KERRY: I am not for a permanent base.

[ProSense]

March 19, 2007

Transcript: John Kerry on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"

MSNBC

<...>

KERRY: Permanently, no. I have a problem with permanently. But I think, what I thought what Senator Clinton said was there would be some troops there for a period of time, which is what the resolution that the Democrats voted on allows for. It allows for the President to have the discretion to leave troops critical to complete the training, critical to chasing Al Qaeda and prosecuting the war on terror, and critical to protecting the forces and facilities. But that is, that is contemplating an enormous reduction in the numbers of combat troops because you have to turn the responsibilities over to the Iraqis.

MATTHEWS: Well, she’s more direct than that, and I think you do disagree. She said I think it’ll be up to me, that’s Senator Clinton, to figure out how to protect our national security interests in that area. She sees it as a vital strategic role we have to play, keeping our troops in Iraq to protect Israel and other interests in the region. Not simply to protect our departing troops or a tactical purpose.

KERRY: Well, I agree. There is, Chris, the resolution also allows for an over the horizon presence, which could be interpreted as being somewhere, somehow in Iraq. But not in the day to day, in the middle of a civil war, not going on pro-active patrols, knocking on doors, going into houses on a combat basis. I think there’s a great difference between some presence of an outlying airbase or something which a lot of people contemplate, for a period of time. But ultimately, what you need is a new security arrangement for the region. And a new security arrangement for the region could have sufficient rapid reaction forces in Kuwait or other places; hopefully the Gulf states and others are going to step up together with our friends, the Saudis, the Jordanians and others, in order to have a long term security arrangement. I don’t think that it serves the United States well, over the long run, to be deciding now that where that long term presence is going to be or not going to be. It ought to be done in conjunction with the arrival at this overall security arrangement for the region. But there will be some measure of American troop presence, somehow, to protect our interests in the region. I don’t question that.

MATTHEWS: But the American people, at least in the Democratic primary rallies where people show up, they’re being told in applause lines by people like Senator Clinton, they’re going to bring our troops home, and now we find out we’re not going to bring them all home, we’re going to keep some as a permanent base in Iraq. Are you for or against keeping our troops in Iraq in some form or other?

KERRY: I am not for a permanent base. I’ve said that during the Presidential race in ’04, and I say it now. I think the permanency is something that upsets a number of people in the region. I think there are plenty of ways to deal with the American security interests. But I do think, I don’t think it’s misleading at all because the Democratic position is that we should be setting a date, we should be leveraging the assumption of responsibility by the Iraqis, and we should be withdrawing our troops.

<...>

KERRY: I think both. I think it was one of the greatest foreign policy disasters, mistakes that you can find in modern American foreign policy history. It was catastrophic on a number of different fronts. The lack of allies, the lack of planning, the misleading intelligence, a series of decisions that were made, the lack of adequate troops. On any number of fronts, that was disastrous. Now, not withstanding that, could a series of decisions have been made which took the mistaken entry and somehow made lemonade out of lemons? The answer is, I believe, one might have. But only by making the correct series of decisions, which began by accepting Secretary General Kofi Annan’s offer to help, and to have other people be involved immediately after the success of taking Baghdad. The immediate refusal of that offer of help, which was done out of a kind of anger and arrogance combined, pushed people aside in a moment that they might have been helpful, where we might have made the right decisions about debaathification, about the protection of the ammo dumps and how we approached the question of the civil structure of Iraq. But after those series of decisions were made, there’s only one thing left to do, and that is to get a political resolution now, diplomatic resolution, to the fundamental stakes issues between Sunni and Shia, and as General Petraeus has said, General Abizaid has said, Gen Casey has said, there is no military solution. And I’m asking, along with others, five years into this war, where’s the diplomacy, where’s the political lift to resolve what has to be resolved politically and diplomatically?

