Kerry flogging the war again

[confludemocrat]

Iraq Burns; Dems Look on the Bright Side

At the same time the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, with CBS reporting on the "undeclared civil war" raging between Shiites and Sunnis and the Saudi Foreign Minister telling the world that Iraq is "going toward disintegration," there was John Kerry giving a speech arguing that "progress" was being made. As the Boston Herald put it, Senator John Kerry "back-pedalled on blistering criticism of the war. Unbelievable

Enough excerpts, go to the post below and see the nice compendium of why Kerry shouldn't even think about running again.

A couple of days ago Eric Alterman also covered some of this ground

www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/iraq-burns-dems-look-on-_b_7974.html

[TayTay]

1. Sigh! The Boston Herald is not a good source to be citing

Might as well be citing Faux News.

Arianna should know better.

[jonnyblitz]

2. the herald was reporting a speech kerry gave...

it's kind of a hard to blame it on RW bias when all anybody has to do is read the transcript of the speech.

this sounds like typical Kerry anyways.

[karynnj]

9. Link please

Even the Herald's actual quotes don't support the title. I haven't seen the transcript - and I would love to.

[kerrygoddess]

17. Trascript of the speech

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=688

[TayTay]

10. Kerry hasn't given an Iraq speech yet

He gave a speech on competitiveness.

He will be giving a full speech on Iraq sometime soon. This what he said, he would be giving a speech about Iraq and would talk about the good and bad and what his position on Iraq is now.

We on DU like to thrash out our differences loudly and with gusto. It just would be nice to do so based on something someone actually said. I am sure that Kerry's speech will please some, anger others and cause still others to yawn. But it would be nice to thrash out differences based on actual words rather than what he didn't say. (Yet.)

And another genuine chance to critique Kerry (pro and con) will come today when he meets with Cindy Sheehan. AGain, I would like to see what comes out of this and respond to the actual meeting, not the rumors of the meeting.

[zann725]

15. Agreed. From what I can see, and copies of recent speeches he emailed

and posted on his website lately, I personally think he's been "kickin' butt."

[Mass]

18. Sentences taken out of context.

[LittleClarkie]

39. The Herald taking sentences out of context

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

So, let me get this straight. As long as the Right Wing media sticks to hit pieces on Kerry, they'll be golden. Even several progressives will gladly consume their product.

Well isn't that just freakin' ducky. I should go and email Fox News. They'll be thrilled. Maybe their ratings will even stop tailspinning.

Ya see, sports fans, it's just a matter of finding that special flavor of Koolade ya like.

[kerrygoddess]

19. Have you read the transcript?

Evidently not! He does not mention Iraq in the speech. http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=688

He did however speak to press after the speech and mentioned that his planning a speech on Iraq.

The Boston Globe says this:

"Glen Johnson reports that Kerry is working on another speech “laying out a timetable for Iraqis to regain control of their country.”

The speech was the second in a series of administration critiques and Democratic proposals being outlined by Kerry. Last week he focused more extensively on Hurricane Katrina. He said Monday he is preparing another speech laying out a timetable for Iraqis to regain control of their country.

In response to questions from an audience of about 500, Kerry said the nation can only afford to pay for the Iraqi war as well as the cleanup of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita if it forgoes tax cuts the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans are slated to receive next year and also considers a windfall tax on recent oil profits."

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=692

[BL611]

3. I'm getting quite sick of Huffington

She does more dem bashing then the right wingers, much of it for completely illegitimate reasons. If she's so brilliant when it comes to what the dems need to do, how come she got her ass handed to her when she ran for Governor?

[renie408]

5. I thought she WAS a Republican??

[BL611]

7. She was for quite a while

Maybe she's an undercover Repub, it would make more sense then most of the conspiracy theories kicked around here...

[emulatorloo]

13. she converted, but I remember when she was a Republican Talking Head

spouting the talking points and trying to hold her own on the Coulter TV circuit

[win_in_06]

41. She is an Opportunist with a capital O

[Sydnie]

6. She pulled put of the race before the election

That can hardly be "getting her ass handed to her" now can it? There were HOW MANY names on that ballot? That's what I thought.

