Kerry on Iraq - AP.

[Mass]

He is giving concrete proposals for forces withdrawal in 12 to 15 months (equivalent to Feingold).

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/26/kerry_urges_post_election_troop_reduction_in_iraq/

At this point, by far the most concrete proposal made for withdrawing the troops. Unfortunately, we can be sure this will be thrashed in the next few hours as too little, too late.

Kerry urges post-election troop reduction in Iraq

By Andrew Miga, Associated Press Writer | October 26, 2005

WASHINGTON --Sen. John Kerry said Wednesday that the U.S. should bring home 20,000 troops from Iraq over the Christmas holiday if the December elections are successful -- and he urged further pullouts as power is handed over to Iraqi officials.

"It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December," the Massachusetts Democrat said in a speech prepared for delivery later Wednesday at Georgetown University and obtained by The Associated Press.
...


"There is no reason Iraq cannot be sufficiently stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can't soon be on their way home, and no reason we can't take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves," Kerry said.

...


He stopped short of saying he regretted his vote, but noted: "There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, 'enough blame to go around,' and I accept my share of the responsibility.

[TayTay]

1. This sounds excellent

It sounds like a workable plan that sets realistic goals that can actually be met. There are benchmarks that allow the US to measure success, it admits that the occupation is fueling the insurgency.

I want to read (or see on C-Span) the actual speech, but this sounds great!

[Mass]

2. I'd like to see or read the speech he actually delivers.

By experience, very often, Kerry improvises when he gives his speech and the prepared remarks are often softer that what he actually says.

I'm fine with the plan, with the same reservation I have with Feingold, but it is interesting to see the difference AP makes between this presentation (emphasizing that it is not a withdrawal now) and Feingold's one a few weeks ago (emphasizing that he was pushing for a withdrawal).

So one is a maverick that goes against its party leadership and the other one a cautious man that does not go all the way, all that with virtually the same proposition.

[whometense]

4. It does sound great.

It's gonna piss off a lot of people. I can't wait. I was watching c-span this morning, and they're rallying the mouthbreathers - their god is under attack.

Of course, if we're really going to be honest, what really infuriates the repukes about calls for withdrawal is it entirely negates their plans to make Iraq a satellite state. What about all those big expensive permanent bases that are under construction???

[Mass]

5. This extract particularly (second paragraph)

but at least now, he has said it. He would not have voted the IWR knowing what he knows now.

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=e7854e06-2248-4071-8dbc-246cb87f6323

Daou Report
by Peter Daou

Excerpts From John Kerry's Iraq speech:

“A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place. The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility."

"The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not."

"To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase “we will stay as long as it takes,” who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire. The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks."

"At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays. The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals."

[sandnsea]

7. Oh there it is, also 20,000 troops out

over the course of the holiday. That is big too. As is the no more shell games sentence.

But there pissin' all over it in GD.

[karynnj]

10. I wonder though if we had done a major (unethical) edit job

to the article - replacing Senator John Kerry with DNC head Howard Dean before they saw the real article what the response would be.

I doubt it would be the same. What's weird is that with the call of 20,000 out now - Kerry is pushing it more than the vaguer Feingold.

[karynnj]

3. Thanks for posting this

I like the fact that he also says that he said he would not have gone to war - and says he said it last year - which all of us have posted 9999999999999 times (or at least it seems so) on DU.

I wonder if they will notice that Kerry's time frame betters or matches Feingold's and talks about soldiers coming home for Christmas. ("I'll be home for Christmas, if only in my dreams ....")
It is interesting that the press treats this differently than Feingold's - which I don't take as a negative. There's a lot more meat even in the little AP article.

Was the RFK quote referring to Vietnam? It's a good quote - and though I really think no one could have stopped Bush - as most Americans were deceived into backing the war, this is probably better than a "I told you so." (Would it have changed things if 24 Senators voted against the IWR? Kerry's voice against the war was already there - so you can't even argue that it would have added an additional eloquent voice against the war.)

In a way, it reminds me of his VN comments. He included himself as one who did things that were wrong - though he, of course, then limited it to things they were ordered to do like burning villages and shooting into free fire zones, not atrocities. Reading Tour of Duty, I was impressed (after thinking about it) that he didn't defensively bring up the story of his basically ignoring orders (and per his peer getting hell for it) and saving 40 some villagers who were living in a free fire zone.

Sharing the blame, while knowing he was less guilty than most others, leads to healing. While arguing that you were better and right, might make a person feel good, but rarely wins friends or followers.

[TayTay]

8. That is so right.

He couldn't do a self-righteous victory lap that says, I was right and you were wrong. It would piss off too many people who believed * because he was CIC. Those people have to be brought along on any plan to get out of IRaq. We have to unite the country behind a plan, not congratulate ourselves on being 'right.'

I really want to see this speech, not just read it. Any word on if C-Span is taping it for a later showing?

[sandnsea]

6. Pete has an excerpt

“A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place. The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility."

"The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not."

"To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase “we will stay as long as it takes,” who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire. The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks."

"At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays. The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals."

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=e7854e06-2248-4071-8dbc-246cb87f6323

[MH1]

11. Such a responsible approach.

And so different from what we have in the WH now.

The thought that they rode home from Iraq in a C-130 with a coffin in the cargo hold is chilling. I can only imagine the reflections of the group; Kerry's expression here, I think, is eloquent.

This is the money quote though:

And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not."

Of course the lefty freepers will say they should have known before they voted on IWR. The rebuttal is that the American people, and by extension their representatives in Congress, should be able to trust their president with a minimum of decency and competence. We as a nation have had some loss of innocence in realizing that we cannot.

