Mistakes and Responsibilities
Four years ago today, the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. There’s nothing – nothing – in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution. It’s not enough to talk about the incompetence and immorality of this Administration in the conduct of this war. It is not enough to point out that we were grossly misled.
But it is also not enough just to look backwards. The question today is whether leaders will take responsibility for fixing a Katrina foreign policy that kills and maims our soldiers and weakens America in the fight against terror. We must change course in Iraq.
That’s why I have proposed a deadline for Iraq and a comprehensive plan to end the civil war. That’s why Russ Feingold and I forced a vote on it in the Senate. That’s why I keep on making the case wherever I go— today in Nevada.
My plan is the opposite of the administration’s stand-still-and-lose strategy. It’s pretty simple: every time President Bush tells the Iraqis we will “stay as long as it takes,” he is giving squabbling politicians there an excuse to take as long as they want.
<!-more->
At each step along the way, the Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines. So why not a deadline to extricate our troops?
We also desperately need something else this administration disdains: diplomacy. Real diplomacy—a Dayton-like summit of Iraq and the countries bordering it, the Arab League, NATO, and the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council. Guess what? That will only happen with a deadline to push and prod Iraqis and their neighbors to the bargaining table. Why would any other nation put itself on the line if the United States was willing to stay forever?
Today of all days, we should be having this debate, openly, honestly, and in a way that honors America’s troops and our best traditions. One of the things I feel most personally is that a Congress that shares responsibility for getting us into Iraq needs to take responsibility for getting us out the right way.
The truth is that America is imprisoned in a failed policy. And as in Vietnam, we’re being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. Well, that too is a lie.
Next time you’re here in Washington, take a moment to walk down to the Vietnam War Memorial, if you haven’t done it. As you walk down that path into the center of the V and you stand in the V, you can look up one end and you’ll see 1960 - earlier, 1959 - all the way through parts of 1968, and then the other side of the all brings us toward the end. And half the names on that wall, half the names - stand in the center of it and look up at tens of thousands of young Americans - half the names on that wall were lost after America’s leaders knew and later acknowledged our strategy would not succeed. It was immoral then and it is immoral now to be quiet or equivocal in the face of that kind of delusion. Just think about what that Wall might look like for Iraq. Mistakes are no excuse for their own perpetuation.
UPDATE: The Kerry-Feingold plan is available in the Initiatives section of the website.
Cross-posted at Huffington Post
60 Comments
New comments for this entry are closed.
Senator Kerry, please continue to speak out, America needs to hear our voices, all of our voices. We must all speak up, our DEM leaders must speak on the national stage and we must all speak up in our own communities.
OTV4D
Thank you and continue to speak out. We need to hear loud voices.
This is a wonderful post, Senator! One of the things I most admire about your public life is that you have never ever wavered in your dedication to the truth, to your vision of an honorable America, and in your absolute dedication to keeping our troops safe and out of harm’s way. Keep speaking out - more are listening every day!
Senator Kerry,
Thank you for your bold words and for continuing to challenge the Bush administration. Accepting responsibility for mistakes is something the republicans NEVER do. They just put the blame on others.
Thank you for being smart enough, strong enough and courageous enough to admit that you were wrong and to try to correct the mess we’ve made. You are a better man for that, than all the republicans put together would ever be.
Well said Senator Kerry. It’s not enough to criticize; it’s time for action.
Action on Kerry-Feingold is desperately needed!
Thank you!
Spoken like a true patriot, Sen. Kerry, and like a true President as well.
And we all know how much we’re really going to be needing both of those on November 8, 2008. I look forward to seeing you there.
from your lips to America’s ear,
Otter
There’s probably been nothing in Kerry’s career as misunderstood and incorrectly reported as his vote on the IWR.
“Four years ago today, the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.”
Note authority to use force. Kerry was also clear in his public statements at the time on the conditions under which force would be justified as a last resort, and Bush never met those conditions. Bush had also stated he would seek a diplomatic solution, and that a yes vote was not a vote to go to war. The Downing Street Memos clearly show Bush was lying to Kerry, to Congress, and to the American people. (References on Kerry’s position on the IWR here)
“I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution.”
