No way to say this nicely. Feingold beat Kerry to the punch.

[beachmom]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/24/63138/2815

The letter seems pretty general, but somebody said that they called Feingold's office, and he strongly opposes the bill. Damnit all!!! Why didn't Kerry speak out against the damned bill? Feingold will be the hero for this one, I guess. I wish it had been Kerry.

That statement of Kerry's against the Intelligence report was good, but why didn't he come out strong and fast against the original torture bill AND the "compromise" torture bill?

I did give this person a hard time shown below, but my arguments were for Rep. Bobby Scott, not John Kerry, except on the censure motion:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/9/24/63138/2815/12#c12

[ProSense]

1. Why would this reflect badly on Kerry?

This is a statement like any of the many statements Kerry has made about the unconstitutionality of Bush's policies. Feingold's letter speaks to that and specifically to FISA. Bush and torture is not about censure, it's about war crimes.

Frankly, this was a much stronger indictment:

Forget Jack Bauer
Insure CIA agents against a reckless administration, not terrorists' lawsuits or my subpoenas.

BY JOHN KERRY
Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Your Sept. 12 editorial "Jack Bauer Insurance" was a disservice not to me or to fictional characters like Jack Bauer, but to the very real CIA agents whose commitment to the truth didn't fit the administration's neoconservative agenda on Iraq, and to agents endangered by reckless administration policies.

It's been reported that CIA officers refused to be trained in the administration's controversial interrogation techniques, and in at least one instance these techniques yielded questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators. The Supreme Court, not Democrats, ruled administration detainee policies out of bounds, and it was the outrage of Republican senators that forced the administration to apply the Geneva Convention to enemy prisoners in order to best protect captured Americans.

Iraq has been an endless abuse of the CIA. CIA operative Tyler Drumheller said top White House officials simply brushed off the warning that "reliable intelligence" suggested Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, saying they were "no longer interested" in intelligence. Former CIA operative Paul Pillar wrote that "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made."

Former CIA case officer Jim Marcinkowski argued the Valerie Plame leak hurt "the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince an overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance." Former CIA agent Larry Johnson, a registered Republican, said it "speaks volumes" that President Bush held no one accountable for the leak of an agent's identity. Forgotten is President George H.W. Bush's admonition that those who expose our agents are "the most insidious of traitors." CIA officers don't need Jack Bauer insurance--they need insurance against the recklessness of this administration.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008939

Also, Kerry speaks directly to torture here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2843958&mesg_id=2843958

[beachmom]

4. So are you telling me that the dKos Kids are biased against Kerry

and for Feingold? Tell me it ain't so.

Thanks for the links. I'll put them in the comments. As I just told Whometense, perhaps the bloggers over there have embellished this thing a bit, acting like Feingold has called for a filibuster, when upon further reading, he really hasn't.

[ProSense]

7. LOL!

"Tell me it ain't so."

There are some serious leaps being made over there!

[whometense]

2. beachmom,

Please don't take this the wrong way - I admire your fervor, and do not for a second doubt that this sort of criticism comes only from a deep desire to see Kerry respected and understood as he deserves.

But I imagine (not that I know this for a fact) that Kerry has his reasons for what he is doing. No one can honestly question his courage, and he has said in no uncertain terms, over and over, that torture is not acceptable. Period.

So maybe there's a plan afoot, and they're not ready to talk about it yet. I have no idea. But I doubt his silence at the present time is an accident.

[beachmom]

3. I know, Whometense. I may be WAY off base here.

I don't have nearly a fraction of the smarts or knowledge of how this whole thing works. Maybe these dingbats at dKos are trying to TURN Feingold into a hero for something he hasn't quite done. They took his letter and turned into a call for a filibuster for which their guy will lead. That just made me mad!

So forgive me, if I am jumping the gun here. But if you read their comments, I just feel like they should be the things said about Kerry much more so than Feingold.

[whometense]

5. I can't argue with you there.

But, and I say this after having gone through the 2000 primary wars on Kos, a lot of people there just have closed minds. You can lay out the facts, argue, beat them solidly in every way, and STILL they'll go back to giving anyone credit if there name is not Kerry.

I was frankly amused last week when they were touting Clark for something they imagined he would have said under the same circumstances.

