Why isn't Kerry commenting on Falluja or the 9/11 revelations?

[WilliamPitt]

Poor leadership? Cowardice? Hardly. The old maxim says, "Never get in the way of a perfectly good train wreck," which is a loose translation of "Never interfere with an enemy who is in the process of destroying himself."

Kerry has stated he is waiting for the 9/11 Commission to finish its work, exactly what he should say. Kerry is likewise avoiding comment on Falluja for the time being. The reasons for this have to do with the maxims above - he doesn't need to say anything, because the facts speak for themselves and do his campaigning for him - and also for one all-important reason:

The GOP and the Bush campaign are waiting for him to say something. Waiting with bated breath. Why? So they can yell "KERRY IS PLAYING POLITICS WITH 9/11 AND THE WAR!!!" and then broadband that all across the spectrum. That will become the story, and not the actual grisly facts of Falluja and the PDB.

Kerry is playing this perfectly.

[grytpype]

1. Kerry cannot be seen as taking advantage...

... he can't kick Bush when America is down. He can deliver his positive message and urge the President to fix the situation already, which he is doing. But he has to go easy on criticizing Bush. Don't overplay the hand.

[jpgray]

2. That's 'bated' breath, though I like the incidental pun :-) (nt)

[WilliamPitt]

3. Thanks

:)

[mike_c]

4. yes, but I'm interested in KERRY'S positions, regardless of...

...Bush's self destruction. Why hasn't Kerry called for restraint in Fallujah, for example? Why hasn't he condemned the bombing of mosques, the use of collective punishment against civilian populations, or the shredding of the Geneva Conventions? I want to know what Kerry thinks about these things!

[jobycom]

7. You'll know, but there's nothing he can do by explaining it now

Kerry can't comment, now. Not only would it be bad politics, but far more importantly, it would be horrible leadership. Kerry expressing differences right now with Bush over a developing situation would do absolutely nothing to change what's happening, but it would give the insurgents in Iraq the idea that if they just fight a little harder they can split America. That'll just cause more deaths on both sides.

The only reason Kerry would comment on it now would be politics, and he would rightly be condemned for politicizing these events.

Kerry is doing this perfectly, as Will said. There will be time later to explain their differences of strategy, when it won't give false hope to the combatants that Kerry can do something about it.

[mike_c]

11. umm, Kerry could indeed do something about it if elected....

He could apologize, end the occupation, and deliver Bushco in irons to The Hague or, preferrably, Baghdad.

[jobycom]

13. Obviously. But not now. That's the point.

[mike_c]

14. so we should vote for him based on the things he doesn't...

...speak out about?! What happened to courage and leadership?

[jobycom]

17. Amongst other things, yes

He's not the president now. He can't change what the president does now. All he can do is gripe, and that's bad for the soldiers, bad for the country. And it's bad for his campaign.

Now is the time for him to remain out of the picture. Silent. When events aren't so explosive, when he's not endangering the lives of troops and hostages by speaking out, then he speaks out, then he presents his plan.

That IS courage and leadership. It's hard to recognize these days since we haven't seen it since 2000, but that's what it is. It includes knowing when to be silent.

So yes, people will vote for him based upon the things he doesn't say as well as on the things he does.

[edzontar]

21. So I guess no one should have "griped" about Vietnam, Segregation..

The Holocaust, etc.

Some of us see silence in the face of evil as complacency, complicity, and moral cowardice.

I wish Kwrry would speak out more clealy--since his one of the voices that actually DOES matter in these days and months.

[Jai4WKC08]

27. Clark and Kennedy are getting the job done

Kerry has his surrogates out there. Clark explains quite effectively why the Bush policies are wrong and ineffective, and even the conservatives have to listen to him. Kennedy fires up the moral outrage and has been around long enough to be seen as acting independently.

Kerry has stated his position. He doesn't need to be the one seen by the public as undermining US resolve. I do think he needs to put forward his own specific plans for Iraq and the region, but now is probably not the time.

[jobycom]

29. Of course people should have protested

We should keep protesting. Clark and Dean should protest. Kerry should stay out of it until it calms down. Bush is indicting himself, and NOTHING Kerry could say right now would condemn Bush's war more than what is happening. Later, when it won't endanger more lives, either because this insurgency has died down or because it has become entrenched, Kerry can lay out his plans.

People don't want a whiner for president. They want plans and action. People are upset about what's happening in Iraq. If Kerry just says "I'm upset, too," he does nothing. If Kerry says "Okay, here's how we solve this problem," people will follow him. But he can't say that until the situation has settled down more.

The evil isn't this battle. The evil is this whole invasion. Kerry has spoken out about that. He's just not responding now. To do so right now about this specific battle would be wrong, and it would be bad politics.

[senseandsensibility]

8. I'd like to hear Kerry's position too

but I have to ask myself why? Is it because I really think it's necessary? If it's going to hurt his chances in the election, it's not necessary. The simple fact is: whatever his positions are, they are as preferable to *'s as winning the lottery is to dying a horrible death.