This is not the first time Kerry has said this, however several times after Kerry stated he was wrong on the vote there has been media coverage stating other potential 2008 candidates, but not Kerry, had admitted their vote was wrong. Now Kerry is saying it again. How many times must Kerry say it before people realize Kerry has said this, and move on to what is going on now as opposed to fighting over past history?
speaking out….
via Froomkin, WaPo:
Helen Thomas speaks out on questioning the president:
Helen Thomas: “‘I respect the office of the presidency,’ [Thomas] says, ‘but I never worship at the shrines of our public servants. They owe us the truth. They owe us peace. America should never be a country that starts wars; Iraq has reminded Americans of that. We do not have the right to attack anyone we think is a potential enemy.
“‘The Washington press corps has the privilege of asking the president of the United States what he is doing and why,’ she continues. ‘We don’t go into journalism to be popular. It is our job to seek the truth and put constant pressure on our leaders until we get answers. We threw in the towel after 9/11. But I think—I hope—we’re more skeptical now. The press is coming out of its coma.’”
http://tinyurl.com/9gx78
or~
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Unfortunately, apologies do not extricate you and your fellow congressmen from you gross neglect in voting us into the Iraq debacle. When you voted, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were all in place. Their plan, their DPG, their Defense Planning Guidance was known since 1992. How could any informed representative not realize the dangers involved in voting these officials and their ideologies into the Iraq debacle?
An apology for gross negligence is not enough. We need to find statesmen who will not pander to the hegemonic policies of the United States - policies that have been pursued by both parties. We need the negligent to step aside.
’ My plan is the opposite of the administration’s stand-still-and-lose strategy. It’s pretty simple: every time President Bush tells the Iraqis we will “stay as long as it takes,” he is giving squabbling politicians there an excuse to take as long as they want.
At each step along the way, the Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines. So why not a deadline to extricate our troops? Read about my plan at http://blog.johnkerry.com.’
So, where is the verkachte plan?
For anyone who hasn’t seen the Kerry-Feingold plan:
http://www.johnkerry.com/initiatives/kerry_feingold/
Well said Mr. President(2008). I respect your courage to make a wrong, right and to step out on to the battle field and speak for all middle class America. I said it before the middle class needs a champion to fight for our cause and that Sir is you.
Keep up the the great work, lets win in 28 days, and the take the White House in 2008.
JOHN KERRY 2008! BANK ON IT!!!!
Shays on Foley handling: At least no one died
October 11, 2006
HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP)—Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker’s handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like during the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident involving Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.
“I know the speaker didn’t go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day,” the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday.
“Dennis Hastert didn’t kill anybody,” he added.
Shays’ comments recalled the Chappaquiddick incident, when Kennedy’s car ran off a Massachusetts bridge, killing his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy did not immediately report the tragedy, and he later pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident.
Last week, Kennedy campaigned for Democrat Diane Farrell, who is locked in a bitter fight with Shays that could help determine whether Democrats recapture the House after 12 years of GOP control.
“This is symptomatic of Chris losing his composure in a tight race,” Farrell said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. “Chris just seems to be lashing out in anger.”
Kennedy’s office had a terse response.
“This just makes clear the real need for change in November. Beyond that I’m not going to dignify such a desperate attack with a response,” said Kennedy spokeswoman Melissa Wagoner.
more ON…
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/shays.kennedy.ap/index.html
Thank you for your committement on this issue.
It is so great to see somebody who can actually talk about issues rather than repeating his own talking points.
Please run in 08.
C.S.E,
Being able to recognize his errors is one of the leading qualities leaders MUST have. All leaders make errors, even the best ones. If they cannot recognize they are wrong, this is a catastrophy.
“I know the Senator didn’t gloss over a scandal and leave a young person in danger, and then have a press conference the next day,” the small-d democratic Otter told blog.johnkerry.com in remarks published Wednesday.
