Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: John kerry is Bush Lite

  1. #1
    Tom The Nader Fan™
    Guest
    Washingto - American Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he would set three conditions for withdrawing US troops from Iraq if he were elected, and warned that President George Bush might cut troop numbers ahead of the November 2 vote.

    In an interview with the The Wall Street Journal, Kerry said the conditions were "to measure the level of stability" in Iraq, "to measure the outlook for the stability to hold" and "to measure the ability of their security forces" to defend Iraq.

    Until each condition is satisfied, Kerry said, "I will provide for the world's need not to have a failed state in Iraq."

    Kerry, who will be formally picked to run for the White House at the Democratic National Convention in Boston August 26 - 29, has been calling for more international involvement in Iraq, but has refrained from advocating a withdrawal of all the 140 000 US troops.

    'I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven't reduced the number significantly'
    However, he told the Journal aboard his campaign plane that "at the end of my first term I would consider it a failure of my diplomacy if we haven't reduced the number significantly."

    "I certainly can't tell you numbers," he added. "The key at this point is to have a stable, non-failed state that is moving toward democracy and has security sufficient for the government to stand on its own."

    [b]Kerry said he had "heard (it) said by many people" that Bush might be preparing to withdraw some troops from Iraq before the election, adding that he was prepared for anything.

    "I'd put nothing past them," he added, referring to the White House.[/b] :lol: :rolleyes:

    A White House spokesperson quoted by the daily ruled out the possibility.

    'I'm not going to negotiate my plan in the newspapers'
    "The troop levels in Iraq have always been guided by what commanders in the field have said is necessary to accomplish the mission," said Suzy DeFrancis. "No other factor would enter into it."

    In his interview, the daily said Kerry did not explain his criteria for measuring conditions in Iraq or provide estimates of troop drawdowns.

    "I'm not going to negotiate my plan in the newspapers. But I will get there in ways that this president can't because he has burned the bridges of credibility and burned the alliances. They need to be re-established with a new president."

    He said he was also prepared to boost troop strength in the near term if Iraqi security required it, adding that he would consult with military commanders to determine the increment.

    "I know how to do that," [b]said the Vietnam veteran.[/b] :lol: :rolleyes: "I think I'll do that more effectively than this president, and I'll listen to them with greater respect than this president and this secretary of defence did." - Sapa-AFP

  2. #2
    I don't get your point. What do you expect him to say. Do you really think we just pull out now? Jesus, now I understand why conservatives look down on liberals and progressives so much.

    As Powell told Bush, you break it, you own it. We are stuck in Iraq for months an perhaps years to come. The most we can hope for is a Kerry Administration that can actually convince Nato and the UN to create a true multi-national force. I want the troops home as much as the next person, but just evacuating them now is not the answer.

  3. #3
    Tom The Nader Fan™
    Guest
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94[/i]@Jul 17 2004, 05:07 PM
    [b] I don't get your point. [/b][/quote]
    The point? When you make a vote, you make a vote for change.

    How are things going to be any different voting for John Kerry than voting for Bush?

    C'mon NYJet94 and show your support for real change!

    NADER! NADER! NADER!

  4. #4
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Tom The Nader Fan™[/i]@Jul 17 2004, 05:12 PM
    [b]How are things going to be any different voting for John Kerry than voting for Bush?[/b][/quote]
    They won't be one bit!

    John Kerry would make a very good Vice-President for George Bush.

  5. #5
    Tom The Nader Fan™
    Guest
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AlbanyJet+Jul 17 2004, 05:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (AlbanyJet @ Jul 17 2004, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tom The Nader Fan™[/i]@Jul 17 2004, 05:12 PM
    [b]How are things going to be any different voting for John Kerry than voting for Bush?[/b][/quote]
    They won&#39;t be one bit&#33;

    John Kerry would make a very good Vice-President for George Bush. [/b][/quote]
    My hero&#39;s Hillary Clinton and John F. Kerry once upon a time faught the establishment. Now, they have become the establishment.

