Interesting analysis of Kerry's position on Iraq

[ProSense]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1024274&mesg_id=1024274

[kerrygoddess]

1. Hayden has been very flattering

of JK of late and his views carry considerable weight with the anti-war community. In fact, he's sticking his neck out big time, because there has been nary a word from them on this. Hayden was rough on JK during the election cycle. I haven't had time to read through this thoroughly, but I breezed through a couple of times earlier and plan to post it on my blog. All I can say is great to see Hayden speaking out and may he continue to do so.

[TayTay]

2. I agree with you on this.

I have been busy the last couple of days and haven't had time to 'catch up' on everything yet. But this was important and a really interesting perspective on the antiwar movement and the need for a leader. (Yes, I do have one in mind, btw. LOL!)

[kerrygoddess]

3. I think we have the same leader in mind!

And what a leader he is!

[karynnj]

4. This was great, but I have an issue with one small

detail - why does he say that Kerry joins Feingold, Murtha and Edwards in calling for withdrawal. I can understand the first 2, but I think the only thing Edwards had was the WP editorial where he said he was wrong that had a quite vague plan that wasn't close to withdrawal - and it followed Kerry's well thought out October plan.

[JI7]

5. if he says that

then he is totally clueless.

[fedupinBushcountry]

6. The thing that gets me

is that Kerry always called for some type of withdrawal even in his campaign he said he wanted to start bringing home troops in the summer of 2005.

[sandnsea]

8. I stopped reading right there

If Murtha had joined with Kerry on the 20,000 by Christmas, and the remainder over the course of this year; we'd be way ahead of where we're at right now. And Feingold saying he wants the war to end is a far cry from saying how to make it happen. And Edwards??? I don't even know where that comes from.

I'm glad Hayden is saying nice things about Kerry, but this revisionism is just part of the lefty game because they just will not give that man credit for anything.

[karynnj]

19. To me,

This shows two things:

Edwards may be able to re-position himself as anti-war. This may be that he, rather than Hillary, is the candidate who inherited Clinton's slickness. Hayden did comment positively on Kerry's Oct 2005 plan, so he knew about it. To my knowledge, Edwards only had the WP op-ed where is plan was very vague and seemed closest to the Sept 04 K/E plan. He has made comments on a few national shows, but has dealt more with getting into the war, not getting out.

Hayden's feelings about Kerry seem rooted in the 60's. From his comment here:

"At a similar point of despair during the late Sixties, few of us could see the gathering storm of public outrage over war and Watergate that would drive Nixon from the White House and terminate the funding of war. Overnight, the storm finally broke, but it had been building for years. That memory still resides as a dream for one side of the Sixties generation and as a nightmare for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Just when the activists turned to rage, burnout or issues dearer to their lives, the great and mysterious force of public opinion was joining the movement to throw the bastards out for going too far, for lying too much, for wasting good money after bad and, above all, for encouraging Americans to die for no reason. That was the time that gave rise, unexpectedly, to John Kerry and the “Vietnam syndrome” that the establishment Machiavellians feared so much that they went to war one more time to try to stamp it out. “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all”, declared President Bush – fifteen years ago. Now the Syndrome is back, by God, and we should spread it everywhere, for today and for the future. "


Hayden seems to suggest here that the efforts of the anti-war movement built up and they were succeeding - even as they turned to rage. I doubt he has it in him to realize that he, as part of the Chicago 7, likely gave Nixon the election. Their rage did not win people over to being anti-war, they scared the country and let "Law and Order" Nixon win. He needs to listen to Halderman's private comments on the Nixon tapes. He was totally unconcerned about the "ugly" anti-war protesters. He was concerned about the handome, boy next door, war hero with a squeaky clean past who politely and eloquently laid out the case for leaving. The anti-war movement did not give raise to Kerry - as Judy Droz Keyes said, it was being in Vietnam and seeing what was really happening.