[BL611]

8. She pulled out because

she was running so strongly right? maybe thats what Kerry should have done before the election, pull out!!! It's brilliant. So she can criticize the Democrats for not fighting hard enough, while she doesn't even finish her race, that makes perfect sense....

[karynnj]

11. and how was she polling?

Not well

[IndyJones]

38. she was polling pitifully

[IndyJones]

37. Because she made a fool out of herself during the debates.

She also wanted to repeal Prop 13 as part of her great plan to "save California". She's an idiot.

[renie408]

4. I think the Herald is spinning a bit here...

``The Iraqi forces are improving somewhat. Whether it's enough to hold the line is obviously a very serious question.''

That is not exactly a glowing endorsement.

[emulatorloo]

12. He is calling for withdrawal timetable -- Former Republican Arianna missed

that I guess. From misleadingly headlined herald story:

<snip>

"There is some schedule showing what you (need) to do to get Iraqis standing up and defending themselves which is now suddenly beginning to happen, so there are some signs of progress," Kerry said during a 30-minute speech at the Park Plaza Hotel. "The only way we're going to be successful there – and ultimately, success is going to have to be somewhat redefined – is to create sufficient stability to get the troops home."

He later added while speaking to reporters: "The Iraqi forces are improving somewhat. Whether it's enough to hold the line is obviously a very serious question."

While acknowledging gains, Kerry called the war "deeply troubled" and said he is working on a timetable for a troop pullout.

<snip>

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=104361

[sandnsea]

21. And redefining success

Sadly, the left always buys into whatever the right says a Democrat's position is, despite the words that are right there in black and white. It's just astounding.

[welshTerrier2]

14. the Herald story is bullshit BUT ...

i've been waiting very patiently since Kerry returned from Iraq about 3 weeks ago for him to issue a "bold new position" on Iraq ... i, of course, hoped that he would call for either immediate or near-term withdrawal ...

the Herald piece, that used phrases like "Kerry 'back pedaled' on Iraq" is not necessarily supported by the quotes from the interview that were provided ... Kerry's statement that some progress is being made is hardly an endorsement of bush's position ... i think the article's author did NOT provide sufficient justification for the conclusions about Kerry's position he made ...

HOWEVER, that does not mean the conclusions he reached are not correct ... even bad journalists sometimes arrive at the truth ... we'll soon know after Kerry elaborates on his "bold new position" ...

but here's a very real warning sign ... last night i went out to hear a speech by progressive candidate for Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick ... i met a woman there who's been very active in the anti-war movement and was a strong supporter and worker in Kerry's campaign for President last year ... she was very articulate, very knowledgeable and very impressive ... in a conversation with myself and Deval Patrick, she briefly described a meeting that was held in Kerry's Boston office yesterday with about 30 former campaign workers and some guy on Kerry's staff ...

i interjected that i understood Kerry was formulating a significant and new position on Iraq based on his recent trip there ... she told me that was the focus of yesterday's meeting and that every single one of those 30 people left Kerry's office in total disgust ... she said the overwhelming sentiment, after meeting with Kerry's staffer about Kerry's view on the war, was that, and I quote, "he'd better never try to run again for anything."

so, i'll wait to "hear it from the horse's mouth" but the signs are very, very dark ... if Kerry continues down the "we can still find success in Iraq" path and fails to represent the rapidly growing majority of us who have had it with this insane war, Kerry will be "permanent toast" ... but for now, we wait patiently ...

[Mass]

20. If you mean that Kerry is going to have a position comparable to

Clark or Feingold, there should be no surprise there.

I am not expecting to hear that Kerry is not going to call for withdrawal now. I wished he did, but it seems clear to me that this is not going to arrive soon for any major democrat.

[sandnsea]

22. He will likely never be "out now"

But then, neither is any other so-called anti-war politician, including Russ Feingold, Lynn Woolsey, or even Dennis Kucinich. Kerry will likely call for THE EXACT SAME TIMETABLES as Woolsey, he just won't call it OUT NOW. I do not understand why this is so complicated for the anti-war people to grasp. An HONEST strategy to leave the country, and leave it in good shape, is not supporting Bush's war. It's knowing that figuring out HOW to leave is necessary if it's ever going to happen.