All you can do with those people is let them know that people are watching, and that not everyone agrees with their view of events. And you really need to take breaks from DU (except for us ;-)) and Kos. In 2000 they had me half crazy with Dean, Dean, Dean, and look how well that turned out for them. The function of an echo chamber. Luckily for all of us, there are still voters who actually listen to the candidates and make their decisions on that basis.

[sandnsea]

6. I don't know what is going on

I find it absolutely mystifying that NOT ONE Democrat has said anything directly about this bill. I don't care what somebody said Feingold's office has said; until he comes out with a statement, I consider him silent on the matter.

I would encourage everybody who has a connection to the Kerry office to use it, politely of course (yes I know how to do that), and express our strong concern that this is a defining moment in our nation's history.

[beachmom]

8. I think it has to do with the complex nature of the bill

Nobody can figure the damned thing out. But the blogs are definitely on high alert. Somebody, ANYBODY, please say something.

[beachmom]

9. **Too late to change original post **

I am wrong. Feingold has NOT stepped up to the plate, and the Kossaks are creating something that hasn't happened.

But there are over 1,000 votes on dKos for a filibuster, so I think everyone's opinion on this is clear.

I apologize for my hasty post, and not getting it right.

[beachmom]

10. I just gave it to them.

To hell with their "Feingold stands alone" BS. They tricked me, but now I'm onto them:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/9/24/63138/2815/168#c168


PS -- Whometense -- you're right. I DO need to take a break from Kos and DU - GD.

[WildEyedLiberal]

11. Argh I've lost TU status again

I hate DKos. You lose TU status if you don't live your entire life at that stupid blog and post daily. I can hardly stand wading through their bile on a weekly basis, let alone daily.

Spending too much time in Kos or GD is like trekking through a tropical jungle; you spend so much time swatting mosquitos away, but eventually one is going to bite you and give you malaria, and then you become ill and have to leave for safer ground before the disease takes your sanity.

[beachmom]

13. I guess I need a mosquito net! Anybody who needs to be TR'd?

I didn't find anything terribly offensive, just stupid, and false fawning all over an LTE that stated nothing new.

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. No, I didn't read the thread, no TR's needed that I know of

I was basically just bitching about losing my TU status because I think the way that DKos arbitrarily forces you to post there all the time or else lose it is pathetic. I hope I don't see anyone who deserves a troll rating because nothing pisses me off more at that site than seeing a complete asshole and being unable to trollrate.

[cadmium]

14. Who's first

How much does it matter who is first? That is political silliness and I think should be treated as such when dealing with syncophants. I do hope JK takes the right position on the torture proposals before the Senate.

[wisteria]

12. I am going to slightly disagree here and take a wait and see attitude.

Senator Specter is bringing this up in the Judiciary Committee on Monday, because he has issues with the habeas corpus portion of the new agreement. (don't ask me to explain just what)
As for a filibuster, I am not entirely convenced that is the right course right now. And for the Kos crowd and their Feingold worship, well I would bet it is way overblown, and amounts to nothing more than Feingold saying he dislikes the agreement. I said it before, the Dem's have to be united in opposition for this to work. The republicans have said that even if one Dem goes against it, they intend on using it against the whole party to demonstrate they are weak on terror. he signals I've gotten from Democrat's who have been asked about this is, they are not entirely happy with what was negotiated, but that it was better than what Bush had originally wanted.

[beachmom]

15. Well it's a terrible bill. Even Andrew Sullivan has come out against it

He said at least wait until the next session, because it essentially allows torture by making Bush (!) the enforcer of the law, which means there will be no enforcement of the law.

I don't see this bill passing next week, however. It's too complex. But if it came to a vote, then it should be stopped. Otherwise, most of the terrible things done at Abu Ghraib will not only continue, but will with the tacit approval of the Congress.

Where I admit that I don't know is what is the best political strategy on this.

[wisteria]

17. I realize it is a bad bill, that is why I am hoping that Specter stalls

it long enough to not have it taken up for discussion and passage until after the election. Sullivan may not like the bill, but he is no friend to Democrats and it wouldn't bother him in the least if a filibuster over this did damaged to our election chances. Oh, sure he may say we did the right thing, even though we would lose, but would he vote for a Democrat because they opposed this agreement? My guess would be no. I think, if we do well in the upcoming elections, we will have more leverage to get something closer to what we want. We are talking less that two months to possibly changing the outlook and direction in Washington.