<...>

KERRY: Well, they are, in fact, the lessons that many of us tried to apply, Chris, in the vote on the original resolution giving the President the authority. I mean, if you go back and read what I said then and others said it, I made it very clear that the President had to keep his word. If he was going to go to war, it had to be with other countries, with allies. Number two, it had to be as a matter of last resort. And number three, you had to do the planning necessary and have the forces committed necessary to make sure that you had a victory. On each of those counts – and you also had to exhaust the remedies that were available to you, i.e. the United Nations inspections, which they didn’t do. So on every count, they rushed to war without our allies, they rushed to war without the exhaustion of the remedies available to us, they rushed to war without the planning. On every front of the lessons of Vietnam, they broke the rules, and they’ve inherited their problem of this generation as a result. It’s extraordinary to me, and what many of us felt was was betrayed by that series of decisions that literally turned their back on the past, on history, and now they’re repeating it.

Video

[fooj]

1. I watched it LIVE.

[ProSense]

2. I did too,

but I was glad to be able to watch it again.

[IndianaGreen]

3. The evil plan favored by neocons and neolibs is to reduce the number of troops until the war drops..

from the headlines. The US will then continue the occupation of Iraq, control the oil, and do Israel's bidding, with a small footprint of troops and bases. The neocons and the neolibs will argue that the war is over, and that the Left is irrational for demanding a complete US withdrawal and closing of all the bases.

These fuckers won't ever give up! We are going to have to fight them all, neocon and neolib alike, to force them to give up their colonial designs on the Middle East.

[shance]

4. Seems to me, once the bases are built, with our taxpayer money, they are there.

What is a "temporary base" anyway?

[BeyondGeography]

5. 7 in 10 Iraqis think our military presence in their country is making things worse

But only a third want us to leave at once.

About half of Baghdad (45%) says we should "stay until security is restored," but some of those people are obviously also saying we're making things worse just by being there.

And just over half (51%) say it's OK to kill us. One can only conclude that some of the Iraqis who want us to stay until security is restored also say it's OK to toast an American soldier every now and then.

"I really regret bringing down the statue," Kadhem al-Joubouri told Britain's Guardian newspaper on Monday. "The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=80613

So, yes, Senator Kerry, Iraq does shape up as one of the greatest mistakes in modern American history, which is why many of us feel that we can't afford another pro-IWR candidate, who will be forced to do the, "I voted for something other than what Bush handed us," tap dance.

[ProSense]

6. Remember

when the Senate voted on a July 2007 deadline?

At a Harvard University forum Monday, Penn answered a question by bringing up Obama's Senate record. He said Obama, like Clinton, has voted for spending bills to continue funding the war. And like Clinton, he opposed an amendment sponsored by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry last year that would have set a July 1, 2007, deadline for withdrawing troops.

Kerry never once changed his call about Iraq: Wrong War! He said no war in Jan. 2003. He was the first to call for Rummy's head in 2003. He advocated withdrawal during the 2004 debates. He proposed a plan for withdrawal in 2005 that everyone became hip to in late 2006. He put forward legislation setting a deadline for withdrawal that all but 12 other Senators voted against.

[BeyondGeography]

7. My point is we're totally fucked in Iraq and anyone who voted for IWR

is damaged goods in a national campaign. Kerry proved that in 2004. I follow all of his rationales and explanations and they are all perfectly rational and explicable. They are also far more complicated than, "I knew this shithead was going to take us to war and that it would be a disaster." You knew it. I knew it. And one can only suspect that they knew it too. So the Pubbies called Kerry a flip-flopper and it stuck.

We're probably not going to agree, but understand my basic point: based on what happened in 2004, many of us have reasonably concluded that it's risky to pose as an antiwar party with a pro-IWR candidate at the top of the ticket.

[ProSense]

10. The IWR had nothing to do with 2004, but

obviously inconsistency has a lot to do with 2008. That's why Hillary and Obama are beefing now, they can't decide who was consistent in calling for an end to a war that should never have been launched.

[karynnj]

12. 2004 was far more complicated than that

In the first place, it is clear that had everyone in Ohio who went to a polling place intending to vote for Kerry been able to easily, accurately, and reasonably quickly vote for him - he would be President. So, using his run to make that case doesn't work. Reading the Obama/Clinton statements, brought back a lot of 2004.

