BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Aug 04 - 02:07 PM

Amos, the "more leaders" quote doesn't make any sense, unless when he says "more leaders", he means "foriegn leaders", because he then goes on to talk about contributions and "American(s) abroad". But even if he's not talking about foriegn leaders, I'd still like to know which kinds of leaders he's talking about. I prefer transparency in government, whether the government is Democrat or Republican.

KERRY: "I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute," a reference to donations, prompting laughter from the crowd.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: DougR
Date: 05 Aug 04 - 01:36 PM

But Bobert, Kerry says he has a plan! Why won't he tell us what it is? Why is it a secret? If he has a plan guaranteed to stop the fighting, I would think that you and your fellow travelers would wish him to reveal it so there would be no more killing!

I suppose his 20+ years of serving as a Senator is a secret too, huh?
He certainly doesn't want to talk about it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Aug 04 - 11:08 PM

Dougie:

Maybe Bush can put the CIA onto finding the secret plan. Heck, if they can't find it maybe Cheney can take one over to them and pressure them into releasing it and then maybe Bush can declare war on Kerry and we won't have to worry none about these pesky danged election thingies that tend to get Bush all grumpy. Nothin' worser than a grumpy dictator...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 04 - 05:18 PM

According to this report by the originator of the foreign leaders quote he actually did not say foreign leaders anything. But see the transcript provided on this link.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Aug 04 - 04:54 PM

I could post this to any of the many Kelly threads. I watch the discussions, with a kind of detached interest. (I once have posted that I'd vote for Kelly, but with an eye only at the German situation it could make remotely sense to cheer for Bush, for that would make it more probable that we keep the red/green government) What comes is just a little comment with no intention to turn the discussion away from the main theme.

A part of the discussion (and you know which part I mean) reminds me of Germany in the late 1920s and ewarly 1930. The left was very split up in the right wing lefts, the social democrats, and the more radical left, the communists. And then there were the Trotskysts, the independent lefts of the USPD and and and.

A big discussion was who was more dangerous, Hitler or the moderately left, from the point of view of the working class and their (mostly not working class) leaders. (I am far from saying Bush = Hitler, that would be very wrong in my eyes for many reasons; my focus is on arguments within the left about what is best in a particular situation)

The communists had the mantra that the most dangerous ennemy of the working class are the social democrats for they put a veil on the problems. Everything the social democrats do is even worse for the real interests of the working class for it hinders the necessary revolutionary development. Hitler was only for laughs, dangerous were the compromising appeasers (called 'Radishes' then: red on the outside, white within). The communists did not support social democrat and conservative-liberal governments, for it is necessary that the living condition of the working class has to get worse before they are ready for a really revolutionary step.

Hitler came and communists and social democrats alike (communists more so, to be correct) were killed, forced to flee, put in concentration camps. That the German communists fleeing to Moscow in the 1930s had a not much larger chance of surviving comrade Josef S's friendship than they had Hitler's concentration camps is an extra irony of history (but I digress).

The game who-is-more-radical that divides different factions of the left can, in the worst case, unite them again, as common losers.

But do vote as you feel like, perhaps four more years of Bush could save Schr6ouml;der.

Wolfgang (who, in Germany, votes Green or pink, that is social democrats)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Aug 04 - 04:31 PM

I could post this to any of the many Kelly threads. I watch the discussions, with a kind of detached interest. (I once have posted that I'd vote for Kelly, but with an eye only at the German situation it could make remotely sense to cheer for Bush, for that would make it more probable that we keep the red/green government) What comes is just a little comment with no intention to turn the discussion away from the main theme.

A part of the discussion (and you know which part I mean) reminds me of Germany in the late 1920s and ewarly 1930. The left was very split up in the right wing lefts, the social democrats, and the more radical left, the communists. And then there were the Trotskysts, the independent lefts of the USPD and and and.

A big discussion was who was more dangerous, Hitler or the moderately left, from the point of view of the working class and their (mostly not working class) leaders. (I am far from saying Bush = Hitler, that would be very wrong in my eyes for many reasons; my focus is on arguments within the left about what is best in a particular situation)

The communists had the mantra that the most dangerous ennemy of the working class are the social democrats for they put a veil on the problems. Everything the social democrats do is even worse for the real interests of the working class for it hinders the necessary revolutionary development. Hitler was only for laughs, dangerous were the compromising appeasers (called 'Radishes' then: red on the outside, white within). The communists did not support social democrat and conservative-liberal governments, for it is necessary that the living condition of the working class has to get worse before they are ready for a really revolutionary step.

Hitler came and communists and social democrats alike (communists more so, to be correct) were killed, forced to flee, put in concentration camps. That the German communists fleeing to Moscow in the 1930s had a not much larger chance of surviving comrade Josef S's friendship than they had Hitler's concentration camps is an extra irony of history (but I digress).

The game who-is-more-radical that divides different factions of the left can, in the worst case, unite them again, as common losers.

But do vote as you feel like, perhaps four more years of Bush could save Schr6ouml;der.

Wolfgang (who, in Germany, votes Green or pink, that is social democrats)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Aug 04 - 03:56 PM

I could post this to any of the many Kelly threads. I watch the discussions, with a kind of detached interest. (I once have posted that I'd vote for Kelly, but with an eye only at the German situation it could make remotely sense to cheer for Bush, for that would make it more probable that we keep the red/green government) What comes is just a little comment with no intention to turn the discussion away from the main theme.

