John Kerry's statement on Face the Nation

[INdemo]

John Kerry obviously didn't use the best choice of words to describe searching for insurgents,but the media is certainly making an issue of it when they, as well as everyone else, knew exactly what he meant...The same goes with what Howard Dean said,but Dean just didnt go far enough with his staement..I agree....We cant win this war with the current strategy,so why should anyone sugar coat the issue and be honest and tell it like it is ...hey 67% of Americans believe that we cant win this war...

[Mass]

1. well Kerry meant that the soldiers terrorize the kids

and he is right. There is no way that a bunch of soldiers who do not speak your language coming out in the middle of the night do not produce this effect. In addition, it has been well documented that the US military are not prepared to face the cultural differences. It is not the fault of the soldiers, it is the fault of those who design the policies, but it is a fact.

Dean said that we cannot win this war and he is right. This was is not winnable. Other have said that before him. The best we can hope is a way to make sure that this will not become even worse. I would hope this is what most of the Democrats are working for (whatever solution they think is better), but whoever think we can win in Iraq just does not understand we have already lost.

I have no problem with these two statements. We have to decide once and for all whether we want to say things as they are or whether we have to try to make them so venile that the RW will not attack them: this is certainly a foolish attempt, they will anyway.

[win_in_06]

3. Regardless of what he meant, his words will be used against him.

We all know that.

[Mass]

4. As will the words of all other dems (except Lieberman).

Should we all shut up?

If not, we are spending way too long on that and making the RW game.

[win_in_06]

5. Definitely not. However, if I was a Kerry staffer I would have

strongly recommended he not use a form of the word "terror" when referring to U.S. Soldiers.

[karynnj]

10. I assume that in a prepared speech he wouldn't as he would edit it.

He also used terrorize rather than terror - that is the word used in many articles on the practice. (I'm sure he will substitute Scare or even terrify in the future)

The point is that in taking on this issue, Kerry is addressing the practices of US soldiers. His goal is obvious - to get a shift in this policy. He also knows that the terror exists even if every soldier is acting in the most conscientious way. Kerry was sensitive to this issue when he was 25 and one of the soldiers stopping boats and checking them (from excerpts of his journal in Tour of Duty) This policy hurts the soldiers and helps the insurgency. Having a prominent person speak out against it is important. From the moment he chose to speak about it - the issue of are you critising the troops was there even when he skirted around it speaking of lannguage and cultural difficulties.

What I can see in the last few months is that Kerry is taking risks, with his clandestaine prison bill, his Iraq plan, and his comments in support of his plan to try to change the political dynamic of the Iraq war- without regard to his own political viability (as President, I doubt anything here will hurt him in MA). Contrast this to Hillary's vague letter and support of bills against violent video games and flag burning. Earlier this year, I was certain he was aiming to run again - now I actually think he is doing what he thinks is right and working to help the Democratic party and is being honest when he says he really doesn't know at his point.

[second edition]

11. I blame Reid for not talking Lieberman out of this move. Lieberman

is now the poster boy for the good Democrat and all the others are bad. McCain even praised Lieberman this morning on Imus. I'm trying to figure out what the administration is up to mentioning Lieberman so much. What type of reaction are they expecting from the Dem's. Personally, I think we have to make a strong statement discrediting Lieberman's lack of expertise in regards to this issue. Not attack him personally, but his credibility. We have now had Bush mention him, Chaney mention him and now McCain. This list does not include the media mentions and the Hannity propaganda mentions.
Lieberman may become the reason we lose all that we have worked so hard to gain in regards to public perception of the war effort.
What an idiot Leiberman is. It's obvious he is being used by this administration in a PR move.

[karynnj]

13. Compared to Vietnam, the antiwar/ prowar factions are far more

determined by party lines. I think it is a mistake to expect everyone in a party to be on the same side of all issues. The current Republican party is an aberration here. In his Senate speech on "Justice Sunday" where the Republicans were attempting to use faith against Democrats, Kerry told the story of the SFRC hearing where Voinivich broke with his party and refused to vote yes on Bolton as the UN ambassador. One Senator who had been in the Senate for (I think) about 6 years said that this was the first time he saw anything like this. Kerry's reaction (in his speech) was an explosive, "What?" followed by comments that this type of voting against party from the heart used to be common.

I think rather than attacking Lieberman's expertise, you do what the main group of Democrats is doing, attack Bush's (and Liebermans or McCain's) plan on the merits. Note that at Kerry's and Reed's counter to Bush's speech, Kerry spoke of the bi-partisan amendment that called for policy change - even though he voted against it as it had no teeth. Even though it does nothing, it says that Bush needs to change.