For 2008, we need to look at the layers of distortion the MSM did to help Bush . In addition to the SBVT and many articles that distorted John and Teresa Heinz Kerry's personalities and records. (In Teresa'a case her accomplishments were almost completely ignored - which would be equivalent of ignoring Hillary's accomplishments in 1992 - and repeating her comments on baking cookies constantly, which even then they did too often.)

The IWR, in and of itself, wasn't a huge problem in the general election. Kerry had spoken out before going to war, and he said "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and that it was not a war of last resort constantly. There was also his entire public life - Kerry DID get the anti-war vote. The problem was that that was less than 50% of the voters in 2004.

The way it hurt at all was that the media conflated the vote with being pro-war and said that Kerry changed. In fact, Kerry's litany of things Bush didn't do were the list of things that Bush publicly promised to do that Kerry enumerated when he voted. Then the media repeated the unfortunate summary on the $87 billion funding - where Kerry had explained immediately before that he voted for a version where it was paid for and had oversight constantly - while ignoring many strange Bush comments - and they morphed it to he "voted for the war before he vote against it". (which even here, some people say he said)

The confusion was not so much Kerry, but the media.(Note that Bill Clinton is trying to do something similar with Obama's 2004 statements. Others are using his 2006 comments before Kerry/Feingold) The intent here was to establish a flip/flop charge - which they still reinforce even though it is not validated by Kerry's voting record. (To see real flip/flop, look at Romney) This was to counter a Kerry strength - that he was not a triangulator, but had a record of being willing to take unpopular stands.

What hurt most though was that they distorted what Kerry and Bush proposed to do going forward. Kerry needed to win a portion of the people who agreed with the war, but who could be made to see that Bush's policies there were not going to work. Even some people who agreed the war should never have started were going to vote on who could best resolve the war. For Kerry, this was a tough task, people don't want to accept that their country's military is not succeeding and that there is a better way. Hard as it was, it was made harder by the media distorting what Bush's and Kerry's plans were.

Here's my attempt to summarize that distortion:

Bush's policy - Bush was never pushed to lay out his policy. Bush's actions did not seem compatible with his stated goals.

Kerry's policy - Kerry gave his plan in the primaries and in a major speech at NYU in September and in the debates - as well as on the campaign trail. Kerry's stated plans would have led to no permanent bases, international involvement, accelerated training (remember Kerry came back from Europe and the ME saying France, Germany, Egypt and Jordan were willing to train troops - and Condi was uninterested) and summit diplomacy. Kerry's 2004 plan reflected his stated goal - to stabilize Iraq and to get out.

The Bush administration immediately said that Kerry's plan was simply the Bush plan and that Kerry had no plan.

The media repeated - that there was NO DIFFERENCE and that Kerry had no ideas other than what Bush was doing.
- So, Bush, who did NOT lay out a plan, was credited with one that his opponent agreed with!
- Kerry was said to have no plan other than to do what Bush would do.
This distortion probably helped Bush more than the distortions on getting into the war. Much of this was deference to a President in time of war, but part was that the NYT and the WP were, at least in part, behind continuing the neo-con experiment. (This can be seen by their praise of Bush;s inaugural address where he openly spoke of spreading democracy - which of course was not what he said when he took the country to war.)

If you think this is sooo 2004, yesterday all the "experts" agreed with Matthews that the Democrats don't have a plan - in spite of the fact that 47 out of 49 voted for a Democratic resolution. (Sanders counted, Leiberman not - and Johnson excluded from both numbers - I assume had he been able to vote it would be 48 out of 50)

If, the war is not over in 2008, the issue will again be determined on what the candidates will do going forward - more than looking back. We need to fight this "Democrats have no plans" theme - no matter who the candidate is. As Kerry is not running, a smart place to start would be to challange CW that he did not offer a good alternative in 2004 - he did, he was very very often right and the ISG has pretty much validated his plans and strategies. Considering the circumstances and the unlevel playing field, he did a remarkable job - and he is a very strong voice now on what to do in Iraq.




;

[BeyondGeography]

17. The media isn't interested in the future and neither is the Republican Party

they're more interested in playing gotcha to destroy Democrats, and we must avoid presenting them with candidates that represent gift-wrapped propaganda solutions.