[kerrygoddess]

24. There was NO Meeting in Kerry's Boston Office yesterday

WT2,

I just called and spoke with a member of Kerry's staff in Boston, who I know personally. This staff member is former campaign staff.

THERE WAS NO MEETING IN KERRY'S BOSTON OFFICE YESTERDAY, OR THE DAY BEFORE, FOR THAT MATTER.

Whatever this woman told you is false. The staffer I spoke with has no reason to deny it. I read him your post in it's entirity and he said "WHAT? THERE WAS NO MEETING HERE YESTERDAY!"

I suggest you call Kerry's Boston office and clarify this yourself, if you have any doubts. [phone]

I know it is a blatant lie.

[welshTerrier2]

26. don't call it a lie

i may have misunderstood either the timing or the location ... the woman i spoke to said she met with someone named Lewis (i think) ... i believe she either said at Kerry's office or Kerry's headquarters or words to that effect ... i assumed she meant Boston but i met her in the burbs west of Boston so maybe there's a local office out here ...

she was entirely credible ...

anyway, it doesn't make any difference ... as i said, we await Kerry's comments and then we are each free to form our own opinions from there ...

[kerrygoddess]

29. The entire concept of such a meeting is ridiculous

30 former campaign staffers sitting around his office in Boston or elsewhere to discuss current positions just doesn't happen.

Maybe some former volunteers sat around somewhere to discuss this but it sure as heck was not his office.

[kerrygoddess]

31. Do us both a favor...

Call Kerry's Boston office and ask for Lewis - [phone]

There is no Lewis at his Boston office.

This is strickly hearsay from this person you met at a function for some other candidate. You just met her - how credible is that?

[WCGreen]

16. Well, if you ever needed an example of why Bush won....

Regardless of what you feel, the guy really does seem like he is afraid to commit to something with out a tortuous round about explanation that turns people off.........

[sandnsea]

23. What , he should support ANSWER and Mumia?

Just because you can't understand anything except someone ranting "out now" doesn't meant the rest of the country is that simple-minded. People didn't support "out now" last year and they don't this year and they likely won't in 2006 or 2008. If the left doesn't grasp that and support a HOW to get out instead of when, we'll continue to lose on the Iraq War issue alone.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. So it's okay to accept rightwing sources as long as they bash Kerry?

Huffington is citing the Boston Herald. Go on; why not find a Fox News article while you're at it? Maybe National Review has an article attacking Kerry, as well - why not cite that as well, since you're so determined to hate Kerry you'll accept ANY source, no matter how Republican in nature? Maybe you could cross post this at Free Republic; I'm sure they'd appreciate DU doing their Dem bashing for them.

You could always link the RNC quip trashing Kerry for his anti-Bush speech. I mean, posting this bullshit helps the RNC anyway, so hell, why not go all out? :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

27. Kerry is the one that voted for the war, and still supports it

Kerry has never called for pulling the troops out of Iraq. Kerry voted for PATRIOT. Now, who is the rightwinger, Kerry or Huffington?

[karynnj]

28. Kerry is not a rightwinger

Only one Senator didn't vote for the Patriot act. Kerry actually had pushed for much of the legislation to prevent terrorist from using opaque transactions in the international banking system since his BCCI days and had been blocked. After 911, that work was suddenly the obvious thing to do - it was included in the bill. Kerry and other demanded sunset clauses as it was thrown together with so many parts that no one had time to read the whole thing.

There is not one Senator who has called for pulling troops out now -

Kerry's political believes and his commitment to people who need help from the government have been consistent over his whole life. Huffington seems to be prove that the political spectrum is circular - She cut over from RW extremist to LW extremist. She is a gadfly.

[Mass]

30. The issue was not that Huffington was RW, but that the Herald was.

And that is undeniable.

In addition, you are describing the normal good democratic senator here (and that would include Kennedy and Boxer, Byrd and Feingold).

[zulchzulu]

32. Kerry didn't vote FOR the war...he voted for the UN to continue inspection

It's a lie to say he voted FOR the war. He voted for the UN to continue inspections and was lied to by Bush with the WMD threat. He also stated that going to war would be as a LAST resort. Here are some other points he made in 2004:

"My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

[IndianaGreen]

34. If Kerry believed Bush, then he is a bigger idiot than I thought!

Authority to go to war means to go to war. When Congress authorizes expenditures it means to go ahead and commit the government to contracts. When someone gives you authority to open fire it means that you have the authority to do so at your discretion. That's what giving authority means. Kerry knows this, but he thought that people outside the Beltway would think that giving Bush the authority to go to war did not mean going to war. I am surprised that there are still people in denial that IWR was anything but a war resolution.

