Newsweek - John Kerry's Fulbright Moment

[karynnj]

At one point Fulbright said that if lawmakers fail to weigh in “about matters as important as declaring war,” then “I do not see how we have any real function.” Not taking a stand, he said, would mean “we are just a useless appendix on the governmental structure.”

There, perhaps, is the most applicable lesson from the documents. There would be a certain elegant historical symmetry if Kerry, who testified before the committee in 1971, were to convene a public-policy review of the war in Afghanistan. Kerry has already held 11 hearings, issued a lengthy report, and has a report on corruption and threat finance pending. Counterinsurgency will also be discussed in hearings scheduled for the week of July 26. But just as Fulbright did not find his opening until 1971, Kerry may be only beginning to find his own.

The obstacles are clear, and real. “As you know, it’s never been more difficult to achieve a level of public concentration to sustain a debate—and facts and truth have never had so little apparent role to play in any debate,” Kerry said. All true. But isn’t it worth trying in any event?

I asked if he had considered reprising the Fulbright role. “I have never thought about it in those terms,” he said. There was a pause. “Part of the reason that would be practically difficult is the speed with which things move” and a fragmented culture’s short attention span. He went on: “But we do have the obligation to explore these issues in public. Part of what I bring to the chair is the awareness, a very real awareness, of my culpability if we were to fail to ask the right questions.” If anyone can do this, John Kerry can. Here’s hoping he will.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/16/john-kerry-s-fulbright-moment.html

I would suggest that Kerry last fall already made a very strong effort to ask the right questions - he had four excellent hearings that did ask many of the right questions. Those questions - and the answers he reached led to his concern that there was not enough presence of "good enough governance" and Afghan security to take over as needed under McChrystal's plan. Judging from the current situation in Majah, his concerns were - unfortunately - completely on target.

I think Meacham needs to watch the fall SFRC hearings and he will see that he should have ended that Kerry "should continue to" rather than he "will" - because it is what he has been doing all along. (But Meacham seemed more interested in putting a religion story on at least one Newsweek a month in 2004 than in covering Kerry, so this is an improvement.)

[wisteria]

1. It is good to see Sen. Kerry get some recognition that is well deserved. n/t

[Inuca]

2. Thanks for the link

Also great comment on the Newsweek page. There are two more comments more recent than yours, one vile, and one worth quoting, typos notwithstanding:

Oh sure, make fun of a man who has devoted his life to public service souly on the issue of his party affiliation and his liberal point of view. You should be ashamed of yourselves. This man was a war hero and a very successful legislator as well as a strong representative of our governmeny. Not the Tea Party which is not government, just a loose gathering of angry, misinformed, older, Republican yahoos. You aren't fit to lick his boots.

Also, the last sentence that you quoted (" a very real awareness, of my culpability if we were to fail to ask the right questions") is pure gold Kerry.

[karynnj]

3. That is a great comment

(Souly is kind of interesting - in a comment where "soul" does have some bearing.

The quote does seem to be pure gold Kerry - whether 1971, whether 2006 reaffirming 1971, last year in what he made a huge, public effort to do, and now. I am very glad to see it - and to hear his questions and comments in this hearing. I had wondered if his unique position as a very trusted, heard ally of Obama's might mean that he would be publicly quiet. This is the answer.

Rethinking the hearing, Holbrooke's repeated, almost extravagant personal praise of Kerry is interesting. As, in all cases it was deserved, it could be sincere, but last year Holbrooke kind of downplayed Kerry's success with Karzai - possibly because Kerry succeeded where he and his boss had failed. It could be respect for what has proven to be exceptional work, a reflection of the administration's respect or it could be a subtle way to try to use flattery to co-opt Kerry. From Kerry's pointed questions on Khandihar, it didn't work - Kerry is doing his job raising extremely tough questions.

(I posted this in DU - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x376832)

There is also a typical snarky Commondreams piece by Medea Benjamin that completely distorts the hearing - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x377086 - she completely misinterprets Kerry's comment that essentially said that ultimately it's up to the Afghans as "imperialist"