Here is the statement I put out on this country entering the 5th year in the war in Iraq.
Today is another sad and heart-breaking day for our country and a local family living with the almost unbearable sacrifices that come with war.
Four years ago, President Bush began this misbegotten war in Iraq, and this past weekend
Lowell saw another one of its own, Private First Class John Landry, Jr., fall in battle.
PFC Landry is a hero in all our hearts. He fought valiantly for his country that he loved so dearly. I join the Lowell community in offering my thoughts and prayers to the Landry family, his friends and comrades in battle.
Today, as we begin the fifth year of this war in Iraq, my wish for peace is
stronger than ever, but our efforts to bring stability to Iraq seem more and more distant.
After four grueling years in Iraq, it has never been clearer that the Iraqi people need to find their own way to creating a secure and peaceful future.
Re-deploying our troops out of Iraq is the only course of action we should take for the safety of our men and women, the security of our nation and for the future of
Iraq – this will truly honor the sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families.
I wish to go to Washington and work on behalf of the people of the 5th District and to put an end to the bloodshed and anguish felt so deeply by the American families who are making the ultimate sacrifice.
I basically agree with this — for a long time I thought pulling out would lead to more chaos but given W’s insistence on a stay the course strategy it seems wise to withdraw and adjust our entire approach to the region. The attached link is to an article by former General Odom that presents a very compelling argument for changing our strategy and — as Kerrigan calls for — a troop withdrawal.
<
p>
http://www.washingto…
Why is every positive posting about this Kerrigan guy from someone who has been on BMG for about one hour?
<
p>
I was especially struck by the use of the em dash — something that you don’t see often enough here. I actually looked around to see if anyone else did it in his/her writing and the only thing I could find was — and why am I not surprised — Steve Kerrigan!
<
p>
http://www.bluemassg…
<
p>
Used in the exact same way. AMAZING!
<
p>
Hmmm. I’m sure it is a total coincidence. I would never think that you are all writing these from the same source.
<
p>
[On the off chance that you are though, I would advise you to use different writing styles — since you seem to be having trouble finding different writers!]
<
p>
Hey, and what ever happened to Northshore324? It’s been like three days!
<
p>
Can someone with more experience reassure me that these things are not taken seriously by the majority of BMG readers. I mean, we’re talking about the war and I feel like it’s just being used to shill for a candidate. I would love to see meaningful dialogue. But this annoyed me — obviously.
The war is the most important issue facing our country today, and of the 11 or so candidates running for this seat, Steve is the only one to devote a whole post to the war and make it clear that bringing our soldiers home will be a priority of his.
<
p>
I can only assume that you are supporting one of the other candidates, and if so, fine, it is your right to do so. But this is a serious issue, and trying to distract people from it with paranoid ideas about some comment-scheme isn’t going to work. Steve Kerrigan has made it clear that he will make it a priority to end this war, and he has come to this forum to share his ideas with us. I commend him for engaging the net-roots, and it is unfortunate that he is being responded to with such nonsense. I only hope that it will not deter him and other candidates from participating in this forum.
…gee he must be serious. I don’t have a horse in this race, but fact check has a point–you and heck of a liberal just show up when Kerrigan announces and start singing his praise. Why do you take the readers of BMG to be a bunch of idiots? And please don’t give me this line again.
I use it all the time — and I am a heck of a liberal — but I’m neither Steve Kerrigan nor heck of a liberal.
Just sayin’.
Until North Shore starts to post on ANYTHING other than Kerrigan, they should be considered a phoney poster. And it seems like at this early stage that heck of a liberal has the same traits in their early life at BMG.
<
p>
I’ve certainly pushed candidates on this site, but I’ve commneted and diaried on a whole range of issues.
…just who might be a sock puppet. They would all probably have the same IP address.
<
p>
Members of a Greek chorus or a Peanut Gallery is not a sock puppet. A sock puppet is a single person commenting under different handles, and would probably have the same IP address. Members of the Greek chorus/Peanut Gallery would not necessarily have the same IP address. Greek choruses and Peanut Galleries can be annoying, but they aren’t as annoying as the same person posting with different handles to buttress each other.
…while they don’t relate to this post, I did asked them earlier in another diary you wrote and, I assume, you did not see them. They relate to you possible involvement of dirty tricks politics, with regard to the “Killer Coke” mud thrown Patrick’s way. Here they are:
<
p>
Mr. Kerrigan did you receive the email that Joan Vennochi reported in her August 12, 2004 column that outlined the attack plan of the Reilly campaign with the “Killer Coke” guy? (If not, why did you not seek a correction?)