[beachmom]

18. Well, he did endorse Kerry for '04, and is urging everyone

to vote Democratic this November. Is he a long term friend to the Democrats? No. But he has been an early voice against the torture, so I actually do trust his judgment narrowly on this issue. Of course, he did a wonderful tap dance to make it seem that the compromise's flaws weren't McCain's fault, which is to be expected. He will remain permanently blind on McCain, Kerry, and the Democrats, in general. However, he does sometimes get things right, and this is one of them. That is subject to change, but I'm getting to the point where I know when to trust him or myself, and on this issue it is clear that this bill, if passed, would mark an ominous turn in our history.

I agree with you, though, that this thing might get stalled, so there will be no need to filibuster.

[sandnsea]

20. The habeas corpus part is where to fight

That and the expanded Executive Authority. If we make this about hundreds year old human rights and our Constitutional tradition, they can't even bring weak on terror into it. John Edwards actually said it right today - When the US doesn't lead, nobody leads. We didn't used to be the country of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, we need a change in leadership.

[karynnj]

19. Dkos is making way too much of the Feingold letter

I've read it twice - thinking I'm missing something. I agree totally with it, but absolutely don't see this as a major effort. Feingold has always had censure and constitutional issues as an area where he is really really strong.

For the torture/illegal prisons issue, Kerry'e WSJ article you posted is far more relevent. Consider the excellent letter written before the compromise you posted here:

It’s been reported that CIA officers refused to be trained in the administration’s controversial interrogation techniques, and in at least one instance these techniques yielded questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators. The Supreme Court, not Democrats, ruled administration detainee policies out of bounds, and it was the outrage of Republican senators that forced the administration to apply the Geneva Convention to enemy prisoners in order to best protect captured Americans.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008939

OT: Beachmom, I used your big torture post as part of an answer to Kerry not speaking on torture.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2526143&mesg_id=2527460

[TayTay]

21. I am waiting a bit on this.

I went back and reread some of the 1971 testimony when outrage over America not ob serving the Geneva Conventions was still so raw and fresh. I found these words

We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything.

I feel funny preaching action to someone who actually knows something about the Geneva conventions, their use in wartime and about torture of prisoners of war. I feel funny asking someone who actually knows something about this stuff to hurry up and comment, lest the political advantage go to someone else. I can't do it. I can't say to someone who once risked everything for the moral principle that there are some things a nation can't do, even in wartime, to hurry up and make a statement because I want to beat 'the other guy' to the press conference.

I'm sorry, but I have heard enough moments of conscience from Senator Kerry this year to know that what he is saying is genuine concern, based on hard-earned experience. I want to hear the moral voice on this. I want it to be well-thought out because this issue goes to the core of who Americans are as a people and who we want to be. I don't give a damn who gets political coverage for this, I give a damn about who wants America to be 'made right.'

Do you guys remember the acceptance speech that Sen. Kerry made in Boston for the Democratic nomination. Do you remember the flags and the military salute and so forth. This issue is the more dangerous and conscience-invoking other side of that speech. I want it to be heart-felt and to carry the weight of thought and conscience. That means more to me than who was first to say something. I think Kerry has the moral authority to speak to this. Nobody can take that away from him.

[beachmom]

22. Your points are well taken.

I've decided to take the advice I gave the Feingold fans -- to take a deep breath, and realize this is the Senate after all, and the bill isn't even on the floor. The blogosphere has not sped up the Senate -- it's still a slow deliberative body. And this bill is really complicated; everyone is having trouble with it.

So I promise to be quiet about this for a while. Yeah, I was only 3 years old when he spoke out against the war, so a little patience, humbleness and grace would do me good in regards to someone of such high stature.

Thanks for that amazing quote, Tay.

[TayTay]

25. The moral question haunts me here.

It haunted me when I saw that speech back in April and again at the speech in June at Take Back America and again at Faneuil Hall just two weeks ago. According to Senator Kerry, this war is not just wrong, it is immoral. (I heard him say that myself, in person, all three times. That means something.)

