Talkingpointsmemo Josh Marshall: Kerry did well on Meet the Press...

[flpoljunkie]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0301.html#090103109am

Russert had his standard line of baiting, gotcha questions. But what struck me was how well Kerry held up under the questioning. He struck the right notes about the administration's ideological rigidity, lack of preparation, and constant state of being at war with itself. And he was cool enough and quick enough on his feet to show how many of Russert's gotcha questions -- meant to show contradictions or flip-flops -- really showed no such thing.

One dig against Kerry is that he's waffled on Iraq. In an article tomorrow, the Washington Post says that "he has come under fire for sounding ambivalent on the Iraq war and for failing to connect with the antiwar, anti-Bush voters dominating the nominating process."

But I thought his explanations of his stance rang true. An evolving position isn't the same as a waffling or indecisive one. After all, we already have a president who is dogmatic and inflexible and confuses those qualities for leadership. And look where that's gotten us ...

-- Josh Marshall


(August 31st, 2003)

[wyldwolf]

1. He did much better than Dean...

...or was Russert just easier on Kerry?

I believe the answer is he did better than Dean if only because Dean wasn't used to that kind of grilling and Kerry is.

Dean will probably do much better if there is a rematch.

[DJcairo]

13. Very doubtful

Dean is at his worst in those forums. Once the Dems field starts to narrow and candidates start dropping out and Dean is forced in to 2 or 3 person debates, it's going to be very tough for him. With all 9 still in it it's easier.
The debates are Dean's Achilles heel.

[Octafish]

14. Kerry did better than Dean.

That's the bottom line. Let's see how they match up in a head-to-head debate. Would that be fair?

[blm]

2. EXACTLY!!!!

The differences between Kerry's thoughtfulness and Bush's dogmatic rhetoric is the difference between an American president and a dictator.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Kerry only did well...

...when you compare his performance and positions to Junior's. Otherwise, Kerry's answers about his so-called "evolving positions" came off as pretty shifty and elusive.

[blm]

7. Not to those with comprehensive skills

who are familiar with Kerry's positions throughout his career and on Iraq. We see great consistency that other agendas refuse to acknowledge or even bother to understand.

[dsc]

3. Interesting that he couldn't be bothered to watch all of it

I am simply amazed at the laziness of so many journalists. I mean it was a 52 minute interview. And he couldn't watch the whole thing when he intends to critique it. Incredible.

To state the obvious This is not a slam on Kerry who has no control over whether Josh Marshal does his job well or not.

[dsc]

10. I am amazed no one else is bothered by this

I guess now we know why the DDF is so soundly criticised. Evidently a lazy press is acceptable.

[Octafish]

4. Kerry showed his experience and vision...

... he was cool under pressure, he stuck to guns, and he wasn't flustered by Russert. In short, John Kerry acted the part of a leader who understood where we as a nation are, and where we as a nation must go.

The show stands as a marked contrast to the other DEM candidates interviewed on MTP. I can't wait for the transcript to come out. Kerry showed Russert who was in command of the situation: John Kerry.

[Larkspur]

5. But the problem with Kerry is that BOTH his Iraq War votes were wrong

In 1991, Iraq was invading another country, and Kerry opposed US intervention, even when our allies in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, were begging for our help.

In 2002, there was no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat and our allies, who supported us in 1991, save Israel, begged us NOT to invade Iraq, but Kerry voted for a resolution that allowed Bush to stick his finger at the UN and allow him to declare war at his whim, instead of going back to Congress and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Remember that Josh Marshall supported the Iraq war, largely based upon Pollack's book, which claimed that Saddam had to be ousted ASAP. Pollack's arguments are also being shown to have been false, and I think that Marshall had wished that he had stuck to his original view on Iraq, which was to oppose unilateral invasion.

The problem with Kerry, is that he doesn't make sound decisions based upon the facts on hand. Like Bush, he'll use facts or inuendo to support his political ambitions, but Kerry has a bad habit of making bad decisions and then trying to worm his way out them by calling his arguments nuanced.

Remember, two thirds of the House Democrats, led by then Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, voted AGAINST the war resolution that John Kerry voted for. Nancy should more courage, bucking then Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, than John Kerry did with his stupid private meetings with Rumsfield when the senator claimed to have pressed upon Bush's minions the need to secure UN support for an invasion of Iraq.

Kerry was duped by a Dope and I don't want a president who can be so easily bamboozeled.