It may be that Hayden sees this as time when the antiwar movement again shifts from those who kept it alive to a more moderate leader who is part of the power elite - Kerry again. The 60s are likely the time Hayden is proudest of. That he sees that Kerry was positive in the 60s is probably as far as he can go, which is better than other radicals who seem to still harbor the same animousity towards Kerry they had in the 60s when they called him a hypocrite or "much worse" (as heard on the CSPAN archive video that Whome posted last week).

What's interesting is that he did not postulate anyone else as a possible contender for being the "moral leader". It may be that no one else has both the leadership skills, the charisma, or the history to do this.

[politicasista]

7. I remember reading

someone that attended the speech on Saturday that Kerry's position was "too right-wing." I have been hearing alot that he should have said this, that in 2004 so go figure.

[JI7]

10. yeah

Kerry was too right wing and they wanted someone more liberal, that's why they voted for George Bush.

[fedupinBushcountry]

11. Yeah

well that somebody took two words from that speech and twisted into his own way of thinking. If it is the same individual he didn't go to the speech he read it. Go figure.

Well I heard him talk about his antiwar activism many times during the campaign, to bad so many were listening to pundits instead of taking then time to listen to John Kerry. If they can talk all this crap on the internet then they know how to push a button on their remote control to have found Kerry speaking himself, and they just prove to me they were to lazy to go to the source of info at JohnKerry.com. o these I say shut up you have no idea what you are talking about.

[JohnKleeb]

13. too right wing?

I'd like that pot they're having. It wasn't really left wing or right wing. It was a history of why dissent is patriotic going back to Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800 yet another important election.

[politicasista]

14. It was someone that posted at....

KG's blog.

[JohnKleeb]

15. Oh well whatever the case

I fail to see how someone could see that speech as being too far right wing. I don't know about you guys but I loved the point about American history that our destiny is proven not by what we do but what we dissent against. Like the abolitionists of the 1800's, the early labor movement, and the civil rights movement in the 60's.

[ProSense]

18. There was a

troll over there KG was slapping down big time. The little troll gave up and went to bed.

[karynnj]

20. I think the people who say that

maybe only talk to people who are very similar to themselves. If they are saying Kerry was "too right wing" on Saturday they are themselves far far from center.

Overall, the speech was very very very well received by the crowd - there were many standing ovations and at the end people stayed standing and clapping till Kerry exited the building. I've never seen that before.

In 2004, Kerry said what he would do - and it was a plan that would have led to many troops already being withdrawn and those remaining being in a totally different mission. At this point, they would be working with the Iraqis and doing the reconsruction needed. In 2004, the percent who said leave now or even leave soon was far less than 40%. Kerry would have lost in a landslide. (and many lefty freepers would have preferred a landslide loss with an "Out Now" message.)

[JI7]

9. Kerry was a far more effective anti war protestor than Hayden was

Hayden is partly responsible for Nixon's re-election which resulted in Dems being viewed as weak on national security. all of htis gave rise to Reagan and to what we have now.

Kerry on the other hand cared more about actually ending the war. he was able to debate issues, stand one on one with those much older and more experienced on military affairs and foreign policy.

[JohnKleeb]

12. That was an important election

It was not the end of the New Deal Coalition but it was the beginning of the end. Ironic isn't that our party is perceived as weak on defense when we were the ones who were more internationalist on the second world war. Hell when it comes to that war I would have supported the US getting involved sooner.

[JI7]

16. i also don't like the attacks LBJ gets from some in the party

they don't just criticize him on Vietnam. they just make him out to be some horrible guy who did no good.

what he did for civil rights, the poor, etc was so great in itself that he deserves recognition for this. it shouldn't be brushed aside as if it wasn't anything.

[JohnKleeb]

17. Neither do I

It's a shame that Vietnam ruined LBJ's legacy however I think it will be restored when the boomers lose their influence. LBJ really was a great guy yes he had flaws. What really gets me is when people diss Truman for the Korean War. Now I am not gonna argue that all our Cold War era police actions were correct but what the hell would they expect Truman to do? North Korea invaded South Korea which was a US ally what was he supposed to do let them invade it and have a Communist regime that near Japan? LBJ back on topic did a lot of great things for this country. It's ironic for me sicne I got a lot of love for LBJ and RFK though they hated each other.