A part of the discussion (and you know which part I mean) reminds me of Germany in the late 1920s and ewarly 1930. The left was very split up in the right wing lefts, the social democrats, and the more radical left, the communists. And then there were the Trotskysts, the independent lefts of the USPD and and and.

A big discussion was who was more dangerous, Hitler or the moderately left, from the point of view of the working class and their (mostly not working class) leaders. (I am far from saying Bush = Hitler, that would be very wrong in my eyes for many reasons; my focus is on arguments within the left about what is best in a particular situation)

The communists had the mantra that the most dangerous ennemy of the working class are the social democrats for they put a veil on the problems. Everything the social democrats do is even worse for the real interests of the working class for it hinders the necessary revolutionary development. Hitler was only for laughs, dangerous were the compromising appeasers (called 'Radishes' then: red on the outside, white within). The communists did not support social democrat and conservative-liberal governments, for it is necessary that the living condition of the working class has to get worse before they are ready for a really revolutionary step.

Hitler came and communists and social democrats alike (communists more so, to be correct) were killed, forced to flee, put in concentration camps. That the German communists fleeing to Moscow in the 1930s had a not much larger chance of surviving comrade Josef S's friendship than they had Hitler's concentration camps is an extra irony of history (but I digress).

The game who-is-more-radical that divides different factions of the left can, in the worst case, unite them again, as common losers.

But do vote as you feel like, perhaps four more years of Bush could save Schr6ouml;der.

Wolfgang (who, in Germany, votes Green or pink, that is social democrats)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 04:04 PM

Doug: It's a secret plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 04:02 PM

Okie dokie, brucie. It works anyway. Incidentially, I did take your question seriously.

So? Back to the subject of the thread, does ANYONE know what Kerry's secret plan is? If so, please share with us.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 03:55 PM

Doug: It works out that the post from guest was a cut and paste from this site: www.dankoleary.com

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 03:51 PM

So, in other words, you cherry pick, twist and spin... in order to create the illusion of substance...;^)
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 03:02 PM

I am going through it today, Doug. I am hoping the Guest who posted that isn't the racist Guest from another thread. My question wasn't facetious. It was real. I'd like to know. Guest has some ideas and I look forward to reading them.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 03:00 PM

So in other words, you don't favor your candidate being scrutinized.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 12:27 PM

Looking critically at the world doesn't make the world a better place. It just helps you stroke an ailing ego, but heals nothing. All this negativity IS the problem. Sparkelingly creative solutions never arise fron negative critical thinking. Innovation, the basis for any elaboration on the American dream is not stimulated by critisism and negativity.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 12:18 PM

brucie: I assume you have seen the reply from Guest on your thread asking for a report on what Bush has done during the past three and a half years. It is a well thought out summary.

Bobert: Now there you go again ...busting my bubble. I was certain that your motivation for voting for Ralph was pure "Green." Now I find that you are doing it only to punish George W. Bush for all the good things he has done for our country. Oh well.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 10:29 AM

Notice the "timing of the Kerry bashing"?

First of all, looking critically at the candidates isn't "bashing". It is our duty as citizens and voters.

But what did you expect? That there would be no critical examination of Official Candidate Kerry in the wake of the convention where he was appointed the nominee?

Jeesh, when else was it supposed to happen--December?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 12:18 AM

Ake, I agree with you wholeheartedly... I was being facetious.

If Kerry has been having trouble making sense out of Bush's policies... well, who isn't? Bush has repeatedly lied about causes, and the effects are confusing everyone. Kerry is getting bashed for being unable to 'take a stand' on many of the issues that revolve around Bush mistakenly shooting from the hip...

One generally trusts that a president will check and double check... and will listen to a wide variety of well studied, accurately informed advisers... not just a few 'cherry pickers' with a similar adgenda. This small oversight is entirely Bush's responsibility, and he has failed us almost completely.The debacle is nonsensical, and Kerry will be a lot better off when he can rise to standards that are actually worth striving for.

Bush has been using the Kerry campain's appeal to make a last ditch effort to actually care about effective policy... and Kerry is not really interested in being an adviser for Bush for some strange reason...

The timing of al this Kerry bashing is truly suspect. His speech was the opening of a door... and the 'progressive left' is feeling kinda stuffy... What's the point of being right (Oh so right) about the condition of the ship... down to every bit of rot and peeling paint fleck when it's listing to starboard one hundered miles off the Azores and the captain is delerious...

All hands on deck! We have a breach! ...Yep, thats right Bobert, we need to notice all the little bits of disrepair and shoddy workmanship that need attention... But by golly, we need to make it to shore first.

Kerry will be fine.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Peace
Date: 03 Aug 04 - 12:09 AM

In what language does God speak to him? Or is it a gestalt kinda thing?

Thank you for trying, Bobert.

I will have to await someone else's response to my simple question. Alas, . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 11:19 PM

Well, brucie, he did cut taxes, didn't he?

(But, Bobert, most of the cuts went to the upper 2% and, in cutting the taxes, he has created unprecidented deficits...)

Ahhhh, okay, brucie. Bush got rid of Saddam, didn't he?

(Ahhhh, not so fast Bobert. He got rid of hundreds of thousands if Iraqis who weren't Saddam. Plus he got rid of over 1000 Americans but Saddam is still alive and well...)