Here's the most important sentence you wrote: "The way it hurt at all was that the media conflated the vote with being pro-war and said that Kerry changed."

EXACTLY! And haven't we learned anything from that experience? Kerry gave a slew of intelligent speeches about Iraq, the manipulation of intelligence, not giving the inspections a chance, the fact that he was only voting to give * the authority to go to war as a last resort and none of it meant a thing with huge numbers of voters because he was perceived as having voted for the war in the first place. The media is to blame, yes, but so was Kerry for handing them the raw material of a pro-IWR vote so they could produce the finished good of a weak-willed politician.

[ProSense]

18. How is the media handling Obama and Clinton's vote against Kerry Feingold?

How are they handling the war of words between the two campaigns over that vote, and the rest?

The media tried to paint Kerry as the prone to misstatements based on a harmless and much over-hyped statement about his votes on two similar spending package. That was it really, before the RW smear last November.

By comparison, this campaign season has been one "gotcha" move after another by the media, fueled by missteps and misstatement by both Democrats and Republicans.

[karynnj]

19. The point was that the bigger problem

was that the MSM muddled Kerry's message of what should be done - and repeated the Republican message that the Democrats didn't have a plan. (though oddly a few months ago they recognized that the ISG plans were like Kerry's starting in 2004.)

With a fairer media, Kerry would have accomplished something never done in our history - defeated a war time President. He was only able to do that by convincing some of the "pro-war, but Kerry can handle it better people." In 2008, the focus is likely to be also on how to get out.

[BeyondGeography]

20. We agree on the media...as for the focus of next year's campaign

one never knows...back in March of 1987, Willie Horton and Snoopy in a Tank didn't look like they'd matter much in 1988.

[karynnj]

21. So, your point is what?

The RW and the media will charichachure ANY Democrat - Obama included. If you look at the polls, Kerry pretty much challanged the negative frames with the first debate. The fact of the matter was that he actually gave the Republicans very litte.

The SBVT got major media assist - but Kerry was a highly decorated war hero - and the stories for both his medals as good as you can get. (To dispell RW justification -He did NOT run on Vietnam, but his record did show his character - he also DID always mention after a VN comment returning to challange a war) With even the media of 2000, this campaign of lies with links to Bush would have backfired. Nothing Kerry did - other than offending the RW by being a genuine war hero instead of a draft dodger - led to this.

Kerry had a LONG public life without any political or financial scandals. The Democrats will be lucky to have a candidate as knowledgeble and defendable as Kerry. There was a good reason that he had a very easy win of the nomination.

[BeyondGeography]

22. I rate him as a slightly above average candidate, nothing more

A good man at heart, but often painfully slow to react to the competition. He had a legitimate chance, even with the media mess to contend with, and he lost.

When you take your blinders off, you might find why there was ZERO enthusiasm for a Kerry candidacy this time around. So Obama or whomever will be treated just as bad...that's a nice way for you to avoid owning up to the reality of Kerry's own weaknesses, and there were many.

[karynnj]

23. How do you then explain how he won the nomination?

Which he did with almost NO media or party support. The media pushed Dean, Clark and Edwards in lated 2003 through early 2004. A politician who gets the nomination of his party is more than "average". People like the Clintons had already written off 2004. In contrast, 2008 will not have an incumbent, the Republicans don't have a strong candidate and people are sick of the Republicans.

Obama is an outstanding orator (as is Kerry) and he has captured the imagination of many people. He has a huge amount of media support, which is great. You may want to remember that it was Kerry who gave Obama the spotlight he needed to become the superstar he is.

At this point, Obama has not been tested in a tough election. He had no real opposition in his Senate run, other than in the primaries. I think he has lost at least one election. I like Obama best of the top three, but worry that he really does not have the breath of experience and knowledge that Senator Kerry has and showed in the debates.

