Serious discussion vs. denial!

[ProSense]

From The Premise:

December 4th, 2006 - 3:04 am |

TPM weekend anchor David Kurtz:

In alarmingly low supply is serious discussion about the broader strategic objectives of U.S. policy. Absent such discussion, tactical decisions become random short-term fixes (at best), and domestic political support will never coalesce for the long slog still ahead.

For the past four years now, the best voice on Iraq has been John Kerry. Starting with his floor statement on the Iraq War Resolution vote, through his opposition to the launch of the war before Bush pulled the trigger, right up to today, nobody has been more consistently accurate and engaged about what to do about Iraq than John Kerry.

But we can’t say that. We can’t notice that one person, again and again, gets it right.

Why?

Well, to begin with, he voted for the IWR. In the shorthand used by the brain-dead people who cover politics, that’s equivalent to voting for the war even though there was no actual vote to start the war. George Bush pulled the trigger on his own. But that’s too complicated for the pundits, so they simply say that John Kerry voted for the war, and of course anybody who voted for this war isn’t somebody we should listen to.

There’s also the fact that he lost to George Bush in 2004. Never mind the context, the Republican prostitution of 9/11, the cynical $300 tax cuts handed out to every voter, the slanderous attacks on Senator Kerry’s war record, and most importantly the wholesale lies told by the Bush administration about their own failing war policy. John Kerry lost the election, so that means he’s a loser. And we don’t take advice from losers in this country. We take advice from winners like George Bush.

Snip...

Maybe the worst crime John Kerry has committed, however, is that he’s answered the questions people have asked in the context of the moment. And that’s a very serious crime. That’s a flip-flopper’s attitude, unlike the cool-hand certainty and unshakeable resolve of our victorious decider, George Bush. Unbelievably, John Kerry keeps modifying his advice as the facts change on the ground, which is obviously a sign of weakness and indecision. Why is it so hard for John Kerry to do what George Bush did and pick one inviolate course of action that’s perfect for every possible situation?

Finally, we can’t notice that John Kerry gets it right more than he gets it wrong because we don’t want him to run for president again. He had his chance, and now it’s time to pick somebody new that can help us forget about how right John Kerry was when we decided not to elect him in 2004. He’s not saying that himself, of course, because he’s focused on bringing the troops home and finding a political solution to the problem. But most of us here in the United States really haven’t felt the effects of the war, so we’re much more concerned with how we can get a good, guilt-free night of sleep. And we can’t do that if John Kerry doesn’t go away and let us forget.

So let’s just keep saying that nobody’s willing to have a serious discussion about Iraq, so we don’t have to notice that John Kerry has been having a serious discussion for four years, and getting it right all along. Let’s just keep saying there’s nobody who knows what’s going on or what to do about it, because that means we don’t have to know what’s going on or what to do about it.

And isn’t that the easy way out of Iraq we’ve all been looking for?

– Mark Barrett

Kerry said long ago that the Iraq was sliding into civil war. When he introduced his plan for a timetable, he said the country was in a civil war. People continued to dispute that until recently, waiting for confirmation of a full-blown civil war. They got their wish! Are they going to wait until the Iraqi government collapses to acknowledge that it's in serious trouble?

Kerry is still has one of the most credible voices on Iraq. When people are looking for "adult leadership" and serious discussion, they turn to Senator Kerry:

BLITZER: Joining us now, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. The former Democratic nominee for president and influential member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, thanks for coming in.

The only thing that matters is that Bush has two choices: stay or Kerry's plan!

[MBS]

1. I loved this piece

Reading it made my morning. I already posted it on JK blog, and I was so glad to see you'd already posted it here! Mark Barrett is generally terrific, but he's exceeded himself this time. This column deserves wide, wide exposure.
I've got to get to work, and will try to spread this around this evening or tomorrow among my email buddies, but please, somebody with time this morning can you please get this out there on other blogs, including TPM, and email to anyone who needs to hear this!

[wisteria]

2. This is a wonderful piece, this is the kind of thing that needs to reach people.

This part leaped out at me. It is directed to the man JK is, the leader he is,


"...right John Kerry was when we decided not to elect him in 2004. He’s not saying that himself, of course, because he’s focused on bringing the troops home and finding a political solution to the problem."

[TayTay]

3. This is absolutely true

I have been rummaging around in the archives at the Council on Foreign Relations and everything Mark says in the Premise is true and verifiable. It's really amazing to look up speeches from 1999 - 2006 and see how consistent Sen. Kerry has been on Iraq, the Middle East, the need to reduce our dependency on foreign source sof energy and so forth.