Hnag on, brucie. He, ahhhh, reformed the eductaion system so that no child is being left behind! There, he did that!

(No, Bobert, he didn't. Congress passed the legislation but Bush won't write the checks to fund it...)

Well, I got one, brucie. He's pushed thru a perscription drug proigram for the senior citizens, hasn't he?

(Well, Bobert, are you brain dead, 'er what? The program, if any seniors actually choose to participate in the "Pick a card" goofball program, with nightmareish now-you're-covered-now-you're-not-doughnut-hole regs only confuses seniors and makes drug companies and insurance companies richer...)

Well, Bush is protecting us from terrorists, dang it!

(He is, Bobert? Hows that one work, anyway. He has destabilized the Middle Esat while pissing off most of the folks who used to like us...)

I'm trying, brucie. Really, I am... Okay, I got one. He says that God speaks to him! There! What say you now?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 11:11 PM

Here is a copy of a letter that United for Peace and Justice is asking people to sign:

Dear Senator Kerry,

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

This is a question you asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, testifying against the Vietnam War. If you are elected President of the United States, you will have to answer it. Surely, the war against Iraq, and the escalating disaster of our military occupation, qualify as some of the worst "mistakes" in the history of our nation.

In fact, the invasion of Iraq is the most dangerous and immoral action taken by the U.S. government since the devastation and atrocity in Vietnam. This is a subject you know more about than most, because you were there. Having served, you came home to denounce the evil of that war in language that many still admire for its unsparing honesty.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" you asked in your testimony to the Senate in 1971. Representing one thousand veterans, you spoke plainly about your "determination to undertake one last mission-to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that has driven this country the last ten years or more, so from when 30 years from now our brothers go down a street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say `Vietnam' and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning." Now your opponents use these words to pillory you, as they try to justify another barbaric war with more "lies and garbage," in the words of General Anthony Zinni, another Vietnam veteran.

In 1971, you showed courage. But now, in 2004, we wait, and the world waits, to see if you will denounce the grave damage that the occupation of Iraq is doing to the United States and the world: the thousands of young men and women in our Armed Forces killed and wounded, the much larger number of dead and injured Iraqis, all caught in a vicious cycle of popular resistance and intensifying repression. Just as in Vietnam, there is no way out of this swamp of violence other than to renounce it. So far, all we have heard from you are politically-calibrated platitudes about staying the course. This is caution, not courage; calculation, not leadership. To our dismay, you have even suggested sending more troops to Iraq, a policy that may require the reinstatement of the draft to sustain.

Senator Kerry, we call on you to show the same courage now that you did in 1971. Tell the people of this country the war was wrong, the occupation is disaster, and that we can have no future as a colonial power. Speak up for what's right, right now. Otherwise, if you are elected, you will have to tell some family, years from now, that their daughter or son was the last one to die defending not simply a "mistake," but a series of lies. You will be known as the president who dragged the U.S. further into a quagmire of countless needless deaths.

We urge you to speak as a winter soldier, not a summer patriot. As you know, a war begun for the wrong reasons cannot be made right. The only way forward is to end this war now.

Sincerely,


TO JOIN THE MORE THAN 10,000 SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER, VISIT
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/UnsilentMajority

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Peace
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 10:57 PM

Hey, Doug. I have been asking lately for ANYONE to tell us about the good things Bush has done for the American people over the last 3 3/4 years or so. I haven't had a single person respond. Would you consider doing so? It's easy to bash Bush, Kerry, pick a person, but sometimes we just overlook the positives about them. So? And I am NOT baiting people who like Bush. I'd just like to know why they like Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 10:45 PM

Well, Dougie... I must admit that my motives may not be 100% pure. You see, someone is going to have to be president for the next four years and, hey, if Bush is it, tough beans! He created a lot of this crap and doesn't deserve to just walk away from it. Wait until his Medciare perscription drug program implodes. Which it will because it is terribly flawed and the seniors are going to just say "Screw it". Yeah, I wouldn't want the buck stopping at my desk when that happens. Actually, one can pick just about any policy that the Bush folks have implimented. They are all going to implode. No Child Left Behind? Biggest joke played on America in this century. $455T deficits this year. Bigger next and the next and next.

No, George "Weisel" Bush doesn't deserve to retire to the ranch. He has screwed up this country so bad that he should be the one to get off his hobby horse and say, "Geeze, I really messed thing up, haven't I?" Yup, no graceful exit for this bum.

And America probably needs another 4 years of Boss Hog screwin' for them to *get it*.... forever. Yup, I hope Southern Man likes what he is about to get. NASCAR, Bud Lite and Country music don't pay the bills...

Plus, just for the record, Ralph Nadar makes sense which I ain't hearing from any one else out there...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 10:31 PM

Yes, for a change, I do agree with Bobert. He makes some very good points provided you share his viewpoint. Polls have never meant much to him anyway.

Bobert, I'm happy that you have decided to vote your convictions. In fact, I'm proud of you! Others, who really share your POV, will vote for Kerry, not because they feel he will be such a great president, but because they hate Bush. That's not really supporting a conviction is it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: freightdawg
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 10:09 PM

As usual it takes Bobert to add some sensibility to the discussion.

I am reminded of Kerry's remark of about a month ago (or more) that several foreign leaders told him they want him elected. Of course he steadfastly refused to identify which ones.