There likely is no plan that all the Democrats would agree too. There are clusters of Democrats who could agree - like I bet if Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Levin and a few other liberal Senators got together they probably could come up with a consensus plan - as they are pretty close to begin with. Add Lieberman or even Clinton or Biden and no detailed plan could be reached.

[second edition]

14. I'm more concerned about them using Lieberman as the sane

voice in the party. I think that is what they are doing to discredit everone else. Divisions may be present, but more so on the Dem side IMO, than on the Repub side. The one thing I thought our party wanted to do was change our image as a weak on defense party to one of, tough on defense and security issues. Lieberman, is being touted as the man of reason and concern in the Dem party and the others as being ridiculous and presenting dangerous ideas-such as their "cut and run". They are succeeding in clouding the issue of the mistakes and the lack of a plan and planning and are turning the discussing into one of the many dangers of withdrawing to soon. They are now saying we have to stay to protect the Iraqi's from Iran.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Lieberman is an idiot and it shows by his website

Check the menu links out when you get there. They don't work. The links BELOW the drop down menu do work.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/

[second edition]

9. This truly is not a big deal. It's a stretch to claim Kerry's statement

is meant to defame the troops.

[INdemo]

18. This of course was my point

[MODemocrat]

20. The likes of Michael Reagan even wants Dean to be hung

If a Democrat would suggest that a republican operative should be killed, that's all we would here on the air waves 24/7, but not much is being said about Michael's statement on the air. Anymore, much of what the republicans have to say just goes in one ear and out the other IMHO. :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :crazy: :crazy:

[emulatorloo]

2. Ken Mehlman is a lying ASS - Full Kerry quote w link

Anybody who is not an idiot or liar knows what Kerry meant. That Iraqis need to be policing Iraqis.

Limbag and Mehlman are professional idiots and liars. They have elevated "reading comprehension issues" to an artform

<snip>

<snip>

Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you
say,`Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

<snip>

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf

[karynnj]

6. Note that Schieffer agrees with Kerry

There's no, "Senator Kerry are you saying ....." This was not a prepared speech but an interview and in context there is no problem.
The comment in context has very obvious meaning. Kerry has been speaking about this issue for a month and a half in every interview he's given. The response by those interviewing him has basically been to cede the issue - not one has questioned it. (Matthews in particular was very obviously impressed by it - possibly due to his Peace Core experience. So, it will be interesting how he responses to critisism if it's moved up.)

[Mass]

7. Not sure he agrees (Schieffer is a Bush shill), but at least he certainly

understood what Kerry was saying.

Anyway, we are spending way too long on that. We have to speak about the fact that the US army should not do search and mission rescues, not about the RW smear.

Once again, we are doing exactly what the RW wants, forgetting what the REAL issue is here (same thing for Dean - there is nothing wrong in what he said, we cant win).

[karynnj]

12. I agree with you - I just meant that Scheiffer (who I agree is pro-Bush)

didn't take issue with Kerry's comment. I do agree that the issue is the point Kerry made not one word that could be used for distortion by te RW.

So far. there appears to be little other than on blogs and hate radio. On hate radio, they really have little more they can say because I think they've thought both he and Kennedy were traitors for decades.

[emulatorloo]

17. What Kerry is saying is COMMON SENSE - let Iraqis police Iraqis

Any sane person would agree.

But Mehlman and Limbag, while maybe sane, aren't concerned with the meaning. Only the BS to be gained out of distorting what Dems say.

[second edition]

8. John Kerry's words were just fine- he was pointing out cultural differences

and how ineffective our efforts our when we can't really understand the Iraqi's cultural differences. He then pointed to the fact that Iraqi soldiers should be the obvious choice to do the house inspections since they understand their people better than we do.
The responses to Kerry's words are just way over the top and uncalled for.

[pocket]

15. fuck it, it's the truth

we are over there terrorizing a whole nation. We aren't doing it by sending nasty emails, either. Our troops are doing it in person.

[Darkhawk32]

16. This is happens when you pussy-foot with words... say what you mean! n/t

[LittleClarkie]

22. What is what happens when you pussy foot

?

What this person is saying is that Kerry should have pussy footed, tiptoed past the word "terrorized."

But he didn't. And if someone broke into your house in the dead of night, I reckon "terrorized" would be the word you used too.

[LittleClarkie]

21. I just wish people would make up their damn minds

Parse, or fight.

Pick one people, pick one!

Right now he's fighting. You want parsing, go hang out with Hillary.

Can you just imagine how people would have reacted during the campaign if he would have come out like this against the Smear vets?

"Oh dear, oh dear, maybe he shouldn't have said it in quite that way. Oh dear, oh dear."

They. will. use. his. words. against. him. anyway.

So he and Dean and Murtha and Durbin and Pelosi might as well come out swinging.