<
p>
When you read the emails did you object to the strategies outlined? (If so, will you produced your email responses?)
<
p>
Even if you were not directly involved, how do you feel about the astro-turf “Killer Coke” attempts to damage the Patrick campaign?
<
p>
Is the “Killer Coke” efforts the type of public discourse you approve of? And if not, what did you do to stop it?
<
p>
Sorry for the questions. But frankly I sense an attempt by your exploratory campaign of astro-turfing this site with sock puppet posters designed to pump you up and I’m jsut looking to keep you honest.
An em dash? Really? Pretty flimsy police work there.
That was factcheck I believe. I did ask Kerrigan to answer some questions about his involvement in the Killer Coke thing. I asked Kerrigan that question in his first diary, based on something factcheck brought up in that link. (Let people assume that fackcheck and I are the same person–but we both have enough history here to dispute that–particularly when we have been on opposite sides on the LG race.)
<
p>
As for my belief that we are being “astro turfed” by Kerrigan and his friends…right now I think we have “evidence” that would pass muster in a civil case, but not in a criminal case. I mean Northshore324 registers and immediately introduces BMG readers to Kerrigan. Then you review NS324 comment page and it’s all Kerrigan all the time. (Except NS324’s most recent comment, but I would suggest they are covering their tracks because I called them on only writing about Kerrigan.
<
p>
As for Heck of a Liberal…same pattern…newly registered and minutes later they are pumping Kerrigan.
<
p>
As you very well know, I often have an agenda and I’ll pump up or tear down a candidate to further the ends of a candidate I support. But I did not join BMG for that very reason. I’ve got a long posting history of both Diaries and Comments that cover a very wide range of issues and people. I may not be the best BMG citizen, but I think I play within the lines (maybe cross them once in a while), but to me this is obvious astro turf. And I don’t think BCD (why hasn’t that stuck–Bob, Charley, David?) should do a damn thing about it.
<
p>
Just let folks like me present the facts as I see it, backed up by links. And let NS324 and Heck of state whatever they want to state and let the readers decide.
<
p>
Of course, it is annoying that Mr. Kerrigan chooses to leave this “drive-by postings” and does not answer the questions asked of him. He’s really in touch with the net-roots!
i don’t mind them, and voters in the district shouldn’t either. IMO, they help indicate the level of (non)responsiveness one might expect from that candidate should they get into office. if they indicate something else, like time limitations on the candidate (a real possibility) or financial limitations (also a real possibility – not every candidate has the bux to pay for a blogger spokesbot), then they should say so up front in the post. whether they do this or not, perhaps take it as yet another sign of the candidate’s capacity for forethought and planning. or not. my 0.02.
— which properly understood is a single person posting under multiple identities, as noted upthread — is not, as far as we can tell, going on here. And while astroturfing — which, again properly understood, involves a paid effort to simulate grassroots support — is harder to detect, we have no evidence that that’s in play here either.
<
p>
There is nothing wrong with actual people who support a candidate writing posts and comments to that effect, nor is there anything wrong with such people joining BMG for the purpose of doing just that. I mean, this is a political blog, right? Why wouldn’t people who support a candidate who is blogging here come here and blog in support? Indeed, why wouldn’t such a candidate encourage his or her supporters to do just that? Didn’t that happen in the Gov’s race? What could possibly be objectionable about that?
<
p>
We do request, as always, that individuals who are working for — i.e., being paid by — a candidate disclose that fact when posting here. But regular ol’ supporters and volunteers needn’t do so, if they don’t feel like it.
You aren’t pushing to end the war, you are pushing to end American involvement in it.
…in 2003. Which is why I, quite frankly, am not entirely sure what the US government should do about it even if it could do anything about it.
<
p>
But those who were in favor of the war on Iraq are responsible for fighting it and, most importantly for paying for it. We’re getting ready to get out of here. Yet the Yellow Elephants fight (they don’t) and pay for(they don’t) the war. The US is going to hell in a handbasket and it appears that nobody in the US recognizes that fact.
I am getting more comfortable with the idea of a withdrawal– either over the horizon, or to Afghanistan.
<
p>
But couching withdrawl as “ending the war” is a lie. It will continue with or without us, and withdrawal under any scenario implies that certain people who stuck theur necks out for us will be abandoned to their fate.
<
p>
That goes on the shoulders of the folks who initiate the withdrawal, like it or not.
predates the discovery of the new world – It goes back at least to Imam Ali’s death (he’s buried in Najaf at the third/fouth holiest muslim site).
<
p>
We did remove an obstacle to it but this was coming — maybe had we not staffed the CPA with idiots it wouldn’t be as bad.