“Dennis Hastert didn’t admit anything,” he added.
and you know darn well he never will unless his bluff is called this time,
Otter
So, discuss…
(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT.—For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing immediately, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.
I’d guess the generals will insist that 75K remain,
minimum. So about 50K can go elsewhere.
(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.—The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).
Right.
(3) MAINTENACE (sic) OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE.—The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
The 50K go to Kuwait.
(b) IRAQ SUMMIT.—The President should work with leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes these leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq ...
Right. Cleveland, anyone? Or Damascus. (See
David Lean’s memorable ‘Larence of Arabia’ before you decide.)
Doofus,
75,000 is not the minimal number of troops. Kerry and Feingold have made that clear. At some point earlier in the cycle, Kerry has spoken of 20 to 30,000 troops remaining in Iraq, so a drawdown of 100,000. I do not know if it is his current number, but I guess it is not far from there.
Redeployment was not Kuweit. Kerry has been calling for some of these troops to go to Afghanistan to reverse the mess that was made there. Other would come back to the States.
As for an international summit, are you one of these neocons who think the US should not discuss with anybody else but decide alone and make more ennemies?
Apology to Kuwait, and for the other typos.
CSE-
I do understand your frustration, but I’d hardly call Sen Kerry’s vote either gross neglect or pandering. He has stated that his vote was based on Colin Powell’s assurances and his understanding of the facts, not on the Bush admin or the PNAC (see Cobra II p130). At that time, I think Powell was considered trustworthy in most people’s estimation. The question I have is what did Powell know at the time? Was he victim or co-conspirator?
Sen Kerry articulated hs position prior to the IWR vote on the floor of the Senate. He clearly stated that all other options should be exhausted before any military action, that force should be a last resort. The IWR did not say “Let’s bomb the crap out of Iraq”. That was Bushco’s idea. When we shift blame to the Congress, we absolve the person who started this God-awful conflict. Iraq is Bush’s war, not Sen Kerry’s.
You know, if we eliminated from consideration everyone who has ever made a mistake, there would be no one left to serve in office. Obviously, there are a couple of very serious lessons here. One is that none of us should ever stop learning and correcting.
Sen Kerry is doing more than any other member of Congress to address Bush’s failures. For that, and for his service over the past years, he has my respect.
C.S.E.
Senator Kerry voted for a resolution which took very specific steps, you know like weapons inspections, diplomacy and lastly a show of force if all else FAILED.
The one who FAILED on this was Bush. This was Bush’s WAR. That vote meant nothing to him, it was forced upon him, by Congress, the American people and the world. You see vote or no vote Bush was bound and determined to mislead not only us but the world in this biggest foreign policy disaster in our history.
You know those 800 or more signing statements, well lo and behold guess what got attached to the IWR.
“and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President’s constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.”
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386
Senator Kerry is an honorable man, he is a statesman, and he thought he was doing what was right, he trusted a President of the U.S.A. to do his job and to not rush to war. Oh and by the way 70% or more I can’t remember its been so long, wanted that resolution, and not to rush to war.
The gross negligence belongs solely to Bush.
Doofus:
Go back to the Huffpost, your rhetoric fits in with the imbeciles over there.
fedup and Ron Chusid,
Thanks so much for your nice, clear, recap of the content of and rationale behind Sen. Kerry’s speech, and his vote, on the IWR. I wish these could be posted everywhere and every time I read a carping, whining comment on the blogs.
Another thing the carpers forget is this: at the time, not only did 70% + of the Senate vote for the IWR—in addition, at LEAST 70% , or more, of the American electorate, also supported the Iraq war at the time. ( I don’t have access to exact data, here, so I welcome correction, but , as I remember, the poll numbers were overwhelmingly supportive.) Easy for people not in Congress, or not up for election, or reelection, to say they would have voted against it, and all to easy to limit the assessment of a person’s actions to a narrow, simplistic measure of numbers of yes or no votes. Much more complicated when you’re out there on the front lines, casting your senatorial votes. At the time, Sen. Kerry tried to handle some of those complexities with a fine speech. It would be nice if the carpers would read that speech, and try to empathize with the difficulties of that vote in that climate. And it’s high time, as Ron said,for the carpers to move on, and start to give Sen. Kerry the credit he deserves for the sustained energy, courage, grit, focus, thoughtfulness and honor that he is now bringing in his fight to help us take back our country. Those too blinded by anger to
pay attention to these efforts are missing out on something important.
