sought UN support and would like any nation to step forward and offer support. What he will not give is UN control of the operations in Iraq. Big difference from Kerry who would. try again with a little more understanding of the issues please.

Hey....look at that......criticism of Kerry from the left.

Gee, I wonder what keeps the right from ANY criticism of Bush? Oh, that's right.............

The percentage of the US for, or against, UN support is a moot point; Bush has repeatedly stated that he doesn't rule by polls. And if he does go to the Security Council, well, that's still the UN. A rose by any other name....

I'm curious why the Reich, sorry -- I meant right, is so concerned with Kerry's war plan. Shouldn't they ask Bush for one first? I mean, he is the president, and all. All he keeps saying is, "We're gonna stay the course." Isn't it kind of obvious by now that this may not be the best course? And what exactly is the course? Sounds kind of rhetorical, doesn't it?

I might be wrong, but I haven't seen anywhere in print a direct quote from Kerry advocating turning over complete military control to the UN, or even NATO. I know he's said he will ask for support, but I can't remember seeing where he's said he'd relinquish control. Perhaps you could post a reference or two for me. I hate being ill informed.

soon as kerry decides we will all know

Then he will change his mind . Then he will appear on TV the next AM to re-explain is re-explained and newly configured explanation of his fist position for the 9th time.

Yeah... that's what I thought.

Your silence confirms my suspicions.

King - If you would be so gracious as to allow me to use another one of your eloquent quotes as my rebuttal to your above quote:

"try again with a little more understanding of the issues please."

p.s. I'd like to amend that quote slightly by replacing the words "a little more" with the word "any." :p

GH,

It's my assumption about a Ribbon/medal tossing ,grandstanding, self absorbed ,flip floppi ng soccialist. Quote that!

4salt,

You can do better than that. Eat something and lay down for a while you will feel better.

Sounds like good advice to me King... unfortunately there's that whole work thing and all.

I think until anyone who supports Bush, not just King, can adequately respond to GH's comment above, all these tit for tat posts can be put to bed!!!!

Pretty quick and simple search came up with this

"Our best option for success is to go back to the United Nations and leave no doubt that we are prepared to put the United Nations in charge of the reconstruction and governance-building processes," he added. "I believe the prospects for success on the ground will be far greater if Ambassador [L. Paul] Bremer [III] and the Coalition Provisional Authority are replaced by a U.N. special representative for Iraq."


If more are needed there are plenty. Now, do you want to quotes where he said the US should not turn over controll. LOL

Only cause you asked so nicely GH

P-Martin, the degree of UN support / acceptance is only part of the equation.... The real question that I haven't heard an aswer to is what is the course and what are we trying to accomplish. All we get from Bush are some cryptic and somewhat superficial comments.

Meanwhile..... "At least 736 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. As many as 1,200 Iraqis also have been killed this month."---MSNBC

Sorry Jeffe'd. I put up a quote that GH was looking for and again it's the wrong answer. Damned if I do..... :rolleyes:

BTW, I won't answer a question that refers to the current adimn and Hitler or the reich. That not only is disrespectful to all the soldiers in WWII but the current Soldiers that are doing their duty.

You might as well say that all you lefties agree with this article

Pmartin,

Thanks for helping me make my point. He is advocating for the UN to take charge of reconstruction and governance (not military control). Bush has finally reversed his position and agreed to go back to the UN, asking for an envoy to oversee the election process. Of course that was just another "flip-flop" on Bush's part, but no big deal, really.

Again, where does Kerry advocate pulling all troops from Iraq?

By the way:
Nice dodge. Incoherent and convoluted thought process, but nice dodge all the same.

Jeff'd,

43,000+ died on our highways last year are you going to take the bus fishing from now on and sell your car. There is a price for freedom that can only be paid for with blood. Thats the way it has always been.

Yes, myself and many Americans have been waiting for Bush to clarify why Iraq was such an immenent threat to our freedom, and the answer just hasn't come. To simply say to protect our Freedom, isn't enough for me.

The Potential to make WMD's doesn't cut it or just the fact that they made them in the past. After all, we don't have the resources and can't blow up every country that violates UN Sanctions or we perceive them as a threat......

"There is a price for freedom that can only be paid for with blood. "
The only people who can say that are the living. And usually the people saying that aren't the ones sticking their neck out.
You should enlist.

You are absolutely correct. That's why someone should be held accountable for wasting American blood on a country that had nothing to do with our freedom.