[IndianaGreen]

48. If your interpretation of facts is correct, why didn't Kerry demand Bush's

impeachment for lying to the country? Perhaps it is because Kerry lies when he said Bush lied to him. Everyone knows that Bush is not to be believed about anything. I think Kerry did a cold political calculation that the war would be over in a short period of time and that people would ignore the millions that protested the war. Kerry was as wrong as Bush about Iraq, and now we are all paying for it.

Why can't Kerry, and the vast majority of Beltway Democrats, have the courage of Holocaust survivor Walter Wolfgang who wrote:

Published on Friday, September 30, 2005 by the Independent/UK
'We Have Been Lied to About The War. I Dared to Speak the Truth'
by Walter Wolfgang

There was no justification for the conflict in Iraq. It isn't only that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The war was simply unnecessary. It was done in support of the United States.

It has brought us to a turning point in history. When I was a child living in Germany in the late 1930s, with relatives who died in the concentration camps, things were very frightening. But the policy of the American government today frightens me too. And so does the attitude of the British Government.

Power corrupts, it is said, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. This is increasingly clear in our post-Cold War era. There is today only one superpower and therefore that superpower has to be restrained by the good advice of its allies. But what Tony Blair has done is the opposite. He has confirmed the prejudices of George Bush, making it much harder for a superpower to get out of its bad habits. We made a mistake by invading Iraq and we should recognize that. Now we have got to leave. Our continued presence in Iraq is part of the problem. It cannot be part of the solution. What has happened in Basra illustrates the mess we have got ourselves in. The situation is difficult enough without us making it more so. The best thing is to confine troops to barracks and having done so bring them home as soon as possible.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0930-22.htm

[zulchzulu]

33. Did Huffington READ the link to a story in her blog?

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249%7Ctop%7C08-09-2004::17:46%7Creuters.html

He said first:

"I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

He continued:

""My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time."

More:

On that timetable, Kerry's aim would be to pull out a large number of the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq in the first six months of his administration.

He continued:

"All of this should have happened in the beginning, all of these things should have been achieved beforehand," he said. "American presidents should not send American forces into war without a plan to win the peace."

[kerrygoddess]

36. I doubt she did...

I responded to Arianna here -

“Forgive Me While I Tear My Hair Out”
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=713

[confludemocrat]

44. Thanks for bringing up the "Oh shit!" moment of the Kerry campaign for all

but the most deluded supporters of Kerry (I was a Kerry supporter, a contributor of $500, and one of the 15% who voted for him in the MoveOn straw pole of June 2003). It was a shock to many when he tried doggedly to hang on to a mistake in voting for the war on the WMD/eminent threat basis as exemplified in this article. Reading what he says one cannot doubt that he is an unequivocal supporter of an illegal war, and has said little about it since that would lead one to think otherwise, in fact he has like so many top Democrats, been largely silent on the war. And silent on Cindy Sheehan. So it is no stretch, despite the news source cited, that referring to "progress" there and further parrotting Bush's treading-water line about "standing down when Iraqis stand up", to make the conclusion that Kerry has a terminally disabling problem as a future candidate largely (though by no means exclusively)on this score. I was mistaken in my support probably because I didn't pay enough attention to his true position on the war. What's your excuse?

as Eric Alterman said lately:
"Lloyd Grove says this new documentary will kill Kerry’s hopes for 2008, here. Let’s hope so. Don’t go away mad, Mr. “I’m for-the-war-no-I’m-against-it-no-for-no-against-it.” Just go away."

[zulchzulu]

45. So don't you get what he said...

Read it again.

Here's it all boiled down:

- Kerry didn't vote "for the war". He voted for the UN to continue inspections and to get a much larger alliance of allies and use war as a last resort. Get that... A LAST RESORT.

As for the documentary, if you've seen any of the clips that have been released, it's the usual footage of ANY political campaign behind the scenes... Lloyd Grove hasn't a clue...