But what I don’t understand is why are Democrats like Feingold, maybe Boxer and Kennedy that voted against it say it was “the best vote” they ever cast? Even members of the Congressional Black Caucus are praised for voting against it.
I think Bush would have invaded without a vote. This is his war and it’s unfortunate the Democrats don’t repeat that very often.
I will ALWAYS have your back, sir. And so will all of your loyal supporters. We know you take full responisbility for your vote in 2002. You rock, sir.
You came through, man. Now everyone else needs to as well. Keep it up. You are beyond great and well-passed awesome.
Thanks for the great post, Senator Kerry, & am enjoying coming home from a long long work day & commute & reading all the responses. Thank you for opening up the blog right when we really need to rally & to stop Bush by regaining majorities in the Legislative branch. It is the only way.
One of the things I find the most inspiring here is that Senator Kerry is not afraid to recognize he was wrong and is ready to do what is necessary to repair the mistake (or at least stop it).
It shows a lot more integrity than continuing to say this vote was the right decision, or
We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution. It’s not enough to talk about the incompetence and immorality of this Administration in the conduct of this war. It is not enough to point out that we were grossly misled.
But it is also not enough just to look backwards.
This is what every person who voted for the IWR, and certainly at least every Democrat should say.
Indie Liberal,
They say it is their best vote for the same reason that JK says it is the vote he regrets the more.
It does not matter that Bush would have done the same thing with or without vote. They consider their vote was the right one.
But this is not enough to have made the right vote. It is also important to see who is a leader in trying to stop this mess. And Kerry has certainly been a leader on this issue.
I share your sentiments. I also give major kudos to Senator Kerry for recognizing that he made a mistake and that the IWR was wrong.
It’s just sad that close-minded people still use the vote as a litimus test against him and blame Dems instead of Bush who violated the IWR. Yet the ones that voted against it (i.e. Byrd) are lionized.
As I said, he would have invaded without a final vote regardless.
In looking at Kerry’s mistake it is important to realize that the mistake was not in supporting going to war, but in trusting Bush with the authority to go to war as a last resort.
Regardless of the vote, we know Kerry would not have gone to war under the circumstances in existence if he had been President at the time. That is far more important than the vote, which is why I was supported Kerry in 2004 despite disagreeing with his vote.
I disagreed with the vote, but I agreed with Kerry’s overall view of foreign policy and agreed with what he would do if he was President. That’s what really matters.
The vote itself was a typical Rove trap. It was set up in a way as to force Democrats to chose between too bad choices. As Kerry has said, the real answer was not yes or no—it was yes, but or no, but. . . I wish Kerry had voted no, but, however this one vote should not define either his position on Iraq or his entire career as it does for many people.
We saw what happened when Bush ran against a candidate who voted “yes”. They twisted it to claim Kerry supported Bush in going to war, and therefore labeled Kerry a flip flopper when he opposed the war. Regardless of the candidate, anyone who voted yes would have been labeled a flip flopper by the Republicans in the campaign.
In contrast, if the Democratic candidate was someone who voted no, they would have emphasized Bush’s pre-vote statements that the vote was not a vote to go to war, but a vote which meant that America stood together. (See my post above for link to references on this). They would claim that someone who voted no was so dovish that they would not even support military force if we were proven to be threatened by nuclear weapons from Iraq.
Ultimately the IWR was not a vote about whether to go to war. It was a Rove politcal trap to divide the Democrats and hurt Democrats regardless of how they voted. It is a shame that so many liberals fell for this trap and allowed it to divide them, with some continuing to attack Kerry based upon their misunderstanding of the vote.