It just seems like the man is incapable of instilling the trust he needs to convince a majority of Americans to vote for him. If you are not going to talk about something, don't be the one to bring up the subject. And if you are forced to discuss it don't shoot yourself in the foot with a 12 gauge shotgun.

Bobert's points are so well made.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 08:48 PM

Well, Doug, fir one thing, there haven't been to many elections like this one. The camps are well polarized and the campaigne and all the advertising in the world isn't going to give anyone a big "bump" in the polls... The repub spin folks said they expected a 12 to 14 point bump. They were lieing thru their teeth. With such a polarized electorate had that occured you would have had repub pollster jumping out of 6th floor windows. I mean, lets get real here...

Plus, polls really don't mean much. Even the election, given the crap the repubs pulled in Florida (and elsewhere) is flawed...

Buit really, this oisn't what this thread is about and has wandered well off course...

Now, I am kinda curious as to how Salima is going to vote given her mistrust of John Edwards... For Bush?

As fir me, I think it was most unfortunate of Kerry to make such a pronouncment as it does conger up images of Nixon. Ahhhhh, not that I'm planning on voting for him anyway. But it wasn't a real smart move. He could outlined a plan that included a Middle East Peace Summit. He could have spoke about the Saudi Peace Proposal. He could have listed the allied countries that Bush has pissed off that he was going to visit in his first 90 days in office. He could have announced that he would phase the troops out of Iraq over a 6 month period. He could have said a lot of things other than "I'Ve got a secret".

Nadar in '04...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 08:05 PM

Aw, give it a rest, DougR.

Tell you what, this time I'll stand real still, and you hit me on the head with a stick!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 08:01 PM

I think this thread is so aptly titled. Kerry's plan is SO secret, he's not going to tell anybody about it until AFTER he is elected. Oh, but I repeat myself. Sorry.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 07:30 PM

Thomas... I find you far from cool.

Your performance on these threads would make Martin Gibson ashamed.
Your cowardice and paranoia have been all to evident in the months I have posted here.
If you had any brains you'd be dangerous...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 07:27 PM

Very interesting. Kerry enjoys the postion of being the only candidate who, after his party's convention, did not see a noticible bounce in his approval rating since 1972! He is in good company with the Democrat candidate of that year.

Yep, Kerry's got a plan. Only thing is he isn't going to share it with the American people UNTIL he is president! I suppose the voters are supposed to just take his word on it that it is a workable plan. He'll have no problem with that on the Mudcat of course.

Why doesn't Kerry run on his record in the U. S. Senate? After all, he's been there almost twenty years. Surely he has done SOMETHING. About the only thing in his past that he talked about at the convention was his four months in Viet Nam. He certainly tried to come across as a "warrior candidate." Odd thing to me was the audience, which evidently was about 95% anti war, ate it up. You'd think Kerry invented oatmeal or sliced bread or something.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 07:23 PM

But Amos.... Its not a "simple matter of mathematics"

Its a vast difference in philosophy.
As Guest feels that Kerry does not have a real leftist agenda.it is more valuable to persuade people to explore the alternatives available than to try for victory with a man, who may, or may not, turn out to be a slightly better leader than Bush,but who will certainly keep pushing the Capitalist message...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 07:22 PM

Results? Who needs results... when I'm so cool... ;^o

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 06:58 PM

Well, it all depends on the result you want to see.

I think Guest / Selima have misestimated the situation or are just satisfied with non-results in order to make a statement, and that is certainly their privelege. I think it is sad if they dissuade others from voting for Kerry, because of the simple mathematics of the process. But I guess we'll have to trust in the intelligence of an informed democratic public to be intelligent about things.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 06:19 PM

Well ..In UK weve been through this problem before.
After God knows how many years of Conservative Govt,including the Thatcher years,folks hated the Tories,(they were even less popular than Bush).   Tony Blair and New Labour came along, all presentation and no left wing substance,but folks thought ,anythings better than the Conservatives,and Tony is a labour man.
How wrong we were....Blair did things to the working class that the Conservatives would never have dared,he did not reverse any of the Conservative anti-union legislation, brought in more indirect taxation than any other UK govt, (indirect taxation always hurts the poor most)
and finally dragged us into the Iraq War on the coat tails of America,
something the Conservatives would never have succeeded in doing.

There is a direct parallel between that little saga and the argument currently going on in these threads.
The any body but bush argument dosn't always work out the way you want it to. left wingers have a duty to work for a better ,fairer world.

Vote with your conciense.....Vote for REAL change....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 05:01 PM

really don't mind, if you sit this one out
my words but a whisper, your deafness... a shout

Ian Anderson "Thick as a Brick" ...opening lines
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 04:55 PM

Your actions speak for themselves, gentlemen.

Good day to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 04:48 PM

Face it pest... you respond to nothing anyone says. You are being a textbook example of a provocateur, and I'm just going to keep pointing that out... You embolden nonsense, and accuse me of defensive rhyming ploys, while sniping behind an annonymous and cowardly intention. Wow! I am SO impressed!

Shocked and Awed,
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 04:19 PM

GUEST said:

So there is the challenge. Allow discussion to take place freely here, without attacking the supporters of other candidates.

Can you rise to meet the challenge?