[BeyondGeography]

24. The thing about Kerry is he fights like a cornered rat when he's down

which is how he got the nomination...and how he survived in Viet Nam. That and the fact that he was the only candidate besides Clark with a military record, and we knew the RW would come after us on national security. But he also tends to get into his comfort zone and, next thing you know, he's out windsurfing while the RW is swiftboating him or mangling a stupid-ass joke about Bush. You have to admit, he is a lovable fuck-up sometimes.

Obama didn't need John Kerry's help to become a superstar (where's that coming from?) but I do think those two are compatible and they seem to get along well. Kerry does plan to endorse someone and I sincerely hope it's Barack.

[karynnj]

25. You have to be kidding - nice that you repeat RW slurs

Kerry windsurfed exactly ONCE during the general election for a few hours. It was during the Republican convention when Democratic candidates always lay low. The rest of the day he spent on debate preparation.

The fact of the matter is that this was a photo op that in other years would have worked. It showed a beautiful day, blue skies and sea, sparkling water, happy people (including Teresa) in the boat and a healthy, happy athletic candidate. It was good, clean exercise - and cheaper than golfing at a country club. The Republican ad was not even from this footage - but used a photo from a years old windsurfing article.

As to the joke - that was in 2006! In 3 years of intense scrutiny, Kerry had very few "jokes" or "gaffes". On a per month in the spotlight basis, Obama has him beat at this point. Kerry is a very serious person with nearly 4 decades of public service during which he has worked extremely hard, often on things that no one else wanted to do, but which were important - he was never someone who should be described as a "lovable fuckup".

You are out of your mind if you think that the key note speech was not what led to Obama's status. Very few people had heard of him before that. He was not even a shoo-in to be IL Senator in March 2004 when he got the nomination - in fact in late 2003, he was not even a shoo-in to get the Democratic nomination. (I was in Chicago the night of the primary with a Chicago couple who voted for Obama.)

Kerry has always had very kind positive things to say about Obama - as well as about Dodd and Biden. He has also made muted positive comments about Hillary and Edwards. I have NEVER read a single negative comment on any of the other candidates from Kerry.

I assume that he will endorse someone only if he feels one to be closer to his views of what should be done on Iraq and the environment.

[BeyondGeography]

26. See you on another post

I've got to let the Obama camp know it never could have happened without Big John. :rofl:

[karynnj]

27. I assume that the laugh will be on you

There has not been a single article on the rise of Obamamania that I have seen that didn't mention it. You obviously have a problem giving any credit to Senator Kerry, which shows a lack of graciousness - on your part, not Obama's. Clearly I disagree.

It is possible that over time Obama would have been seen as a superstar - but getting that speech was the key for being talked of for 2008. It was an incredible opportunity. How often does an Illinois State Senator (or even US Senator) get to speak to millions of involved Democrats unfiltered for that lkength of time.

Obama used that opportunity very well- had he not given such a great speech he wouldn't be considered.

[BeyondGeography]

29. I have complimented Kerry numerous times in this thread and all you

ever focus on is the criticism, even calling me a RW shill at one point. No, it is you who have a mental block against ANYTHING remotely critical of St. John. This mania extends to your claim that Kerry virtually made Obama what he is because he invited a young, attractive STAR to speak at his convention. Like he wouldn't have been pilloried if he didn't give one of the best speakers in the party a prime-time speech, and as if that speech didn't benefit Kerry's campaign and the media coverage of his convention in any way...c'mon.

[karynnj]

30. So wrong

I did not say you were a Republican shrill - I said you were repeating RW slurs - which you did - on windsurfing and your dismissal of Kerry as a "lovable fuckoff".

Kerry did pisk Obama because he saw the POTENTIAL. My point is that at the point Kerry picked him, he was NOT spoken of as he is now. Kerry did not MAKE him, but he did give him an enormous opportunity. Kerry COULD have chosen someone else - and he would not have been "pilloried" for it. (In fact, Dukakis was even pilloried for picking Clinton who did an awful job.)

Obama's speech did get very nice press - but Kerry's speech did as well. I said in several posts that the value of that opportunity was dependent on how Obama used it - and he used it very well.

[politicasista]

32. I like Obama, but you are hurting him more than helping him

by continuingly bashing Kerry just to promote Obama.

