JK Featured on MSNBC's The Ed Show last night, Re: Libya..

[ObamaKerryDem]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43504360#43504360

I think Ed was overly critical of the President's speech last night and of JK's actions here, throwing the Vietnam thing back in his face in a way at the beginning there (or at least it seemed that way to me...but I was already irritated at him (Ed Schultz) by that point in the show, so..:)). But it's still worth watching for the clips of JK's floor speech, IMO.

[wisteria]

1. Thanks, and Senator Kerry appeared on Morning Joe this morning.

Howard Dean was on also.

http://mojoe.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/23/6926092-john-kerry-on-his-defense-of-us-military-actions-in-libya

[ObamaKerryDem]

2. Very welcome--and thank you for the Morning Joe vid!

I'm never up early enough to catch that show, it seems! lol :) I think JK did a great job making his and the President's case on this and I love how he again pointed out the House GOP's utter hypocrisy on this. I don't often agree with McCain and Graham, but hey at least they are consistent on this, which I have to give them credit for, even if their angle differs a bit from JK's and ours. It was also interesting to see JK and Dean in almost complete accord on this. Wonder what the people badmouthing JK in the General forum over this (many of whom are big Dean people--I like him too, but they often put JK down in favor of him, which I of course do not like :)) and saying he "loves war" would think of that? Guess Dean "loves war" too! *rollseyes*

JK is such a great voice on this, as with so many other important issues.

And is it just me, or does it seem like the House in general, even the Dems, are being so much more ideological about this than the Senate, even Senate GOPers like McCain? Obama is taking so much more heat in the House than he is in the Senate, for this and Afghanistan. Interesting contrast.

[wisteria]

3. Yeah, I don't know what is up with the House Dems.

I liked of all people, Hilary Clinton's comment about who's side are you on?, while referring to those pushing to end our involvement in Libya.

[karynnj]

4. I find Kerry's case for acting compelling, but understand that it echoes

Bush's case for eliminating Hussain. One major difference is that eliminating Hussain was not the reason given for going to war - it was an after the fact reason after the first reason was shown to be bogus.

Where I come out is that it is very hard to know where to draw the line when a leader is on the verge of killing large numbers of people. I feel uncomfortable with Kerry using the word genocide, because I don't think this is based on ethnicity - though it may be. You would think that one of the purposes of the UN is to prevent something like Rwanda, Cambodia or the Holocaust.

I didn't hear Clinton's comment, but if it is as you say asking who's side are you on, I have a problem with it. If the implication is that they are on Gaddaffi's side, it is beyond the pale. (This comes close to Bush's if you aren't with us, you are with the terrorists.) If it arguing that it is wrong for Democrats to side against a Democratic president, it is wrong for hundreds of reasons. The Congressmen are representing their constituents and they are suppose to act in accordance with their own intelligence and conscience. This is not football or baseball where you cheer your team regardless.

I also agree with Senators like Lugar and McCain, who have complained that Congress has not been consulted to the degree it should be. Look back over the various hearings that Kerry has had, especially on Afghanistan. It is glaring that the administration refused to testify - so the witnesses were outside scholars and people who were once diplomats. Here, Obama and Clinton are really taking advantage of Kerry's loyalty and the fact that if he publicly complained, the media would immediately take it as a Kerry/Clinton fight because he was angry not to get the SoS spot. As far as working with Congress goes, Hillary has seemed pretty high handed.

[Mass]

9. Because the WH plays stupid. They should have gone to the Congress to ask for an

authorization after 60 days. They did not. Kerry and Durbin rushing to the rescue of the WH (with the support of neoncons like McCain) is not the same thing, and if anything, shows that Kerry agrees the WH should have asked this authorization. If Bush had done that, everybody would be in arms.

Results, an absurd situation where, today, the House rejected the Kerry-Mccain resolution while refusing to reject the funding for the operation. Not exactly logical, and very embarrassing for the WH.

I also heard Kerry's interview on the News Hour concerning Afghanistan. I' ve read everywhere including in other interviews that he supports Obama. I think his support is probably as reluctant as Boxer or Levin, at least this is what I got from the NewsHour interview, that it was a step in the right direction, but far from what he would have liked to see. He is probably too much of a good soldier to let it show like Levin did.

[karynnj]

10. Completely agree with you - and McCain even said that had Obama

asked for it - as he should have when he went in - he would have gotten it. The problem is that many votes were because Obama did not ask. You might even say that the Republican votes were more a vote of no confidence in Obama.

I agree that Kerry is too much a good soldier - and even in 2004, he listed loyalty as one of the words that define him.

The fact that they didn't end the funding given that they won't authorize the effort, suggests that they actually do not want to end it (unlike the antiwar left), but they want to leave Obama alone and responsible on this.

[karynnj]

5. Thanks for this link - very nice, clean interview

I really like that Kerry did not try to simplify the complex political situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I have alwasy been impressed when he is able to reduce the situation to vested interests of all the powers.

I am impressed with show for having Hasse and Dean there. It is clear that Hasse is less optimistic about the political solution than Kerry, but he does seem to agree that both the Taleban/Afghanistan and the regional political situation need to be worked on.

It was good to see Dean again. It is interesting that he nearly completely deferred to Kerry on this - which makes sense as foreign policy or even what to do with the wars, other than positioning himself as against the already happening Iraq war, were not Dean strong points in 2004. (Dean sounded very good, though he really seems to have aged since 2004. )

[karynnj]

6. Thanks for the link

I do think that Ed did Kerry's speech a disservice by just taking the defense of continuing the effort - the point where his and McCain's speeches intersected. But, it is not unfair and it is one of the points both made.

I think the two speeches are more interesting when you listen to McCain speaking of things he would have wanted in the resolution that he had to sacrifice because it was bipartisan. At this point, I like that it actually includes explicit limitations. I know that the President can ignore the limitations - as Bush really did with the IWR. But, the current situation does show that those who said that a President can take the country to war unilaterally and it is difficult to stop that.

[Luftmensch067]

7. Thanks for the links!

And, Karynnj, very interested to read your detailed reactions on this. Did you (or anyone else here) have any thoughts on JK's analysis of the War Powers Act in this situation -- that the Act was written in regard to full-scale military involvement and that none of our troops are currently being shot at or on the ground in Libya?

[karynnj]

8. The best answer to that is to give you the link to the thread here on the

war powers SFRC hearing. There are links to various articles and a lot of discussion between us. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=157074

It is interesting that in the proposal the key was "more than 7 days of combat". When I read that back then, I never thought there would be a reason to define what "combat" means. The US was involved in the Iraq no fly zone for years and that was not consider war - it lasted through the entire Clinton years of "peace and prosperity". Libya is not a direct analogy as there is a civil war actually happening there.

I do think that Obama should have backed a vote at the beginning - when it likely would have passed.