You have my pledge that I will not enter into any pro-Kerry dsicussions, for any reason. How about a pledge from the pro-Kerry side to not enter any discussions critical of Kerry for the express purpose of demonizing, belittling, harrassing, and otherwise trying to silence and/or discredit the people who are supporting other candidates than your man?

GUEST, I think your definition of a free discussion is a curious one. If pro-Kerry voices are not allowed on threads in which an anti-Kerry voice makes the first post, then your definition of "free discussion" is a discussion in which people who disagree with the first person who speaks are not allowed to take part. So much for your claims to be a wholehearted supporter of progressive causes; this sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Also, I am never in these discussions "for the express purpose" of belittling anyone. I think Selima, for example, is a well-meaning, intelligent person. But I think her interpretation of Edwards's actions is faulty. I didn't appreciate her allusions to "lots of information out there which you don't know but I do and it's not accessible enough for me to share," which is why I said she was assuming other people here are not well-informed. But among adults, it is admissible to disagree about things like this. I can point out these things about Selima's arguments without it being a personal attack.

Generally, you've been the one to initiate personal attacks. For example, I only attacked YOU in other threads after you repeatedly shouted "Liar!" at me because you feel that my interpretation of the word "progressive" doesn't mesh with yours. So once again, I won't take up your "challenge" to remain silent. I don't even think it's a worthy challenge, just a lame attempt to have certain threads for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 04:16 PM

What is so loving about harrassing and bullying people you disagree with Thomas?

I'm not speaking angrily. So why the defensive rhyming ploys?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 04:09 PM

Abuse! Obtuse! the flamer mutes
"I've set the rules, you coward!
Just follow me
Cohesively
Back into Bush's bower"

No way, Jose, I will not play
Into your angr'd graspings
You do not speak
Of things I seek
And find not loving lastings
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 04:04 PM

Selima,

you and GUEST are of a piece. You assume that the people you are talking to don't know the issues. I assure you, many of us do.

believe me, I am sympathetic to the cause of midwives. That is not the issue here.

The issue is whether Edwards and the doctors who want to force women into subservience are on the same side or on opposite sides of the issue. Edwards, it seems to me, is on the opposite side. He did not sue midwives and claim that they should have sent women to doctors. He sued doctors who had delivered babies with birth defects.

The question of cerebral palsy and c-section is an interesting one. You are correct that increased c-section rates do not improve cp rates. But this is not the same thing as saying that a cesarian cannot, in certain circumstances, prevent CP. Currently, medical thinking supports the notion that some small number of CP cases are caused by asphyxia during birth, which can be prevented by c-section. Simply increasing the numbers of c-sections across the nation in a clumsy way is not likely to catch many of these cases. Even if it did, it is not clear whether the saved babies would make much of a statistical dent in the rate of CP. But that doesn't mean that, when confronted by such a case, a doctor shouldn't give the woman a c-section.

Edwards had to prove before a jury, that in each case the doctor was dealing with one of these rare cases. Two things are salient here. One is that he quite possibly believed that each case WAS one of these rare cases (he did not in fact try many cases directly involving c-section for CP). The second is that even if he wasn't convinced, his job was still to convince the jury. To get mad at Edwards is like saying a prosecutor is contemptible because sometimes he prosecutes an innocent person, and a defense attorney is contemptible because sometimes he defends a guilty one. It's inevitable in the legal profession, and you might as well just condemn all trial lawyers, which is exactly what Bush and Co. are trying to do in their ads.

Finally, Edwards never argued that doctors should simply give c-sections in all cases. This is the medical profession's ham-fisted way of trying to prevent people like Edwards from calling them on their mistakes.

It's like if I were an auditor of a big corporation that was illegally reporting false earnings to pump up their stock values. I discover this discrepancy and prepare to release my report. The word gets to the executives that my testimony will bring the stock values down. They freeze the investments of their employees' retirement funds a la Enron, while they loot the company. They walk away with millions, the employees get screwed, the company goes down.

Who does Selima blame? Me.

Where is the sense in that?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 03:48 PM

So you are going to continue bullying, intimidating, and harrassing everyone who doesn't support Kerry then Thomas the Rhymer? You and Nerd were the main ones I directed the challenge to, of course.

I see you'd rather make war than peace. Just like I expected. You'll not give up shouting us down.

Me, I'm sticking by the pledge I made, regardless of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 03:39 PM

So there is the challenge.

This sickly guest is ranting badly, while public tastes do differ gladly
A prickly pest is chanting madly, into an empty room

The vehemence is off it's rocker, the points are worthy of a stalker
Like george who's just a mighty talker, into an empty room

So obvious this flaming flout, who's rhetoric's a sleazy tout
And missing meanings all about, into an empty room

The problem here is plain to see, that meanness is too blind to see
Force and fear will make us see, into an empty room.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Peace
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 03:31 PM

Well, IMHO, any citizen of Earth who has a plan to end this or any other war should be yelling if from rooftops, talking about it on the news, writing about it in the papers. Lotsa people are getting maimed or killed. One doesn't unveil thoughts of this nature at a 'politically opportune time'. One does it RFN. The more I see the less I wish I had.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST,selima
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 03:25 PM

Nerd,
With respect, I understand why you are making the point you are making but it is misguided. Information to counter what you just wrote is very difficult to come upon especially if you aren't looking. And why would you look? One would like to believe that there are bad doctors and good doctors and you can sue the bad ones etc etc but it is far more complicated and incidious than that because when all is said and done it is primarily about money. period. Not about health women and babies. Unless you are personally confronted with an issue like this, you are probably oblivious to its existence, it is quite purposely buried by the media and there are so many things to uncover, so much information that is purposely kept from us, how could we manage to catch it all, so I am not attacking anyone just trying to put forth something that affects a lot of peoples lives but is buried under loads of political shit like everything else.

