Attention all IWR experts, you might want to go to Kos and defend Kerry.

[wisteria]

Below is the suggestion in op-ed from David Corn. Only Biden and Hagel saw the real dangers and expressed them honestly.


Kerry accepted—or hid behind—the conventional wisdom about Saddam's WMDs, avoided voting against a future war that could turn out to be popular, ....



John Kerry
In his major statement during the Senate debate, Kerry, like most other senators, accepted the bad intelligence without scrutinizing it. "Why is seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?" he asked. (Saddam wasn't.) He added: I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior ... is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary.

Looking ahead, Kerry foresaw a "great" challenge should the United States invade Iraq: But Kerry did not dwell on this point. Now he wants not to stay the course but to withdraw all troops within six to eight months. Bottom line: Kerry accepted—or hid behind—the conventional wisdom about Saddam's WMDs, avoided voting against a future war that could turn out to be popular, while raising appropriate questions about Bush's intentions and plans.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/7/101744/603

[TayTay]

1. This thread is sinking

and is not generating a lot of posts. Might want to let it sink.

[wisteria]

2. I noticed. They were off subject and aurguing over another issue. n/t

[karynnj]

3. What garbage

I posted a response using a different segment of Kerry's IWR speech - where he mentions "inflaming the region", creating more terrorists and making us less safe than with Saddam. VERY clear sentence. I also quoted the Georgetown Jan 23 speech and his call for regime change - because they eliminate any credibility that it was to gain politically if it were a popular war.

Seeing thaT Biden. Clinton, et al did NOT speak out before the war or when it started their vote could be political. (Edwards seemed to actually FAVOR the war - so his vote was not political.)

[MH1]

4. I let that drop, but posted on the Feingold diary on the reco list.

I may need some pre-emptive uprates.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/12/6/201752/036/219#c219

I take issue with Feingold's pretentious, asinine statement that he's the only one getting it right. F*** him. And just when I was starting to like him again.

edited to fix link (I hope)

[whometense]

5. did you see our discussion of this

here? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x115901

Great minds...

[MH1]

6. Yep, great minds!

What a friggin' jerk, huh?

I think one of Kerry's strongest attributes is that he tries to be a team player and arrive at consensus. Feingold, otoh, is not a good team player at all. And on the infamous McCain-Feingold he got rolled on the hard money limits, which made M-F much worse for Dems. So I don't necessarily even put that to his credit.

Maybe someday he'll grow up?

[karynnj]

10. I agree on M-F

The other major problem is that it is always bad for the party out of power. You either need to place your convention so late it is back to back with the incumbent party - thus getting no momentum at the end, or endure a funding inequality as Kerry (through no fault of his own) had, or you need to forego public financing - completely eliminating the entire intent of the legislation. This should have been obvious and could have been easily fixed - have the general election period start at the end of BOTH conventions.

Another problem is that with the campaign's ads having the comment on approved by ___. It made it seem like the 527 ads were more independent than they were. Again, these were more effective for the incumbent. They could attack, but not defend - as the incumbent is known - attack ads against him are less devastating that attack ads against the opponent. (Not to mention there was a view for many people that the presidency should be accorded respect. So, you had Buchanan claiming the Rather charges against a sitting President were despicable - but he said nothing about the despicable and untrue charges against a true war hero - and as a Nixon person, he knew Kerry was really war hero.

[beachmom]

7. Feingold is playing Mr. Purist which amounts to letting Bush do

whatever he wants. Democrats, if they are to be taken seriously, need to actually work for change in the policy in Iraq -- not scream MY WAY or THE HIGHWAY. I know there are some who disagree, but I completely agree with Kerry and his "soft" approach at this time. If the Dems condemn the ISG report and the far right condemns the ISG report, then Bush can just chuck it -- ALL OF IT. I think it's better to engage. It's called democracy which requires compromise.

[wisteria]

8. Absolutely agree!

It is time for compromise. I don't think the American public is going to stand for more of the same from both sides. Iraq is an issue that should transcend patrician politics and who was right and who is wrong.
You know, Feingold reaction to this is IMO similar to Bush's both don't see a need or want to compromise because both think they are right.
This is a side of Feingold I never saw before.

Kerry has the right approach. No doubt in my mind.

[ProSense]

9. That sounds like

Bush: MY WAY or THE HIGHWAY!

I agree, such rigid talk is useless! IMO, it's okay to point out the problems with the report, but equally important to realize that people have to come together around the best approach. Consensus and compromise shouldn't mean risking more lives needlessly; it should mean acting responsibly to save lives.