Ron, that’s a very good point you make there. The vote itself was a trap; a lose/lose scenario for any Democrat who was going to run for president, no matter which way he might have voted. The passage of the vote was assured anyway.
That’s an excellent analysis, Ron. One might even suspect that you’ve had time to think some of this stuff through before dashing off a hasty, incoherent blog post like that one. *grin*
When that mangled mess of a beaten-down IWRbill finally made it to a floor vote it was already doomed to be a Hobson’s choice scenario. Rove’s side held all the face cards, and the blue team players were stuck between Iraq and a hard place. It was a sad case of Dem’d if they do, Dem’d if they don’t; but the Reposeurs were still gonna come out of it smelling like a rose either way.
Of course, the problems of two little parties doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in Rove’s crazy world. No matter how you slice it, everything that went wrong in Iraq, everything that went wrong at home, everything that went wrong in Foley’s page dorms, everything that’s going to go wrong between now and 1/20/09 was and is all Clinton’s fault.
And it doesn’t really matter *which* Clinton’s fault it is, either—could be Bill, could be Hillary, could be George, could even be DeWitt—just so there’s some kind of Clinton around that everything under the sun can be blamed on, that’s the only thing that counts.
And that means RoveCo is bound to be right every time—no matter what happens, everything is all Clinton’s fault.
Except for Clinton, of course. Clinton is all John Kerry’s fault.
you’ve done a heckuva job rovie but your number’s up now,
Otter
I still disagree. The IWR was what got the inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Without that, we never would have had the on the ground evidence that there weren’t WMD. That proved they had no honorable intentions regarding diplomacy at all. Voting for the IWR was the right thing to do. The wrong thing was letting Bush spin it as a vote for war just weeks after he insisted it wasn’t.
great posts, Ron and Otter! . . and Sandy. After even two minutes scanning the usual blogs, it’s such a relief to see these thoughtful posts. Thank you for your sanity and smarts.
Regarding an ‘over-the-horizon force’, it has always seemed that someplace near the action in Iraq would be necessary. Kuwait would be best, but it could be too close to the action. As to numbers, the lower you go, the more dangerous it is for those who remain. Iraq is a relatively large country, California-sized. Less than 75K would be
a dangerously low number, I would think. The trick will certainly be how to get troops out & keep those remaining safe. Regarding the conference, some may recall the Paris Peace Talks wherein the first couple of years were spent deciding the seating arrangements. Seriously, see how it was done in ‘Lawrence of Arabia’. No one can understand ‘Iraq’ without understanding ‘Lawrence’.
“Another thing the carpers forget is this: at the time, not only did 70% + of the Senate vote for the IWR—in addition, at LEAST 70% , or more, of the American electorate, also supported the Iraq war at the time.”
I have no idea about the percentage, nor does it even matter, anymore. But it certainly wasn’t even a majority in Massachusetts, and it wasn’t enough to persuade Ted Kennedy to vote for the ‘IWR’. Was Mr Kerry not representing Massachusetts at the time? The 70% figure, if meaningful at all, can only be the count of those ‘fooled all of the time’ plus those ‘fooled some of the time’. Sorry for all the ‘mean rhetoric’, kids.
The Bush administration straight after 911 wanted us to “move on ” and address the response .It didnt want an investigation into any of the plane crashes because it wanted us to believe ” we know what happened so there is no point “.
I would suggest that the american public is far from knowing the truth .The mainstream media may report everything the administration wants it to report and ignore glaring anomalies in the hope the majority of US citizens will lap it up blindly but there are some that need answers to glaring inaccuracies .
Rhetoric and eyewitness accounts can be manipulated ..What cannot be ,is video evidence that is inconsistent with a storyline .The problem with a cover up is that you cannot control everyone with a video camera and people have vcrs which record everything prior to being edited.
So to the questions ......