"These lawsuits were about people who were mentally and physically crippled because of bad doctors. Edwards helped sue those doctors and got big money for the victims."

This is the problem - the rate at which people are born mentally and physicaly crippled DOES NOT go down as the cesarian rate goes up. It has been proven again and again that cesarian section is not preventative against "injuries" like cerebral palsey the very things for which Edwards was helping to sue.

Edwards knew this, he knew he was particpating in something that would make things even more difficult for women and children to get proper medical care but he did it anyway because he was making lots of money. I KNOW FOR A FACT that he was privy to the same information as I and he completely disregarded it. It was not for the injured babies that he did that this, it was for money. The things I am saying here have been know for years and have been ignored for years and the reality is that the atmosphere for birthing women and their babies is getting worse and worse. Why do you think they made such a big deal about the mentally challenged, drug addicted woman who refuse to follow her doctors ADVICE and ended up with a dead baby? Have you heard the fact that the baby would have been dead whether or not a csection was done? Or just about the "lunatic" who dared not listen to the GOOD DOCTORS?

How would you define bad doctors? Would you define doctors who put their own financial security over the health and safety of their patients bad doctors? I would. That's what the huge majority of Obs are doing. They are working against the best interests of mothers and children. Their own college advocates procedures that are proven dangerous, sometimes extremely dangerous, to both mother and child simpy to ensure that they cannot be held accountable for any damage incured by mother or child.

They are also quite openly and aggressively SQUELCHING any alternative movement to help birthing women. Midwives have been all but driven into the woodwork even though time and time and time again they have had the same, and very often better, birth outcomes than doctors. And they do not perform cersarians. They are also completely OUTSIDE this total farce from which Edwards made his money. He pretended to channel the yet to be born baby in the court room He used a cartoon-like voice complete with sound effects. He is contemptible.

Snoop a little at Obgyn.net and the like to see where I'm coming from. It is immediately apparent whose interests these people are serving. Look at the International Cesarian Awareness Networks information page for more valid information if you want.

Selima

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 03:03 PM

I posted the 12:02 message as a direct challenge to the Anybody But Bush fanatics here to back off on their attacks of the other progressives in this forum who are not supporting Kerry.

We get that you are voting for Kerry.

We get that you think anyone who isn't voting for Kerry is the devil incarnate.

We get that you think no one should be able to voice an opinion that differs from yours because voting for Kerry is the most important thing that needs to happen this year, bar none.

So there is the challenge. Allow discussion to take place freely here, without attacking the supporters of other candidates.

Can you rise to meet the challenge?

You have my pledge that I will not enter into any pro-Kerry dsicussions, for any reason. How about a pledge from the pro-Kerry side to not enter any discussions critical of Kerry for the express purpose of demonizing, belittling, harrassing, and otherwise trying to silence and/or discredit the people who are supporting other candidates than your man?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 02:44 PM

Come on, Selima N.

Now you want to claim that Edwards was somehow supporting "Big Medicine" in its quest to increase the cesarian rate? Edwards took money directly FROM wealthy doctors in the lawsuits you seem to be talking about. He represented people born with horrible birth defects due to doctors who did not recognize that the babies were losing oxygen, or, yes, that a C-section was indicated.

These lawsuits were about people who were mentally and physically crippled because of bad doctors. Edwards helped sue those doctors and got big money for the victims.

It is true that one unintended outcome of lawsuits like this could be that doctors would go to c-sections more readily, but that isn't what the cases were about, nor can you blame the lawyers who tried the cases; it was the families who decided to sue their doctors.

I'd be all for reforming the medical system. But to claim that what we need is to decrease support for the people's right to sue is where the support for "Big Medicine" REALLY comes in. It's like "Tort Reform" arguments which are dressed up to look like they protect people, but which really protect big corporations against lawsuits. If you really punished lawyers like Edwards you'd be opening up a whole new level of abuses by the medical system as you reduced our right to sue doctors for crummy medical care.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST,Selima N
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 02:21 PM

well said leftist guest person (I can't figure out if you are a man or a woman but I suppose that's of no real consequence...). I say the same type of thing to myself regarding the lesser of two evils merry go around but I seem to get no where...

I don't know if this is hijacking your post or not but I wanted to say something about the Kerry/Edwards vote.

As a leftist who lives in fear of what will happen with gwb in office again, I cannot bring myself to vote for kerry/edwards. Here's one of many specific reasons why:

Edwards made tons of money from a system that commits indesputable violence against women and children by the thousands everyday. He played a HUGE role in leading american obstetrics to its current horrific state. By this sytem's very nature women are bullied, misinformed, terrorized and violated. I can back this statement up with THOUSANDS of studies, testimonials, trials, etc and be more than happy to point anyone in the direction of this information. There is simply not room here on mudcat and I am also aware it is quite beyond the scope of the forums purpose and want to maintain respect for that. I bring it up at all because the group does show a great interest in discussing politics and I think this information deserves a mention.