So you think Kerry has been "silent" on the war? Don't let yourself get involved with things like the truth when it comes to this matter.

Bash Kerry all you want. It doesn't matter. There are many that understand that he's on our side...

[TayTay]

46. It must be gauling for you that

Kerry is still raising lots of money and has a large network of supporters. You may not like him, but there are plenty who do. And your arguments have not caused anyone to stop supporting him. So, we shall see what happens.

You know, it doesn't take a majority to win a primary. Just the top number of votes. Kerry has money and supporters. We shall see the rest in due time.

[Vektor]

35. Oh come on. The Boston Herald is a right-wing rag piece of shit.

It's not fit to even wipe one's ass with it. Who the hell quotes the Herald as a credible source?!?!?

Jesus, you may as well quote Rush.

[LittleClarkie]

40. If the cut of my jib was different

I'd go rushing over to the Boston Herald and see what I could find about Dean, Gore and Clark.

After all, if the Boston Herald is a suitable source for Kerry news, however taken out of context, then it should be a suitable source for all our Dem leaders, eh?

But I'm not like that.

But I would suggest not going to the Dark Side for yer news anymore, or I might change me mind, laddo.

[fujiyama]

42. I don't really care for Huffington

and the Herald is a shitty Murdoch owned piece of trash (ok that was a redundant statement)...

But I'm a little tired of these self hyped 'major speeches' by Kerry (or others for that matter).

Kerry has done a decent enough job as senator after the (s)election.

I mean, I've heard his staff sends out like 6 emails against voting for Roberts. I'm glad he's voting against him. Really. I appreciate the vote....But the fact is, there is only so much he can do.

And the media really isn't paying much attention either...and while he is liked by many (including myself), I don't think I can see a previous candidate put back up again (I have similar problems with Gore).

I suppose this isn't against Kerry, but many politicians in general with a glorified sense of ego and self importance.

[karynnj]

43. I think the speeches are great

One of the current right wing themes now is that the Democrats are just "hate Bush" and partisanship, with no message. Subtly, they are transisting this to not UNIFYING message. This is another instance where the Republicans want it both ways - the Democrats are acting in lock step partisanship and they have no unifying message. In fact, David Brooks turns today's column on Delay (contrasting him with Gingrich) into a last paragraph that says the Democrats are now entering a phase of partisanship (like Delay) and we simply hate Bush rather than having a unifying message (like Gingrich).

I think it is good that there are an array of positions that Democratic leaders are taking. But, on most subjects, it is clear to me that all mainstream Democrats are basically in agreement - the disagreement is in the details. Sometimes, the differences are between some Democrats trying to suggest what they think they can get right now versus others speaking about what they want long term.

It actually might be good if Dean (as DNC head) or some Democrat had someone on his/her staff try to write a concise list of where almost all Democrats agree and work with other democrats to insure that it really is. There really is much consensus -on issues where the Republicans disagree with us. These are core economic and role of government Democratic issues and for the most part the electorate agrees with us. It would also be important to acknowledge and identify issues where there is a wide range of opinions.

During primaries, the differences are what takes center stage, because there is a need to diffrenciate between candidates. What gets lost after primary fights is that the difference between any two Democrats (possibly even Lieberman and Sharpton) is greater than the distance between the more conservative Democrat and the a RW Republican - and increaingly they are drivingall non-RW Republicans out. It also leads the candidates to come out of the primary defined mostly by their positions on these issues rather than on the core issues.

At this point, the speeches by any Democrats are not given a huge amount of attention. But you can consider this an incubation period where Democrats can and should bring up ideas, goals, solutions etc. We are not in power and though the elected officials are (and should be) working to do the best they can, this can be a time of innovative thinking. For example, if Edwards and his staff come up with a clever workable idea for dealing with some poverty related issue, there should be enough openness for Democrats to examine the solution, possibly suggest variations and include it in their agenda.

If our leaders can't work with each other, how can we claim we can succeed running a bipartisn government. So rather than being Lockstep partisan with no unifying message - we should be what we really, at heart are, united behind some basic beliefs but having a tolerant open tent with a variety of opinions.

[Bridget Burke]

47. "Democrats" flogging Kerry again....

How boring.