The administrations official line is that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon .Numerous video footage shows a 12-16 foot hole in the front of the building ( prior to firefighters bringing down the rest of the facade )
A Boeing 757 has over 100 feet of wingspan ..the engines which are about 10ft high and made almost of solid metal are 60 feet apart.These engines ..60 feet apart ..crashed into the building at say 300 miles per hour ..yet the engines didnt make a mark ..and the whole plane was somehow sucked into a 12-16 foot hole without damaging any of the surrounding front of the building .
This is what this government wants you to believe.To say this is ludicrous and a physical impossibility is the understatement of the year .
Then they say the plane melted into nothing ...Never in the history of any commercial plane crash has a plane melted into nothing ..why ? because metal melts at 2500f and a carbon based fire can only reach 1500f.
Witnesses report seeing a small white aircraft like a jet but with smaller wings ..making the sound of a jet travelling very low toward the Pentagon ..witnesses can be wrong ..but couple this with the physical evidence of the hole which is totally consistent with a missile ( it went thro 3 rings and left a perfect 6 foot hole in the end one ..a nose cone would have disintegrated way before ) and Donald Rumsfelds inadvertant mention of the word “missile ” in speaking about the events ( confused slip from an older gentleman ?? maybe ...but why was the word in his head associated with the topic?)..and you have overwhelming grounds to ask serious questions about the validity of the administrations position .
Question # 2 ...Flight 93 crashes into the ground after passengers struggled with terrorists on board ..The video footage shows a large 20 ft burning hole and an imprint of two wings either side ..This is the crash site ...The question ..if this plane nosed dived headlong into the ground ..which it would have to do to create two wing imprints…where is the wreckage ???????
Look at ANY commercial plane crash ...whether on land or sea ..Lets take Lockerbie Scotland ...wreckage was EVERYWHERE ...engines ...fusilage ...seats ..paper ..bodies ..YET at flight 93s crash site .....NOTHING .
Any aviation analyst will tell you that a commercial jet did not crash there…yet this administration want you to believe it did ..and that maybe it was sucked into the soft peat ...Soft peat at 300mph is like concrete ..softer is water and every crash on water leaves a large debris field .The administration also want to tell you that the engines were recovered miles away ??how ? if the plane nosedived causing the imprints how does a 4 tonne engine bounce a mile away ?? Obviously it doesnt.
Why are these questions not being asked ??? The power of the Government to destroy lives of those that want to question them is documented ...yet we are supposed to live in a democracy ..Is it democratic to live in a country where the government can concoct a lie and sacrifice its own citizens to further its own political agenda?
I post this in the hope that a new democratic government will address these issues ...launch an indepth investigation and prosecute those who knowingly conspire to kill innocent civilians ..
Enough dwelling on the past, already, Senator. As to the future, please sponsor a senate resolution that states categorically the pResident does NOT have authority to bomb Iraq unless he receives EXPLICIT authorization from Congress. Not only is it your constitutional responsibility, but it would allow you and your Democratic colleagues to actually stand for something.
In the blog “JK responds to Bush attack” Paul says:
“Sorry, John Kerry, but you will never get renominated, much less get elected President, no matter how many Democrats you campaign for. The American people already know your atrocious Senate record - huge cuts in intelligence spending and defense. Don’t forget you voted against funding our troops in Iraq and said that America must pass a “global test” to defend ourselves. Thank God it’s President Bush, a man with guts and a clear vision, who is leading our great nation instead of a waffling, weak-on-defense ultraliberal like you.”
Bravo, Paul! The more liberals like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry complain, the more we know that we are on the right track! Americans rejected John Kerry in 2004 and didn’t want him to be our president for good reason. Does he really think he has a chance in 2008? He’ll just lose to Hillary, who will also lose the 2008 presidential election to Giuliani or McCain.
Question for you, Mako. Why, since Paul posted in the other thread, did you respond here? Is it because his claims were refuted there, and you thought it would be a good idea to start again and have them debunked here as well?
It just seems a little odd to me that you would reply to a post in this thread from another.