Obstetrics is not motived by healthy mothers and children. It is motivated by money and the protection of it. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology barely even bothers to mask its legally motivated guidelines by cherry picking a few flimsy studies that support its downright harmful mandates. They advocate a medical model that actively goes AGAINST the best interests of women and their babies. But that's okay because guys like Edwards and fear-mongering, wealthy doctors will profit. Women and children are just capitalist commodities.

Woman are no longer being informed enough or even "permitted" to choose the SAFER options like having a vaginal birth instead of a cersarian (which is major abdominal surgery with all the intrinsic dangers to mother and baby as opposed to a natural, biological occurance) quite simply so that doctors make more money per woman and protect themselves from being sued while they are at it.

The public never hears of this assault on women in the mainstream media (nor in any leftist material that I know of for that matter). The public hears that doctors saves innocent babies and protect endangered mothers. OF COURSE there are very valid reasons for a cesarian birth. The current statistics show the cesarian rate at 1 in 4. ONE QUARTER of the births. The rate is insanely higher among poor women, women of color etc etc basically women that are marginalized in our society and so have no voice or tangible recourse.

Perhaps this seems a very personal concern because I happen to be a birthing woman who has worked with literally hundreds of in many ways powerless birthing women but what is more far-reaching than the santity of the human body, of birth, of choice?

Selima N.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: PoppaGator
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 01:18 PM

So we all just shut up and leave each other alone?

Not a bad idea.

My inclination has been to make some small effort to motivate the huge, understandably cynical, non-voting group. Since I don't seem to be engaged with anyone here except a solitary lefty with whom I agree to disagree, I hereby quit the debate.

See you in the music threads.

PS (Sheeesh, I just can't help myself...) Nixon's secret plan to end the VN war was to continue fighting it for 3 1/2 years, prompting the Dems to nominate an anti-war candidate, and only then to start moving towards withdrawal, pulling the rug from under McGovern (with the able assistance of his toad-faced toady Kissinger, of course).

I suppose you can just call me a Pollyanna, but I really do expect better than that from Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 01:17 PM

Because you won't shut up, GUEST, that's why! Jesus, do you never give it a rest?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 12:02 PM

I pretty much agree with Michael Albert's spin on this:

what do most leftist agree about and what's left after that, that many leftists are intently debating?

There is a presidential election coming. We all agree on that.

One or the other of the two mainstream parties will produce the next president. We all agree on that too.

Both Bush and Kerry represent corporate and other elite interests and agree on preserving inequity and corporate domination. Neither candidate is a friend to working people, women, minorities, or to anyone poor or weak. To extol either candidate as virtuous, wise, moral, or exemplary, much less as a tribune of justice and peace, denies the logic and morality of being progressive much less of being anti-capitalist. We can agree on that too, can't we?

Still, presidents affect the composition of diverse bureaucracies, courts, policies, and programs, and perhaps even affect the balance of power between society's contending constituencies and classes. I think progressives agree about this too.

Regarding this election, it is at least plausible that who wins will matter more than usual – perhaps even monumentally -- both in the policies that ensue and in the psychological and cultural messages heard by elites and electorates around the country and around the world. Where the Bush camp and the Kerry camp differ is over how best to maintain or expand society's defining gender, cultural, political, and economic hierarchies. We leftists may reasonably disagree about the scale of the difference between class enemy Bush and class enemy Kerry, but we would be delusional to claim there is no difference.

Kerry is a vile warrior happy to defend corporate interests. Bush believes military might produces diplomatic right, offense is everything, and all obstacles and negotiation must be damned. Kerry will weakly defend past progressive domestic social gains and under sufficient pressure may plausibly expand some. In a second term Bush will wage unrelenting war on virtually every progressive domestic social advance of the past hundred years, even as he also elevates right-wing fervor and fear with unknown repercussions.

Thus, another fact of this season's electoral calculations is that whether Bush or Kerry wins will greatly affect various people's immediate well being as well as broader domestic and international prospects.

It seems we still have found only generally agreed insights…but there is more ground to cover.

How electoral campaigns are conducted can also have many and varied effects, even beyond who wins. Regarding the two dominant parties, mainstream campaigns of course overwhelmingly disenfranchise and depoliticize people. This is why the media obliterated Howard Dean despite that Dean is no less an ally of elite interests than Kerry is. I don't know why Dean's campaign morphed to the point of threatening to politicize young people and perhaps even poor people, but it did, and since that is the penultimate violation of elite interests in American politics, Dean's campaign had to be derailed, and it was.

Evidencing the same underlying dynamics, Kerry will try to win the election not by contesting the allegiances of the 50% of the population that typically doesn't vote, but instead by fighting to win a majority of the 10% or so of swing voters in each state. In fact, if we count only swing states, this election will probably address primarily 4% of the voters and only 2% of the population.

More, Bush and Kerry's battle for swing voters is actually not even a battle over the informed decisions of those individuals. It is a battle for support from donors and media moguls who provide the means to manipulate swing voters.

Kerry will campaign vigorously for the tiny swing group but will largely ignore the massive non voter pool from which he could plausibly garner landslide support. This is because Kerry just doesn't want support from those sectors. He won't risk arousing them because to do so would threaten his larger agendas. Anyone who doesn't understand how structurally complicit in injustice the Democratic Party is has only to fully comprehend this single fact to have the truth clearly register.