    [b]THE ONLY VOTE THAT MATTERS IS THE ONE FOR RALPH NADER.[/b]

  6. #6
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Tom The Nader Fan™+Jul 17 2004, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Tom The Nader Fan™ @ Jul 17 2004, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--NYJet94[/i]@Jul 17 2004, 05:07 PM
    [b] I don&#39;t get your point. [/b][/quote]
    The point? When you make a vote, you make a vote for change.

    How are things going to be any different voting for John Kerry than voting for Bush?

    C&#39;mon NYJet94 and show your support for real change&#33;

    NADER&#33; NADER&#33; NADER&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Tom you seem like a nice guy but if you think Nader has a snowballs chance in hell of winning an election for dog catcher, then I&#39;d like to have some of what you been smoking. A Vote for Nader IS a vote for Bush&#33; Why do think he is being bankrolled by Republicans? C&#39;mon, wake up&#33;

  7. #7
    Don&#39;t be fooled Jet94, "Tom" here is no Nader fan. In fact, he is our esteemed debate Master and Conservative extrordinare, Mr. JetMoses, in another guise.

    Nice to see you back JetMo, I missed your posts there for a wee bit. Hope all is well. :)

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,739
    [quote][b]Tom you seem like a nice guy but if you think Nader has a snowballs chance in hell of winning an election for...[/b][/quote]

    That&#39;s a very short sided statement. Nader may not win this year but his efforts like those in 2000 will lay the base for a genuine alternative political party. I saw both Nader and his Vice Presidential Candidate, Peter Camejo, speak Friday Night. Camejo was very impressive bringing the crowd of 700 to thir feet several times. Though there has been split within the Greens the group backing Nader is very strong.


    [quote][b]A Vote for Nader IS a vote for Bush&#33; [/b][/quote]

    That&#39;s pretty arrogant comment. Nader brings many more people to the polls that would otherwise stay home than would vote for Kerry.


    [quote][b]Why do think he is being bankrolled by Republicans? [/b][/quote]

    Bankrolled ? :huh: &#036;6,000 by the Egan&#39;s is being bankrolled ? If your talking about being fianced let&#39;s talk about serious money. Like the 10s of millions of dollars being shelled out by George Soros in indirect payments to the Democrat Party. Soros single handedly set up Americans Coming Together to advance the candidacy of a number of established Democrats.

  9. #9
    Tom The Nader Fan™
    Guest
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Jul 18 2004, 02:08 AM
    [b] Don&#39;t be fooled Jet94, "Tom" here is no Nader fan. In fact, he is our esteemed debate Master and Conservative extrordinare, Mr. JetMoses, in another guise.

    Nice to see you back JetMo, I missed your posts there for a wee bit. Hope all is well. :) [/b][/quote]
    Give me about a week, you&#39;ll wish I stayed in Brasil. ;)

  10. #10
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Tom The Nader Fan™+Jul 18 2004, 04:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Tom The Nader Fan™ @ Jul 18 2004, 04:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@Jul 18 2004, 02:08 AM
    [b] Don&#39;t be fooled Jet94, "Tom" here is no Nader fan. In fact, he is our esteemed debate Master and Conservative extrordinare, Mr. JetMoses, in another guise.

    Nice to see you back JetMo, I missed your posts there for a wee bit. Hope all is well. :) [/b][/quote]
    Give me about a week, you&#39;ll wish I stayed in Brasil. ;) [/b][/quote]
    Naaaa......you&#39;re one of the most interesting folks round here Nader Fan. It just wasn&#39;t the same without you.