Not only are you way off-base, but you’ve gone to the wrong ball field.
Thanks in advance for explaining.
Hey Moka,
Why are you here if you think that McCain has got it in the bag?
I see you are still very afraid of John Kerry. We here don’t need rhetoric from your side, we have facts and truth of 6 incompetent years by this administration and rubber stampers like McCain and Guilliani.
We here speak truth to power. Sir, the lights are going out on your side, get use to it.
Nov. 7th will dim those lights to a flicker.
Paul and Mako are two Bush-loving dimwits who know that their party is gonna lose big time in November. Ever since Bush, Cheney and all those other neocons ********** us into Iraq this country has seriously taken the turn for the worse. These guys don’t know anything about warfare. One was protecting Texas from the VietCong in the National Guard and the other got five draft deferments. Now our military is at a breaking point because they keep extending our troops’ tours of duty. No wmd’s, no Saddam-Al Qaida ties, this war is a waste in money and lives. Vote democrat if you want a change in Iraq (and if you want our children protected from perverted congressmen).
Fedup & GV:
Without regard to what Kerry said when he voted or what his intent was, or how he viewed what his vote would mean…he allowed the resolution to pass into the hands of men with published agendas with regard to Iraq. Any politically astute person would also have realized - given the majorities in both houses - that once this resolution passed there would be little he could do to stop it.
In any event, these men followed their DPG as many knew they would. Sen. Kerry was not one of those many. Many congressmen were misled, and they were misled easily as they were uninformed. The vote in question required due dilligence - not negligence.
Senator Nelson from Florida, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, actually believed the story he was fed that the east coast of the U.S. could be attacked by Iraq with only 45 minutes advance warning. He stated as such on national TV.
There is a fairly good article that sheds a rather accurate light on Powell, hence his being selected as Sec. of State.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1544.htm
Also, John Kerry made a speech on September 9 that has since disappeared from his site. The old URL he linked to was:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_09_09.html
Try finding that speech here now.
What appears now is not what was published on September 9. In the original post, Kerry made statements such as:
“we are in a fateful contest between forces of evil and hate and the defenders of progress and hope” and “there is no substitute for victory” - while also stating Americans should be told the truth ...the above sounds Rovian to some, and Rove always tells the truth, right?
“To avoid repeating the terrible mistakes of the past, we need to send significant reinforcements to Afghanistan: Start with at least five thousand additional American troops -more elite Special Forces troops, the best counter-insurgency units in the world; more civil affairs forces; and more experienced intelligence units. More predator drones to find the enemy, more helicopters to allow rapid deployments to confront them, and more heavy combat equipment to make sure we can crush the terrorists. And more reconstruction money so that the elected government in Kabul, helped by the United States, not the Taliban, helped by al Qaeda, rebuilds the new Afghanistan. That’s how you win the hearts and minds of the local population, that’s how you win a war on terror, that’s how you show the world the true face of America.” - this indicates we need much more military assets devoted to a war that conventional military tactics will not resolve. He does make some token mention of “more reconstruction money”, yet it appears he hadn’t thought that through quite yet.
I would actually like to see Kerry stand up an tell American’s the truth…and I wait.
The September 9, 2006 speech is on this web site.
Go to Multimedia, and click on Real Security, the second speech listed. It’s a fantastic speech that Kerry gave at Faneuil Hall to great applause and reviews.
I was lucky enough to see it. I sent the text to a WWII vet relative, mostly Republican. His comment was that it represented the best effort in a decade.
CSE:
Kerry’s words on Afghanistan are matched by actions in the Senate. He and Russ Feingold introduced a resolution calling for efforts like that in Afghanistan.
“WASHINGTON - September 29 - U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) has introduced a resolution calling for more resources to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a key staging ground for terrorists in our continued fight against al Qaeda, its affiliates and its sympathizers. Feingold, a thirteen-year member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is introducing the resolution to refocus attention on Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban has destabilized the country’s southern region, opium production levels have reached record levels, and violence is on the rise throughout the country. The resolution is cosponsored by Senator John Kerry (D-MA). “
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0929-04.htm
Karennj:
Thanks for directions to the video link.
The question is why would the transcripts from the speech be removed - particularly after his crossposts of the speech elsewhere - published 9/9/06 - refer the readers to the now defunct URL as I noted earlier?
CSE:
The transcript is still here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=12
For any speeches just bring down News and go to speeches.
CSE:
The speech is here; under the News tab, under speeches - then take Real Security.
or directly:
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=12
If you have time, watch the video, it was an awesome speech.
Karennj:
You owe me a coke. ;-)
Fedup,
You’re right - you beat me to it!
CSE - What’s the URL that referred you to the transcript on johnkerry.com?
TZI:
An original crosspost appeared on HuffPo at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/five-years-after-911-th_b_29042.html
At the time of the post, 9/9/06, the link then routed to a transcript that began just as the article linked above indicated.
A google search also routes to the newer URL.
and…thanks for the help Karennj and Fedup.
It is of the utmost importance that we have open debate and that Americans are told the truth - as the Senator states. Part of that debate must include the great potential of Afghanistan being as futile a venture as Iraq is now - militarily - as Sen. Kerry proposes. There must be truth in the debate over the effects Pakistan will have in the future of any aid to Afghanistan. To get a good feel of the potential problems - based upon our history and THE history with Pakistan and Afghanistan - I strongly suggest reading “Ghost Wars”, by Steven Coll. Very illuminating.
Thanks CSE
You and the Democratic Party have failed this country.
C.S.E
The site was remodeled a few days ago. It seems that they dropped a lot of things then.
I agree it is too bad, but I would not read too much in that.
C.S.E
I see you found the new link.
Thank you, Senator Kerry, for owning up to the mistake of trusting war powers to The Worst President Ever.
With a sane and ethical person in the White House, it would have made sense to give him the big stick to ensure Hussein’s compliance with international sanctions.
But not with this character. No way, no how.
Perhaps your colleagues who still haven’t repudiated those regrettable votes should read this (link suggested for 18 or older):
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/03/ok-dems-who-authorized-iraqi-war.html
Thanks FrenchGirlFromMA, Ron, Kerstin, mbk and others for the perspective on the IWR. I can use those arguments the next time someone says Kerry supported the war, when he never did.
This site is still invaluable as a record of Kerry’s position on the war.
This is a link to the overview page:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kvh/kerryoniraqwar/overview.html
One thing I would like the Senator and everyone else to know about the HuffPo is that if you dig deep into the blogs there you’ll find the same names that constantly have to slam every pol who takes his or her valuable time to post there. They never offer any alternative candidates, ideas, and they sure as hell don’t have the motivation to get involved in politics and try to fix the things they harp about. Their “job” is to sit in a chair and complain about what others are doing, just for the sake of it. Maybe they’re anarchists or maybe they’re GOP trolling as “dems” but I ignore their postings (here as well) unless they offer alternatives. I posted to this effect over there and miracuously after 2 days it has yet to be passed onto the site (??!!??).
As I’ve stated before, ignore the naysayers, and keep driving hard Senator. “I can feel the energy in this room, and it’s more than just a beer on a Tuesday afternoon.” Rock on Senator…...
Javelin:
HuffPo is not at all unbiased. It is also primarily a celebrity blog. And, you are correct in saying that many criticisms do not appear in commentary - or appear well after the post has left the front page.
Ignoring naysayers is not debate. If you support the Senator as you infer, then you surely must then
encourage debate as he does.
Claiming that the naysayers “never offer any alternative candidates, ideas, and they sure as hell don’t have the motivation to get involved in politics and try to fix the things they harp about” is nice rhetoric - however it is left unproven. It may well be the case that a good many of the people you refer to as naysayers offer alternative candidates, opinion and ideas, - how would you know if you admittedly ignore them. It may also well be that many of those you ignore are much more politically involved than you are. You have no idea or any way of knowing.
Your assessments are unfounded.