I have heard other people speak on this issue. I have heard veterans of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict speak about what is going so horribly wrong over there. I have heard people talk about the moral slide that America is taking and how our ability to function as an honorable nation in the world community is at stake. I mean, come on, as a reader of blogs, I am hyper-alert to this stuff.

Yet, no one else is saying this quite in the same way. The war is not just an accountants error, not just the loss of billions of dollars and equipment and so forth. It is not just the heartbreaking loss of troops and Iraqi lives and the devastating wounds that people are coming back and having to live with. It is all of those things, all those things that you can hold hearings on and put down in a ledger and pretend to assess calmly and make 'statements' on.

It is immoral. It is an action that damages the soul of the nation and the longer it goes on the worse the damage to our national moral character and our ability to stand for human rights in the world community. It is immoral. It is a tragedy that steals something precious from us each day that it goes on. It is immoral. This Administration wants the unspeakable 'right' to torture prisoners in the name of a supposed 'higher good' of stopping terrorism. That is symptom of the rot in this Administration that starts at the very top.

The war in Iraq is an immoral war. You know, I remember Kerry taking all the heat and being the focus of the debate in June for the Republicans who, with few exceptions, were only too glad to lambaste him for his stand. He took the abuse, he took the ridicule and the threats that he would be painted as unpatriotic and soft on terror because, OMG, this is an immoral war. There was a speech made on the Senate floor around that time in which Kerry said something like, "I am not going to be a US Senator who allows this to happen." He could not, in full conscience, let this go by without speaking out. It is, after all, immoral.

Oh my God, don't you get the immense implications of that statement? I think the speech at Pepperdine came at this point for a reason and maybe could not have been delivered before this April and the speeches that preceded it this year. There isn't a day that has gone by that I haven't opened the newspaper or read a blog post about Iraq where those words haven't echoed in my head. It is immoral. Or those chilling words about the last war that was immoral and how they connect.

"Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion."

Yeah, I can wait a bit to hear about this. But only because I have been hearing about it all year. AFter all you know, some people believe it's not just wrong, but damaging to our souls. It is immoral.

[sandnsea]

23. Specter has made a statement

He's unhappy with the habeas part, so maybe between him taking that lead and the silence from the Dems, this will just get bottled up in committee until Friday and be put off until after the election. I would be fine with that.

When I mentioned above that I would like to see the Senator oppose this bill, I meant because I assume he has kept up with the bill and already knows where he stands personally. I'm still presuming, at this point in time, that the debate between Dems this weekend is how to handle this politcally and that all Dems have agreed to be silent until that's decided.

I think we can be certain as to how serious this is by the fact that NONE of them have said anything at all - and that's stunning in and of itself.

[karynnj]

24. I agree

The intensity of his voice - answering the torture question when he said something like "My God, How can the US consider changing the Geneva Conventions .... made it clear that this is not a political issue.

I agree that it is Kerry who has the moral authority to do this. I also think it is dangerous and will be distorted, especially by a media that would gladly use McCain as cover to say the compromise is good - when they know it isn't. (McCain seemed to say that he doesn't know which things would be allowed - how do you have a compromise when you don't even know what you are agreeing to.

The media constantly speaks of McCain's credibility on this. He was a POW, he was tortured - he understands what torture is. But as to honoring international law, consider he flew to Boston to try to help Kerry's opponent in 1984, because Kerry spoke out in 1971. Clearly by 1984, he showed that captivity didn't make him against the US's trangressions. he hadn't even changed his opinion by 2004 - though he liked Kerry.

I also think that after the slease of Bush's 8 years, morality and anti-corruption plus having been right on every foreign policy statement in 2004 could look really good.

[ginnyinWI]

26. I listened to McCain on Face the Nation today,

and I couldn't figure out what the hell he was talking about. He was incomprehensible, trying to answer questions without saying anything unequivocally. He comes off as insincere, and seemingly without much of a moral compass. I'd pay good money to see a JK-McCain debate, especially on matters of foreign policy!


As for the Dem's silence on this--I think something is coming, and that the Dems are being unusually united and disciplined on this subject. Usually when we all start saying, "where is JK on this?" , soon after we see something big.