[paulk]

18. since you've already stated in recent threads

that you won't be voting for Sen. Kerry...

I doubt very much that you're interested in his positions.

[madrchsod]

5. i`ll agree...

i`ll agree with anything you say-you are on the cu`s top 11. sorry you didn`t make the top 10. kidding . no kerry doesn`t need to say anything at all-hell there`s the plame affair coming up..
what the hell are the "real" republicans thinking now? even they can see the writing on the wall...

[wasichu]

6. so Kerry is playing politics

by not playing politics?
Well nobody can acuse him of being a statesman I guess.

[jobycom]

9. LOL What?

If that's meant to be a joke, it's hilarious. If that's meant to be an attack on Kerry, it's as goofy as anything Bush might say!

Everyone accuses Kerry of being a statesman. He is. He's also a politician, thus anything he does, by definition, is politics. Like Bush.

[mcar]

10. Totally agree

If Kerry comes out strongly, the story shifts to Kerry using Iraq for political gain.

[waldenx]

12. perpetual FEAR of what repukes think

this is just a sample of a Kerry Presidency and his army of apologists.
Are we supposed to believe that if Kerry had actually said anything this week about Iraq that you people would be squawking for him to shut up? No chance in hell.
You have a spin for everything.

[edzontar]

22. In the end, silence is consent. That is the problem.

The killing is going on now.

The time to speak out is now.

But I have a feeling that if Kerry switched tomorrow and came out flaming against the war, some of the same folks who are bending over backwards to defned the present "strategy" would be back in a flash with explanations for why this TOTAL SHIFT in strategy was suddenly a better idea.

[Monte Carlo]

28. But the GOP-friendly media is to be feared...

... because it is powerful. The national media companies are owned by a handful of very large corporations, and I'd bet nearly anything that most of those that sit on the boards of those firms vote Republican. We cannot act like they do not have a certain power, because they do. They are the medium between the candidate and the voters, and they have an agenda.

[edzontar]

30. They will attack him anyway. Might as well speak he truth...

If we cowtow to the puke whores, they have already won....

[Monte Carlo]

31. There's a difference between kneeling down...

... and bending over. I think you might appreciate that.

We adapt ourselves not because we want to, but because we have to. Being right won't get you anything automatically. Kerry's goal is to win the White House and the bully pulpit, which will give him real power. Until then, he's got to choose his battles.

[mzmolly]

15. I'll have to take your word for it Mr. Pitt... I've been wrong about Kerry

before, so I shall wait and see.

I think he is a cautious politician which may be what we need bout now?

[Beetwasher]

16. Absolutely. Meanwhile, He's Staying Positive and Outlining HIS PLANS

and ideas and looking VERY Presidential and relatively non-partisan...Why give them ammo to accuse him of smearing/politicizing something that is devastating without his help?

One thing I do hope he hits on though is that the President is ON VACATION while all hell is breaking loose. That's actually something I think he could hammer Bush about and bring up how 40% his term he's been on vacation...

[Classical_Liberal]

19. What will Kerry do to end the Iraq mess?

? I don't need to be linked to any of his policy speeches at the johnkerry.com site. They are too vague.

[edzontar]

20. Pure sophistry.

Kerry has a duty to speak out as a citizen and a leader who would be president.

Failure to do so will not help him win the election, nor will it win him the respect of history.

[Dookus]

23. except

speaking out the way you want him to will do nothing except assuage you, and I doubt it would even do that.

Bush is imploding on this issue. There's no reason to turn it into a partisan battle right now. It is much more powerful for Bush to fail on his own (lack of) merits.

Also, NO honest person would claim to know what the situation will be 9 months from now. It would be foolhardy for Kerry to claim that he does.

[edzontar]

26. Not true. I am committed to Kerry now. there is no other choice.

But I would feel better about him if he woul show some moral courage.

[hedgetrimmer]

24. I do not care for the hypothetical reasons Kerry is not entering the

verbal slam... Either he is or he isn't and the reason being his or others (more likely) ... Right now he is not and everything else is up to the viewers discretion... another words make up whatever reality one can to explain the action/non-actions of a public employee. Enjoyed the ride of possibility.

[legin]

25. It's another one of Balrick's 'cunning plans' :-) n/t

[AmyStrange]

32. good points...

plus I think he is running on the economy more than the war.

You'd think the repubs who spend corporate money to keep friendly repubs in power wouldn't open the employment gates and hire a ton of people to jack up their talking points that the tax cuts (that they overall benefit from) are a good solution to the economy. I don't understand why they don't do this? This would be way more effective than any bushco ad?

Maybe it's because whichever way the economy goes and whichever party is in power they still make a ton of money?

Just me, thinking stupid outside the box again,

d

[DianeG5385]

33. He may getting strategic advice from the Master

Mr. Clark.
No one knows the geopolitical consquences of speaking out at the wrong time better than Wes Clark. With men like Rand Beers and Clark on his team he is setting up to have a great presidency. One false move could ruin it all. Let Bush dig his own grave.