[blm]

8. Hitchens, is that you?

Your argument presents ONLY what you want people to believe and has no room for facts, history, and truth.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Ok, I Have To Get My Boots On

Because the bullsh-t is getting thick. I can't believe how many blatant distortions you can fit into so short a post. Let's take a look:

1)Kerry DID NOT oppose intervention in 1991. He supported getting all our ducks in a row before committing, regarding foreign and public support. Which is entirely consistent with his 2002 stance, and vision of progressive internationalism today.

2)You really are not going to pretend that Kerry's stance was any different than Dean's (eventual) position. He voted - not for imminent threats, unilateralism, regime change, or pre-emption - but to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to a full disarmament. One month later, Blix and UNMOVIC were on the ground.

3)Kerry makes sound decisions based on the facts at hand. I'm sorry if they don't fit on a bumperstick for you to figure them out, but the stakes are too high to leave such decisions to on-the-job training. If Bush, like Dean, had followed Kerry's prescription, the events of the last year would be very different (except Dean would have been a blip by now).

Unlike Dean's waffle from containment to disarmament, Kerry's position has been consistent since 1997. He supported disarmament multilaterally if possible, unilaterally if no other choice. Is that too much nuance for you?

4)You continue to pretend that Kerry voted out of expediency, when I have given unequivocal evidence that his vote was entirely consistent with his beliefs for several years. Where I come from, that's called "lying."

5)Speaking of duped by a dope, let's see if your beloved leader pulled a fast one on you. Name these quotes:

"Oh, well, I tend to believe the President."

"I believe we were misled."

"The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States."

If you answered Howard Dean, you may have already won!

<>

[Larkspur]

11. Dean's position on the Iraq war

with thanks from the Dean Defense Force

The best explanation of Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq can be found in his speech to the New America Foundation last January:

The mistake that we're making in Iraq is this. First, our priorities are wrong. If you ask me what the greatest danger to America is today, it's not Iraq, it's al-Qaeda, and we have been distracted from the war on terror. I deeply respect Bob Graham for having the courage to vote 'no' on the Iraq resolution because it did not include Hamas and Hezbollah and the other terrorist groups. Because the number one threat to America is terrorism, not Iraq. Secondly, what is the second-greatest threat to America? It is nuclear-armed rogue nations, it is not Iraq, which does not possess nuclear weapons. North Korea is a serious problem which, as you know, I believe the President set the stage for early on. He announced - I can't imagine this; as a governor I wouldn't do this to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, no matter how mad I was at him - he announced, while standing next to the President of South Korea, who he had not informed, that he was changing his policy toward North Korea away from a policy of engagement and towards a policy of isolation. If any governor did that to an important member of his party or the legislature they would get what we're now getting, except of course members of the legislature don't possess nuclear weapons.

Iraq is a serious problem. We cannot permit Saddam Hussein to possess nuclear weapons. And I actually think - although we got off to very much the wrong foot with Iraq because of the bellicosity and the unilateral proposals and so forth and so on -- that we are now where we should be. We have the United Nations imprimateur. We have inspectors on the ground. But the truth is, in my view, the President has not made a case. The President has to make the case to the American people. In 1962, when the Russians put missiles in Cuba, President Kennedy had a press conference and showed pictures of missiles in Cuba pointed at the United States, and there were very few Americans who didn't think that was a real threat to the United States of America. I don't expect the President to be able to have those kinds of pictures, but I do expect him to say what the danger is. The Vice President has said he thought there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The Secretary of Defense has said we might have some evidence that nerve gas has been given to terrorists by Iraq. The President hasn't said anything other than that Saddam Hussein is evil, which we all agree with, but there are many evil people in the world, and we don't put 200,000 of our troops at risk in order to get rid of those evils. (Dean, "The Real State of the Union" 1/14/2003 Link)

[sandnsea]

15. Too f'n funny

"We cannot permit Saddam Hussein to possess nuclear weapons."

"We have the United Nations imprimateur. We have inspectors on the ground."

How the hell does Howard Dean think this happened? The promise of some Vermont maple syrup convinced Saddam to let the inspectors in?

And Saddam, did he or didn't he desire to possess nuclear weapons? Once again, people keep saying 'everybody else knew' back in October 2002. Yet in January 2003, Howard Dean is saying Saddam would seek nuclear weapons. The inconsistency if mind boggling.

[dsc]

12. BTW

I would like a citation for that picture. If, as I suspect, it is a photoshopped photo then you are lying until you label it as such.