    :D

  11. #11
    [quote][i]Originally posted by WestCoastMole[/i]@Jul 18 2004, 04:45 AM
    [b] [quote][b]Tom you seem like a nice guy but if you think Nader has a snowballs chance in hell of winning an election for...[/b][/quote]

    That&#39;s a very short sided statement. Nader may not win this year but his efforts like those in 2000 will lay the base for a genuine alternative political party. I saw both Nader and his Vice Presidential Candidate, Peter Camejo, speak Friday Night. Camejo was very impressive bringing the crowd of 700 to thir feet several times. Though there has been split within the Greens the group backing Nader is very strong.


    [quote][b]A Vote for Nader IS a vote for Bush&#33; [/b][/quote]

    That&#39;s pretty arrogant comment. Nader brings many more people to the polls that would otherwise stay home than would vote for Kerry.


    [quote][b]Why do think he is being bankrolled by Republicans? [/b][/quote]

    Bankrolled ? :huh: &#036;6,000 by the Egan&#39;s is being bankrolled ? If your talking about being fianced let&#39;s talk about serious money. Like the 10s of millions of dollars being shelled out by George Soros in indirect payments to the Democrat Party. Soros single handedly set up Americans Coming Together to advance the candidacy of a number of established Democrats. [/b][/quote]
    WCM, this is the most important election in a generation and if think voting for Nader in 20044 does anything but help put Bush back in the White House you are kidding yourself. It is this kind of thinking that has allowed the Republican party to control both houses of Congress and have a Majority on the Supreme Court.

    You say it is short-sighted but you are missing the point. Don&#39;t you think Nader would be whole lot more effective with an Kerry - Edwards Administration than with Bush - Cheney?

    If Nader was not so ego-driven he would get behind Kerry - Edwards and support them, while holding their feet to the fire on any number of progressive issues. That would provide him with much more legitimate base for a alternative party. The bottom line is Nader cannot win in 2004 but he can effect who does. Four more years of Bush - Cheney is not in the interests of Nader or his supporters.

    BTW, You think the Republicans are not seriously using Nader to try to defeat Kerry? Read this article from today&#39;s NYTimes....



    [b]Republicans help Nader get on ballot in Michigan[/b]
    By MATTHEW L. WALD

    Published: July 19, 2004


    ASHINGTON, July 18 - With the apparent assistance of the state Republican Party, Ralph Nader appears likely to secure a spot on the Michigan presidential ballot. But Democrats are calling for him to withdraw and are threatening to file a complaint against the Republicans, charging that they contributed illegally to the Nader campaign.

    Mr. Nader had gathered [u]5,400 signatures on petitions in Michigan but stopped collecting them over a month ago, deciding instead to go after the nomination of the Reform Party[/u]. After he stopped the petition effort, though, a split within the Reform Party made it uncertain that he would get the nomination.

    But last Thursday, the deadline for submitting signatures, [b]more than 50,000 signatures were submitted on behalf of Mr. Nader[/b]. The state requires 30,000 signatures.

    [b]It appears that it was the Republican Party that stepped in to help Mr. Nader. It is widely believed that if Mr. Nader is on the ballot in Michigan and other states, he would draw more votes from John Kerry, the likely Democratic nominee, than from President Bush. [/b]

    An article from The Detroit News posted on the state Republican Party&#39;s Web site quotes the party&#39;s executive director as saying, "We are absolutely interested in having Ralph Nader on the ballot," and adds that the executive director, Greg McNeilly, was personally circulating petitions for Mr. Nader.

    Mr. McNeilly told fellow Republicans in a recent e-mail message that the Democrats were trying to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot, and that "your help is needed in the next five days to ensure that Michigan voters are not disenfranchised."

    Mark Brewer, the executive chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, has asserted that the Republicans&#39; petition-gathering was a contribution and that "there is no way they could have gathered over 40,000 signatures and spent less than &#036;5,000," which is the legal limit.

    Kevin Zeese, a spokesman for Mr. Nader, said that the Republican work on behalf of Mr. Nader was not coordinated with Mr. Nader&#39;s campaign and thus was not subject to campaign contribution limits.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us