You are also not helping Obama by rehashing 2004, spouting RW talking points (i.e. windsurfing) and other childish attacks (i.e. lovable fuckoff) about Kerry after people call you out on them by pointing out the facts and the truth. It says more about you than it does Obama.


You have a right to support Obama, but leave Kerry and other Democrats out when you promote his platform.



JMHO

[BeyondGeography]

33. Thanks for the pointers, coach

Now I'd like to see all you brave Kerry kool-aid drinkers start a thread entitled: Obama's Rise Owed to Kerry's Generosity. Go on now.

And it was "lovable fuck-up," not "fuckoff."

Now back to my daytime reading, "While I Slept: How My Sterling War Record was Demolished in the Summer of 2004."

Here, so y'all can brush up on your history:

http://www.thehoya.com/news/111204/news6.cfm

Signed,

A realistic Kerry voter who drove dozens of people to the polls on election day 2004 so they could vote for John Kerry.

[ProSense]

28. Imagine another speaker at the Democratic convention, then

Obama gets elected to the Senate without the exposure of a national platform. Do you really think that he would have automatically been propelled to the national stage by his term in the Senate thus far?

[IndianaGreen]

8. As long as America covets the oil, and acts as a proxy for Israel

the war and occupation of Iraq will go on and on.

US should get out of the Middle East and cut its umbilical chord to Israel.

[TayTay]

15. Agreed, as Kerry said

it's not just about gun barrels, it about oil barrels.

This was the problem:

We must do everything possible to promote economic, social and political transformation in the Middle East, especially among Sunni Arabs. Nations like Jordan, Qatar and Bahrain are not only moving towards political freedom and pluralism, but they’re also trying to build real economies built on the talents of their own people rather than trying to simply pump prosperity out of the ground. Every move in that direction in this critical region should not only be praised, but it ought to be rewarded tangibly as a role model. And there’s no way to overemphasize the importance of ensuring that the Greater Middle East does not continue its long trajectory towards a region where an exploding young population collides with dysfunctional isolated economies, producing instability and, ultimately, more and more terrorism. Majority populations under the age of 18 without jobs or futures are a certain recipe for disaster.

So we must work with urgency with our allies in Europe and Asia to strengthen our commitment, to enhance our efforts to integrate the Middle East into the global economy. This is the only way to stop economic regression, spur investment beyond the oil industry, and spark trade, investment and growth in the region. And it’s the only way to turn young minds and energy away from terror.

Yeah, the oil based economy in the Middle East keeps tyrants in office, keeps the fires of religious based violence roiling and prevents real, organic democratic change from taking affect. Right now, everything the US says it wants to do with one hand, it pretty much sweeps away with the other. This has to change.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9390/real_security_in_a_post911_world.html

Word police: Yes, this has big words in it. However it was written for and delivered in front of a select audience of academics.

[blm]

13. The difference is that Kerry opposed Bush's DECISION to go to war and that remained

consistent. The corpmedia and many even on the left who wouldn't let that case be made are the ones who damaged the argument. They allowed Bush to get away with the IWR was a vote for war meme, which completely let Bush off the hook for his DECISION to go to war.

[Mass]

14. Can we afford a candidate who voted to confirm Rice?

How can he seriously criticize the person he voted for, and who is probably largely responsible for all this mess and 9/11.

I do not want to go there because I like Obama and he is certainly my favorite among the thre top candidates, but a lot of Obama's supporters seem unable to give good reasons to vote for him. Obama (contrarely to Kucinich) did not have to vote, and Kerry is not on the ballot, so what is your point?

[Clarkie1]

9. I believe Clark was the first to call for no permanent bases.

I could be wrong. In any case, what's important is that all Democrats unite against any permanent base there.

[AtomicKitten]

11. I hope he talks about this loud and often.

It really pisses me off that this subject is rarely, if ever, discussed in Washington.

[PresidentObama]

16. I'm sure he will.

He seemed forceful in setting the record straight where he stands. This is one of John's benefits not being a candidate, he can fight loud and proud on issues he's truly concerned with. I, too, hope he continues to discuss this issue.

[politicasista]

31. Kick

:kick: