Talking to Larry
JK had a chance to talk with Larry King last night on CNN. He addressed some of the issues that have us all shaking our heads the last few days. He reminded us that he’s been saying the same thing about a plan that will really work in Iraq for 3 years now.
Larry started with a question about the Iraqi prime minister who just a short time earlier had cancelled his first summit meeting with Bush. JK responded:
KERRY: I think that all of the politicians in Iraq are using the American presence as an excuse, Larry, not to take on the responsibility they need to, which is why I have said for three years now that this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time and particularly within the last year that we need to be clearer about a date by which they will assume the responsibility.
In the absence of a date, they have an excuse to simply continue to dawdle and procrastinate as long as they want. I don’t think one young American soldier ought to be killed because Iraqi politicians are unwilling to compromise in order to assume responsibility for their own country.
There’s more plain speaking where that came from and you can read the transcript or watch it.
Want to see more?
Look for JK on the following shows today:
-- Interview with Rita Cosby - live on MSNBC tomorrow afternoon with Rita Cosby sometime between 12:45 - 1:05 pm.-- The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer — CNN (airs at 4 pm and 7 pm EST)-- Interview with Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes - Fox News (airs at 9 pm EST)Come back and tell us what happened.
Update: Transcripts and videos now available
Interview with Rita Cosby – transcript – video
Interview with Wolf Blitzer – transcript – video
Interview with Alan Colmes – transcript – video
34 Comments
New comments for this entry are closed.
Thanks for posting the video. Great interview! At least Larry King let John Kerry talk about the important issues and doesn’t interrupt him all the time like this Fox guy did. After three years following American politics it’s still beyond me how the media can waste their time talking about such stupid things instead of serious politics. I’m looking forward to hear more from JK on these shows today, as I guess that you will later have the videos as well. It’s good that Kerry is out there telling it like it is.
I missed the beginning of JK’s interview with Rita Cosby, but from what I saw, he did very well. Talked about Iraq, and the importance of diplomacy with the neighboring countries. Rita was surprisingly fair, and only asked once about the inevitable poll/joke business. Again, just as he did with Larry King, John Kerry handled the question deftly and steered Rita right back to what is really relevant.
When pressed about a date concerning his decision whether to run, he said; ‘ I will decide sometime after the turn of the year. I can’t tell you precisely when. I think because we’re now in charge of Congress, things get pushed back a little bit but I will decide it when the moment is right.
Thank you again, Senator Kerry. You did well.
I’m reading some good things said by Sen. Kerry about the Iraq War and calling for “adult leadership”. It’s just great to hear his voice again on Iraq—the “joke” stuff is getting old, and Iraq is, yet again, superceding everything else as it should. The talking heads on TV are realizing that beating a dead horse is foolish, and are asking Senator Kerry about the real stuff—Iraq. This a very good change to the cable landscape.
Yes. The Wolf Blitzer interview was detailed enough and at-length enough to really give the Senator a chance to develop his positions for the viewers. I thought he came across especially well in this one.
And since the Blitzer interviews are taped in advance, the rush transcript of this afternoon’s interview is already available on line—if not on CNN’s own site yet, then here:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/11/kerry_to_cnn_to.html#more
hey maybe we can talk this guy into running for president or something,
Otter
Otter, thank you so much for that link! I saw the interview and I thought the Senator did extremely well. Looking forward to to passing the transcript around.
I was especially impressed with this exhange:
I stole this link from Whometense. Looks like whome will have to come here to beat me up for stealing this great link!
http://upper-left.blogspot.com/2006_11_26_upper-left_archive.html#116487463135228310
I’ve snipped and cut like a bad hair-do. So click the link and read the whole thing.
There’s so much more at the link itself.
Posted by democrafty | November 30, 2006 4:59 PM
That type of comment shows exactly why John Kerry will be whatever he chooses to be within the Democratic party.
He may be a diplomat or Secretary of State or he could replace Bolton at the U.N. And of course he’d be a great President to.
We may like to think the US can swagger around town like the bully on the block, but everyone knows you get more bees with honey than with vinegar. And bullies are definitely full of vinegar!
Furthermore, with the Middle East exploding (imploding) and the world not trusting us and with our status across the globe lower than it’s ever been, we need more of John Kerry’s diplomacy and intelligence.
~~~
Posted by Tia | November 30, 2006 6:02 PM
As far as the last post goes…
I’m quite disappointed in the Democratic party’s reaction to the swiftboating as a whole. They ditched him in 04 and they did it again in 08. Americans are tired of self-serving primping before cameras. Instead, they want politicians to stop the politics and start thinking about our needs!
Maybe I’m not listening hard enough, but so far there are few in the Democratic party who ‘get it’. My list includes: Dean, Webb, Lamont, Murtha.. (Not sure who else. Feel free to add to it or correct me if I’m wrong.) Either way, JK was the first to defend Murtha and has been extremely vocal in his defense of our vets.
Good to have some straight talk on Iraq to drown out the Bush doublespeak and lies.
TIA, what a great post. Thank you for stealing it for us
The writer is spot on with his assessment of the swiftboating and the Dem response. I agree that even more disheartening than the actions of the admin and the media, which was nasty but almost expected, was the response of some of the Dems who should be better than that. Sadly, they were not.
“The second point, the demand for an apology, is even more distressing, because it was a signal that not only were many Democrats unwilling to stand and defend Kerry, but they denied Kerry the basic right of self-defense, as well. When Kerry called the attack what it was, a lie, the word went out that the truth didn’t matter. In essence, it was a concession that once the Republicans tell a lie about a Democrat, there’s really nothing left to do but roll over. The truth isn’t worth a feint, let alone a fight.”
Regarding the OP, I thought all three interviews were strong, and the Senator did a great job focusing on what we need to do to get out of Iraq. Success, if it happens, will depend on diplomacy and a deadline. There is really no other way.
I especially liked the Cosby interview. Poor Rita, she really wanted him to say when he’s going to announce his decision for ‘08, didn’t she?
Keep having him on, Rita, you might get lucky.
Tia,
I’m glad you posted the Upper-Left piece. I meant to bring it over here, but ran out of time. So thanks! - no beating required
Shaun is - as probably everyone here already knows - a Vietnam vet, and a staunch and thoughtful Kerry supporter. I’m sure he’d love to get some comments over at his place.
I meant to add this post as well, from one of my favorite Boston blogs, The Chimes at Midnight.
I am in shock, they just replayed the JK interview with Blitzer and left out the ‘08 blah blah blah questioning. Yeah think maybe they get how silly and ridiculous they look, when we have “serious”
business to take care of. Botched joke, silly polls, I’ll take a serious conversation about what we need to do to fix the mess this administration and the media shills have put us in.
Senator Kerry keep on getting out there, it is so good to hear a real “leader” state what needs to be done.
Excellent interviews on Larry King and Rita Cosby. I haven’t read the Blitzer one yet but I’m looking forward to it.
I just wanted to comment on that question Larry asked, that so many people want to ask as soon as someone starts to question a war: “Are they [the troops] dying in vain?”
Senator Kerry gave a good answer but as a veteran myself I would also point out that no soldier ever dies in vain who does their job, following lawful commands and upholding the military as an organization for the defense of their country. Very few people really believe that a country can maintain its sovereignty without an effective military. In order to be effective, the military must be composed of people who work together as a team, fulfilling their assigned roles. It is not the soldier’s job to question the assigned mission. It is not always wrong to question, particularly in extreme cases or where it seems that an order may be unlawful. But it is not their job. Their job is to - as aptly put in A Few Good Men - “stand on the wall” - so that we don’t have to. By standing on that wall for us, makes their service honorable and worthy, regardless of how history ultimately views the decisions of their commanders or the outcome of the larger effort.
The interviews have been great. Looking forward to the last one on Hannity and Colmes.
I had posted a link here earlier to the Cosby transcript that included my thoughts on the interview and the news from Bush and Iraq.
I hope to see all of these interviews spread far and wide across the blogosphere, with discussion about them prevelant.
Posted by MH | November 30, 2006 8:14 PM
MH,
Please know that there is no disrespect intended in my response to your post, but I believe that Senator Kerry had to give the politically correct answer.
Did Americans die in vain? I am not sure. The mission for which Americans have lost their lives is one of pure folly and hubris. The mission is pointless, but the lives lost were not. So, I have to conclude that despite the honor and bravery of the military who gave the ultimate sacrifice, their lives were taken for a military plan that was absolutely pointless.
When one measures their dedication as a statement of devotion to the military and what the military means for this country, then surely their lives were not given in vain (John Kerry said nearly as much in his interview with Larry King). Yet, when their lives were given for a mission that many agree is based on a lie, then the conclusion might be different (as Senator Kerry implies, the soldiers deserve a mission that is worth fighting and dying for)
Posted by oncall | November 30, 2006 9:04 PM
The soldiers deserve a mission worth fighting and dying for, but can one stop it (the horrible war and the terrible consequences) once it’s been unleashed from the bottle?
Also, I’d like to know: Earlier this year, there was the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer out of Iraq Amendment which was spun as being very far left...’cut and run’ to be precise. Yet the person who I saw on the interviews seemed dedicated to compromise.
If I remember correctly, Kerry/Feingold/Boxer were labeled as divisive to the Democratic Party. And according to the leaks, the ISG may be picking an option much like the Reid/Levin/Clinton Bill.
Am I misunderstanding the situation? And if Senator Kerry is so willing to be diplomatic and resourceful and willing to negotiate, then I wonder why the group of Democrats couldn’t have created one bill that was closer to being in the middle of all of them.
I’d also like to know what others think about the benefits or pitfalls of the different bills put forth by everyone, not just Senator Kerry.
Posted by Diane | November 30, 2006 6:59 PM
I didn’t realize he was a Vietnam Vet. I met many who still support JK and I see many bumper stickers to that effect even today.
MH:
I agree with you completely. The civilians in command of the military owe it to people who are ‘standing on the wall’ to make sure that they are deployed only when necessary and that their sacrifice and willingness to serve this country is honored with good clear leadership.
That is the problem with the Bush Administration, they do not honor the sacrfices that we are asking our troops and the families of our troops to make. The endless deployments are saping morale. They create a sense that only a small portion of this nation is really at war and really facing hardship because of that. The civilian leadership has failed to create a sense of urgency that the whole of the nation has to deal with this crisis. They leave the burden on so few and support them with so little.
I have watched Sen. Kerry stand up in the Senate and propose a lot of good legislation that would actually help the troops and their families. As he stated in the LKL interview, it was Kerry who got that amendment passed that allowed widows of soldiers to remain in military housing for up to a year after the death of a loved one in the war. Sen. Kerry has fought for educational benefits for veterans, as well as better health care and more programs to help returning vets with any problems they have re-integrating into civilian life.
I would also ask any of JK’s staff who reads this blog to tell me what types of economic plans might be forthcoming in the next Congress.
Is there a plan to stop the bleeding of jobs? I’m tired of friends and family losing them. And I’m tired of seeing my friends or family losing their houses and their dreams.
What are JK or the rest of the Democratic Representative’s idea on Free trade and outsourcing.
Have we permanently lost manufacturing jobs? If we all must survive on service jobs, then places like Walmart will continue to flourish. And as someone pointed out to me, he is unskilled and can’t get a high-tech job. He relys on manufacturing. If he loses his job, he will not be able to feed his family. (He’s already close to losing his home due to inflation and gas prices etc...)
Also, this same person was asking me about having a flat tax rate. What are Jk’s ideas on this?
I understand my question may not be answered, or at least not answered right away, but if anyone would like to share their thoughts with me on these issues, I’d appreciate it.
There is talk in punditsphere that Webb should aplogize to Bush for not kissing up to Bush. (See Kos or Digby) Same old Gore/Dean/Kerry tactic to elicit an apology by cranking up the Republican noise machine and having the Dems pressure the victim. Remember: they even had Durbin publicly crying his eyes out about offending the troops .
The Dems have got to smarten up or they will lose the people’s support.
I don’t think we have to worry about Webb caving (he wanted to slug the guy), but the Republicans should not be allowed to get the Dems to do their dirty work for them. Those Dems must be called on it.
Did Americans die in vain in Iraq? It’s a difficult issue to address properly, as the dialogue between MH and oncall indicates. Semantics become especially important in discussions of this sort, because there are conflicting concepts at the core of the debate.
Psychologists use the term “cognitive dissonance” to refer to the rather difficult mental balancing act involved in simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes and beliefs. That’s kind of what we’re dealing with here.
On the one hand, we want to believe (and rightly so) that no honorable soldier truly dies in vain because each individual is one of what Senator Kerry once referred to as the “young men and women who in the end were fighting as much for their love of each other as for the love of country that brought them there in the first place.”
In that context, every honorable solider is fighting for his or her comrades in arms; for his or her own sense of honor and duty; and for his or her love of home, hearth and country. The first is quite concrete, and it is something that every soldier absolutely must be able to count on if he or she is to survive the horrors of war. The latter two are more abstract, but such abstraction is also necessary if a military organization and society as a whole is to survive the horrors of war.
So from that standpoint, MH is absolutely correct: they do not die in vain. But from another opposing and often antithetical standpoint, oncall is absolutely correct also.
Military history is full of examples of botched plans, faulty tactics, invalid strategies, false missions, and immoral reasons for war. When the decisions made upstream of them are wrong, when the policies upstream of them of them are wrong, when the rationale of those upstream of them are wrong, then those honorable soldiers’ courage is misused, their lives are needlessly sacrificed—and, yes, their deaths are in vain.
Like I said, the psychologists call this cognitive dissonance. But the logic of war, by its very nature, is fundamentally unsound. There simply is no rational way to resolve the inherent conflicts of the many causes and concerns and ethics and morals and rationales involved in the waging of war. War is not just hell; it is insane.
That being said, there is one larger aspect of this question that I really wish the Senator and those asking him to address it would have covered: we are not just asking whether American soldiers are dying in vain in Iraq, we are also asking if other Americans are dying in vain in Iraq as well. To my mind, the answer to that is unequivocally yes.
Soldiers who die in avoidable accidents die in vain. Soldiers who die from friendly fire die in vain. Non-combatant support personnel and contractors who die from unfriendly fire die in vain. Doctors, nurses, missionaries, activists who are murdered or kidnapped die in vain.
But there is one more unmentioned and unmourned class of Americans in Iraq who absolutely die in vain—and, imho, fully deserve to. These are the legions of so-called ‘security contractors’ who are fighting over there not for honor, not for glory, not for the love of country or the sake of their loved ones at home, but for the blood money that they receive in return.
Call these men and women what they are: mercenaries, pure and simple. Soldiers of fortune, hired guns, paid killers—men and women whose very choice of profession trade renders them fundamentally without honor.
The dirty little secret of our much-vaunted all-volunteer army is that it is made possible by this country’s, and this country’s corporations’ shameless employment of of mercenaries, killers without honor, to do their nasty business while still keeping their political and financial hands clean.
The American military effort in Iraq depends on the widespread use of mercenaries. Everybody knows about it, but nobody talks about it and nobody does anything about it.
And that, to my mind, is truly obscene.
Posted by peterbaldwin | November 30, 2006 10:00 PM
Right on!
peterbaldwin:
I couldn’t agree more. It’s craven of the dems to help the republicans in their swiftboating, and it’s that behavior that leads people to scream about dems’ lack of spine.
Yeah, George Will is the man we should be listening to. [/sarcasm]
Great Digby post on the Webb thing here: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116492768910403164
And btw they’re doing it to Danny DeVito too. I choked on my tea when I heard him refer to W as numb****.
Posted by Otter | November 30, 2006 10:18 PM
Obscene. But what’s more obscene is that our soldiers are living in squalor while the contractors are living high on the hog. And even more obscene is the CEOs of the contrators living a million times higher off the hog.
The person I mentioned in the previous post--let me just call him Bob--he seems like a moderate Democrat or maybe a libertarian Democrat but we both agreed that the war needs to end and we need to get rid of the people who have bilked us and the Iraqis.
We need out.
That’s one reason why I don’t think either of us cares about whose name is on the plan, just get them out in an orderly and systematic fashion now.
Susan Elizabeth:
I know that Sen. Kerry introduced a legislation in August titled the ‘Export Products Not Jobs’ bill. You can see this at this link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=speeches&bill=s109-3777
If you click through on the links and then on the picture in the later link you can read what Sen. Kerry said on the floor of the Senate when he brought this bill up. The bill iitself is technical and specific to the tax code, so I had to rely on the speech to figure out what was meant by it. (Ahm, that means I am not staff, just a citizen trying to muddle through.)
We all want other countries to be stable, so we don’t wind up with endless war in places like, oh, Iraq. But the present tax system is just unfairly loaded with ways in which American companies can shirk their oblgations to pay their fair share of taxes. This gives companies a reason to take American jobs and send them overseas. This has to stop.
I want to see more investment in new jobs. Sen. Kerry has mentioned the very high possibilities of jobs coming from new industries and new technologies, like in energy and in products that help the global environment. But, unless the tax code changes, it’s still cheaper to send those jobs overseas. This doesn’t help our people and I can’t understand why we allow this type of thing to go on.
I am not in favor of a flat-tax. I think this is a way for the rich to put more of the tax burden on the middle class. I don’t think this is right or fair and I don’t think it’s a good way to fund the government. It sounds like everybody is treated the same, but it underfunds the government and brings up the idea that basic services would be cut and you know that would affect the middle class more than the rich.
Posted by oncall | November 30, 2006 9:04 PM
oncall,
No disrespect taken at all! I stand by my statement though. And I have no problem with Senator Kerry’s response - I think it is fine for him in his position.
I may not have been very clear though. Let me try again. I think the question itself is insulting and mean - or shows the ignorance of the person asking it. It is insulting and mean to even ask the question, because it raises doubts and anxiety in the minds of those who have lost loved ones, and it is a question they should not have to ask themselves at all.
Sure, if someone is killed or badly injured, their loved ones want to be able to look back and say it was for a “worthy cause”. The simplistic view is to think of that cause as something like deposing a dictator or rescuing people from genocide. But that then judges the value of the soldier’s sacrifice by something that the soldier had no power to influence! Does it make it any less courageous to save a comrade’s life when it occurs in a “bad” war, rather than a “good” war? (Not that I’m sure that any war is “good” - that’s another point that makes the “died in vain” meme insidious)
I think it is a cynical political ploy to ask that question as a way of influencing people to keep supporting a war, and when anyone who values service knows the answer is that it is never “in vain” when a soldier loses his or her life serving their country honorably.
Maybe I am posting this here because I really do wish our veterans in office, like John Kerry, Jim Webb, and Joe Sestak, would start throwing this back in the face of every stupid pundit who asks that question.
Posted by Susan Elizabeth | November 30, 2006 9:42 PM
Susan Elizabeth:
You may want to read this Forbes article and also check into Senator Kerry’s Export Products Not Jobs Act (S.3777) that he introduced recently. Senator Kerry is currently the Ranking Member on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, and will become the Chairman of that committee in January - good news for small business owners, and their employees, too!
This is a major area of interest for me. Sometimes I get frustrated that these issues don’t get more attention - thank you for asking the question.
Well Senator you got me to do something I never do and that is watch a segment of Hannity and Combs.
I can’t stand Hannity and Combs isn’t combative against the right for my taste.
Anyhow, I thought you did an excellent job on H&C;and in fact enjoyed that more than the interview with Larry King. Larry King isn’t the best interviewer although you were great at answering his questions.
I’ve read the transcripts for Cosby and Blitzer and it looks like you aced those 2 interviews.
I’m glad you are back on the tube and out there speaking on the issues. Personally after the dem party leadership threw you and your supporters (me included) under the bus because of the supposed botched joke, I didn’t think you owed them a thing (leaving the stage) and I still don’t.
I understand your a team player but the team your on seems to be more interested in stabbing you in the back instead of holding bush and his lackey’s accountable.
So since the DC dems and the media are trying to make you an outcast with this fake likeability poll embrace your maverick status.
I think an outsider image will do you well in 08 not to mention that you are the most competent leader and probably the only one who may run that truly cares about getting things done for the American people and not yourself.
Do what you know is right in your heart for the American people just make sure you get the credit to.
I would get on the regular networks more though. There are many who vote that aren’t regular cable viewers and you may actually get asked some decent questions.
Don’t forget to sprinkle a little bit of the private person in your interviews.
There are a lot of people who still want to know what makes you tick and how you still keep getting up when hit by the right wing machine.
I would talk about small business more as that will tie into healthcare, accountability, jobs and immigration.
You didn’t need to apologize for the botched joke before and you don’t need to do it now. Its bush, McCain, Hillary, Lieberman and a host of others who used the military to further their attacks on you who should apologize to the public.
Keep hitting them back like you did the day after the joke. The only way you stop a bully is to get in their face and lay a smack down on them.
Okay, I’ve watched 3 of the 4 shows in question; missed the the Blitzer program. Overall I liked them. I thought it was classy of Rita Cosby not even to work on ‘the joke’.
Get ‘the joke’ out of the way; talk about the issue of the day - Iraq. This is a strong area for JK - he should run with/work with it. After all he does serve on the Foreign Relations Committee and will chair the sub-committee for East Asia and Pacific Affairs.
JK is a combat veteran - folks out in Iowa connected to that last time, I think they and others will again. People will appreciate his military background and his experience in foreign affairs. Look how many folks out there don’t have this - experience, experience, experience. This is NOT a time for governors and those with a minimal legislative background.
As for venue - perhaps JK could give a speech about Iraq in someplace like The Brookings Institution.
Video of JK’s Fox News interview with Colmes is up at http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/
Posted by Susan Elizabeth | November 30, 2006 9:42 PM
Susan Elizabeth-
I’m not staff, but I’ve found that the senate website is a good resource for learning about legislation Sen Kerry has proposed regarding the economy and jobs (and other issues). I’d take a look at the page titled “A Stronger Economy”, and click the links to see statements and legislation related to this issue.
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/issue/economy.html
The award recently given by the Drum Major Institute is a good indicator of where the Senator stands on defending the middle class. You can find the full text of this release the link.
Kerry Earns Perfect Score on Standing up for America’s Middle Class
John Kerry has earned the highest possible rating for his efforts in the Senate to foster and protect the American dream, according to a report released by the Drum Major of Public Policy Institute (DMI), a non-partisan, non-profit group that focuses on middle class American families.
full text at of release at:
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=258392&
Posted by Susan Elizabeth | November 30, 2006 9:18 PM
“Also, I’d like to know: Earlier this year, there was the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer Out of Iraq Amendment which was spun as being very far left...’cut and run’ to be precise. Yet the person who I saw on the interviews seemed dedicated to compromise.”
This is an interesting discussion, and I think the actual language of Kerry/Feingold is likely to be made more clear to the general public—at least I hope it will—once the ISG report comes out next week.
Far from “cut and run”, Kerry/Feingold called for a redeployment over the course of a year witha timeline for withdrawal. It called for an ‘over the horizon’ troop presence and a smaller continued presence in Iraq for training and counter-terrorism. Key to Kerry/Feingold is the proposed summit of ME neighbors, which is critical, IMO, to resolution of the conflict: Diplomacy.
I believe that what K/F proposed months ago, and what Sen. Kerry has been saying for a very long time, is what what most people will come to agree is the most rational plan for getting us out of Iraq.
Read excerpts of K/F here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/articles/newsarticle.html?id=11
Terrific interviews by Senator Kerry! A great display of “adult leadership.” It’s like there are two debates ongoing: one in the realm of reality and the other in the realm of denial. People are being burned alive in Iraq and some are hesitant to call it a civil war, preferring to debate semantics. The Iraqi government is just as unstable as the country, but the spin gives us the Bush admin’s version. The craziness continues in the news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01arab.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011343.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001710.html
We would have had a Democrat President if the right vice had been chosen. The one chosen was a disaster. The governor of New Mexico would have been the best and swept the Republicans away. This tells me something of the wisdom of Mr. Kerry.