Back to the issues at hand, beyond the manipulative system-preserving machinations of the major parties, third party campaigns can raise activist consciousness and increase activist commitment and organization. I suspect this claim too is generally agreed among progressive commentators or, at any rate, it ought to be.

So the article after article, interview after interview, and letter after letter about the election that are being written by leftists and published in left venues aimed at other leftists seem to me to be either confused or to be about the only things left to disagree over:

(a)          The relative value of leftists apportioning time and energy to third parties to win organizational and consciousness gains, versus apportioning time and energy to beating class enemy Bush in order to win the lesser evil benefits of electing class enemy Kerry, or

(b)          The efficacy of electoral focus of any kind compared to getting on with other uses of our time – for example continuing our on-going anti war work, anti-corporate globalization work, feminist work, labor work, anti-racist work, etc.

Now here is the thing. Whatever each person believes about these matters, at this point there is undoubtedly more benefit in his or her doing what he or she finds most warranted rather than wasting time berating other leftists for having a different viewpoint.

By now the berating of other leftists is useless. Pretty much everyone on the left knows where they stand. Few if any leftists are likely to significantly change their approach. The only relevant new information that may surface between now and November will be indications of likely election voting, not positions of candidates or evidence of efficacy of campaigning. So let's just give up the left on left electioneering, is my advice. By doing so, we can collectively save a lot of time and avoid a lot of needless arguing.

Next we have the endless stream of commentary by leftists telling non-leftists to vote or to work for Kerry. Even for those who think piling up votes for Kerry is of world historic importance, can this allocation of astute and capable leftists' time make sense? Do we really think that the non-left world is going to hear from us something that they will feel has more credibility, more persistence, and more passion than what they are going to hear, endlessly, from liberals? Do we really think that our (hopefully equivocal) noises about voting for Kerry are going to swing anyone who won't be swung first by much more aggressive electioneering done by people they know and respect much more?

I don't believe it. And I certainly shudder every time our redundant efforts to beat Bush take the form of saying anything remotely nice about Kerry, who deserves nothing other than our steadfast opposition - hopefully when he is President, to be sure. And I shudder as well when our redundant efforts to beat Bush, or to urge others to do so, seem to be crowding out attention to the war, globalization, movement building per se, and so on.

In short, I guess what I am saying is that whatever your electoral inclinations, at this point repetitive, redundant entreaties about Kerry and Bush from leftists to other leftists, and even about Nader and Cobb from leftists to other leftists, and probably also entreaties from leftists to more mainstream citizens about Kerry/Bush, are most likely not the most efficient way to productively manifest our insights and utilize our energies.

So we are down to one debatable disagreement, it seems. In contested states should leftists spend any time trying to increase the vote for Cobb or Nader instead of being quiet or aiding Kerry? This is contentious. Logically, writing and speaking about it could affect people's choices. But I bet those who are for aiding Cobb or Nader are not going to convince those who are against doing so that they should start doing it. And I bet those who are against aiding Cobb or Nader are not going to convince those who are for doing so that they should stop doing it. So what is the point of reams of back and forth debate that can sour otherwise positive relations, I wonder?

At this point, the arguments have been made. So why don't we just do our things, hopefully including non electoral things, leaving one another alone, and letting the results of our separate efforts impact subsequent choices? I bet all sides will be better off for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: Peace
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 03:05 AM

Maybe Kerry has found out that the Iraq invasion was done to get oil and be placed in a position to aggress if Saudi Arabia becomes less that friendly. Maybe he's finally seen that Bush and Cheney and their companies and bin Laden and the SAs are in bed together. Maybe Kerry doesn't know that the US interests would be best served by ever leaving Iraq. And maybe he's seen that he will inherit a national debt unlike no other. Maybe he realizes that the US has little choice but to take over or control the entire world because it has to. And maybe the poor bugger just doesn't know.

Subject: BS: Kerry's Secret Plan to End the War
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 02:57 AM

Apparently he is now actually channeling Richard Nixon, who also claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam war when he was campaigning for prez in '68.

When asked about the "secret plan" thing (and reminded of what Nixon also did when desperately campaigning for election in '68) Kerry's modest response was:

""I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power."

OK there Johnny B...take a chill pill, will you?

Even though he has been saying some days he would send MORE troops to Iraq, and other days he says we don't need them, he did say on the Sunday talk show circuit today that he'll have our troops home by....mmmmm....maybe 2008, maybe not, and declined to provide any timetable for withdrawal.

Actually, according to the Washington Post:

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," he said on ABC's "This Week."

The post-convention polling news wasn't much for the Kerry/Edwards camp to cheer about either. Though the Newsweek poll released the day after Kerry's acceptance speech said Kerry had gotten a "baby bump" off the convention, the news from CNN-USA Today-Gallup polling is a bit less optimistic. While Kerry had been leading Bush by a whopping one point going into the convention (47-46), the post-convention poll now shows that Bush is leading Kerry 50 to 46, and all he had to do was vacation on the ranch in Crawford.

Of course, the Washington Post does point out that "It is unusual for a candidate not to gain ground from his convention." However, since the entire nation seemed glued to Simple Life 2 and Amish in the City, the candidate's precipitous drop in the polls when expected to gain at least a baby bump, came as no real surprise, considering that everyone who watches late night for their news, already knows what a dog Kerry is since a photograph of him was run alongside McGruff the Crime Dog late last year in the run up to the Democratic primaries.