[karynnj]

16. Also, the LF forget that "knowing more" which the Senators

had every right to think they did - the idea that an entire administration plus possibly an entire previous (Bush) administration plus most of the supposedly independent intelligence people would create DETAILED lies is beyond anything I believed even in the paranoia of the Nixon years.

The other thing is some seem to have an impaired time frame. The antiwar movement grew from Oct 2002 to March 2003 when Bush went to war. It has since grown move as it is clear it's a disaster. LC and I both fought (she nicely and me rudely because I was mad at the moderator) with a poster who apparently wasn't aware that the IWR vote was in Oct 2002 - before the inspectors were in - so the poster's conclusion was that Kerry and others knew the inspectors found no WMD. That Kerry and others was part of the reason he knew what he knew never occurred to him.

[TayTay]

9. What Kerry said on 'Knowing what I know now' in Sept. 04

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE CAMPAIGN; In Harshest Critique Yet, Kerry Attacks Bush Over War in Iraq
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 1 09-21-2004
By JODI WILGOREN and ELISABETH BUMILLER


In an interview with David Letterman broadcast Monday night on the "Late Show," Mr. Kerry was asked directly whether, had he been elected president in 2000, he would have taken the country to war in Iraq. Mr. Kerry said simply, "No."

Pressed about whether American troops would be in Iraq now if a Kerry administration had received the same intelligence the Bush administration had, Mr. Kerry said: "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction. We know now there was no connection to Al Qaeda. We know there was no imminent threat and under those circumstances. I would not have taken America to war."

And you could as they say, look it up.

Here is the video: http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/kerryletterman.h...

And the Washington Post still has this transcript up from last year:

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) if the world is better off with Saddam gone, how did that square with the comment last night with David Letterman, that knowing what you now know, you wouldn't have gone to war?

KERRY: Because, for several reasons. First of all, it's obvious, if he is gone, the world is better off without him.

KERRY: Everybody understands that. He's a brutal dictator. And as I said yesterday in my speech, he deserves his own special place in hell.

But that doesn't mean that you go to war in an irresponsible way that puts America at greater risk. That doesn't mean you should take your eye off the ball, which was Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, and rush to war just to get rid of him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39311-20...

I am sorry that these comments were held in dark dank little places that no one can see, like the Letterman show and referenced in tiny Indy papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, but you campaign with the media you have, not the media you wish you had.

[Mass]

12. CNN title : Kerry: Bring troops home over Christmas

So what is Kerry: another war enabler or a dove?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/26/iraq.kerry.ap/

[sandnsea]

13. Good

That's what I thought the lead should be too. That should get some attention.

[Mass]

14. Well, you never know.

I saw you had fun on GD with the same person I had, BTW. Rewriting history is such a great game these days.

[sandnsea]

15. That is true

Been going around with that one for a long while now. But it really annoys me when people say they volunteered and don't even know what the man had to say. How could they have been effective?? They had to just reak of nose holders and that's never good.

[karynnj]

17. What's sad is that if they had taken the time to look

they would have seen the man we see - who likely is closer to their real views than their favorites. But the same people who could for Clark ignore at least 24 years of voting for Republicans and not even question what he knew, thought, and did about overt and covert activities that at his levels he likely knew about in places such as Central America and Vietnam. I know that as active millitary, he couldn't speak up. But Kerry had to risk his future in speaking up about both these actions - and HE did. These are the true comparisons: (a livetime basically liberal public Democrat, a 24 yr Republican who is now a liberal and has learned most of teh buzz words) and (a man who fought to get out terrible truths in VN and CA, a man who put his career over speaking out)

With Dean, it wasn't until I read your (and other) posts that I realized how often he just lied about his public record in VT. Reading some of the Iowa stuff now - he just angers me and I can see why Gepheart, who always had seemed basically nice, got into such a fight with him. I think the Republicans would have taken him apart had he been the candidate. I doubt he could have come close to running a campaign like Kerry's

They also seem to have forgotten that they (or their earlier counterparts) abandonned Al Gore - because they didn't like him. If he became the candidate would he even keep them - or would they be mad at Tipper for record labels (not that unreasonable) or because he is boring or changes his demeanor.

[politicasista]

18. Excellent post karyn

I agree 100%. :hi:

[leyton]

19. I attended this speech.

Got his autograph and Teresa H's also! It was great, Kerry really is such a great guy and a good speaker (which the media does not give him credit for). He was joking around with the audience, it is clear that he has a sense of humor about himself and even about the 2004 election.

[TayTay]

20. Welcome to the Kerry forum

So, post some more.

We are hungry for what it was like in the hall and such. How many people were there?

Feed us?

[leyton]

23. Glad to be here.

The hall was definitely packed (who would pass up a chance to see Kerry?) and it holds maybe four hundred people so it's more intimate than a rally something like that. Mostly students were there of course, it being a university campus. Kerry got a standing ovation and also applause at several points during the speech. One of his best lines was something to the effect of "people complain so much about moral relativists, when we have an Administration made up of factual relativists." There was a question-answer period where he tended to joke around. One questioner introduced herself as being from Ohio, and Kerry quipped, "Well, if everyone here had all just moved to Ohio..." I think the audience was overwhelmingly friendly (no hecklers) but then again the College Democrats controlled a large number of the tickets. Teresa Heinz-Kerry was also present. Afterwards a lot of students went up to try and meet the Kerrys, they were very gracious.

[Mass]

21. Photo from today event

And another picture from last week that I had not seen.

[beachmom]

22. JK said everything that needed to be said

He said what I wanted to hear -- accepting his share of the responsibility for the whole affair AND striking a balance between withdraw troops now and stay the course. In effect, a third way. A lot of meat in this speech, a lot to work with. I hope * reads it, and steals some of the ideas. If it ends up saving lives, I don't think JK would mind.