JK to Speak at Georgetown Univ. on Wed.

[LeftyLizzie]

I'm really, really excited because JK is coming to give a "major address on national security" here at Georgetown on Wednesday. I was really stressed out, because the tickets are going to be available on Tues. morning, first-come, first-served, and I was really worried that I wouldn't be able to get one. However, since I'm on the board of the College Democrats, I get first priority in getting tickets or ushering. I'm hoping that I get to usher, because I think that then I'd have a better chance to meet the man himself. Anyway, I'm almost 100% sure that I'll get to go, so I'll give you guys a full report afterwards.

Also, my friend had a John Kerry sighting at the local Dean and Delucca. I happened to have gone home to Florida last weekend, but my friend was walking outside Dean and Deluca last Sunday night, and a car pulled up in the driveway next to the store, and JK got up and ran in. People started to gather outside, and by the time he left the store, just a couple of minutes later, there was a whole mob of people. He shook one guy's hand and then ran back to the car. I'm told that he was moving very, very swiftly the whole time - so much so that my friend said he was just a blur passing by. And, by the way, the car had a driver, so JK wasn't driving himself. I should also point out that he lives only like three blocks from D&D, so he didn't really need to take a car. but perhaps he was coming back from somewhere.

And one more thing - I passed the Kerrys' house today (I actually pass it several times a week, as it's between the campus and CVS and lots of other shopping)and they had the downstairs window open and the light was on. The room looks to be like a kind of basement/office. It's FILLED with books and picture frames - there are so many books that some of them are on the stairs between the rails! Anyway, I got as good of a glimpse as I could without lingering too long, and that was mostly what I could see.

Sorry for the long post, but I figured that y'all might be interested to hear about JK's movements about the Georgetown area. :7

[Island Blue]

1. That's exciting LL! Hope you're able to attend the speech.

Of course you know if you do, you have to check in here and give us a full report! :)

That's interesting that he was mobbed outside of a store. I wonder how often that happens to other senators? My guess is, not to often. (What a rock star our guy is!) Thanks for keeping us posted with tales from the 'hood!

[blm]

2. I am so HAPPY for you + You made me feel as if I peeked into the window

myself. heh

[TayTay]

3. "major address on national security"

So you might get to hear the Iraq speech we have all been waiting for. (I am very happy to hear this. I was afraid that it might be at a place where we don't have 'contributing reporters.'

Full account, please and pics, if you got 'em..Is there a web site advertising this?

You rock kiddo! Have fun!

And, I know we have done this beofre, but another letter writing campaign to get C-Span to cover this would be nice. If this is 'the Iraq speech' I think C-span might be willing.

[LeftyLizzie]

4. There's no website . . .

They sent out e-mails to all the students telling them about the event. This is the text from it:

The Georgetown University Lecture Fund

cordially invites you to a major address on national security by

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts

Wednesday, October 26
1:00 PM
Gaston Hall
Please no bags or backpacks

Tickets will be distributed first come-first serve on Tuesday, October 25 at 10:00 AM in Red Square. We look forward to seeing you there.

I don't know that I'll be able to bring a camera - usually when they have major speakers on campus, they only allow you to bring your ID. I wonder if "no bags" means no purses. Hmmmm. . .

[TayTay]

5. This was the same thing as at Brown.

You can bring a camera. They don't want backpacks or book bags. They take up too much space. (And for security reasons. There are people who don't like Dems, after all.)

See who else is there. I am cruious. (For my own reasons.)

And have fun. I am excited for you getting to hear major politicos make these speeches at your school. It's just wonderful. You never knnow, you could meet staff and decide you want to intern or something.

[globalvillage]

7. I e-mailed C-SPAN. n/t.

[TheDonkey]

27. yeah, this would be great for CSPAN to cover (nt)

[globalvillage]

34. My buddy at C-SPAN said he would check

with the assignment desk and let me know. That was at 9 am, so they must not have decided yet. I asked him to push for it.
I won't get to see it anyway, but maybe they'll replay.

[TayTay]

6. Hey KG? Can you verify if this is The Iraq Speech

that we have all been waiting for.

From the Boston Globe: 10/23/05

Looking forward (or not) to Iraq

As (Sen.) Kerry learned, the war in Iraq can become a political swamp for Democratic presidential candidates.

With the Iraqi constitution now officially approved -- a moment touted by the White House as the latest step in the country's march toward democracy -- here's what five Democratic senators who might be eyeing the 2008 campaign had to say (or not to say).

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware called the vote encouraging, but predicted that Sunni bitterness over not defeating the constitution could rejuvenate the insurgency, and could lead to full-blown civil war.

Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin called the vote a ''modest step forward" but accused the White House of failing to focus on more pressing terror threats. ''As important as democracy is to Iraq," he told us, ''it's not as important as the national security of America."

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said the referendum ''is not a transformative event and will not solve the problem in Iraq. . . Are the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Shiites willing to do what it takes to reconcile their differences and live together in one country or separately?"

Kerry had nothing nice to say about the vote, noting that ''the fundamental differences, by any acknowledgment, were postponed."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York offered no response to inquiries about the vote.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/10/23/a_rock_pillar_gives_bush_a_good_rap/?page=2

[sandnsea]

8. Press release

Sounds like it is, especially since it's at Georgetown. He usually stepped it up a bit in his other Georgetown speeches.

*** Media Advisory ***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 21, 2005

CONTACT: April Boyd xxx-xxx-xxxx

John Kerry to Deliver Major Address at Georgetown University

Senator John Kerry will deliver a major address on national security at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, October 26.

Senator Kerry’s speech at Georgetown is sponsored by the Georgetown University Lecture Fund.

Who: Senator John Kerry

When: Wednesday, October 26 1:00 p.m.

Where: Georgetown University
Gaston Hall -- 3rd floor of Healy Hall

[beachmom]

9. Max Cleland on Bill Maher 2 weeks ago on Iraq

I just got that book "The Candidate", and read a moving part where Kerry won the Iowa primary and he hugged Max Cleland, and Max talked about how they've been fighting for this for 30 years. I just was wondering how much Max and JK think alike? Because I completely forgot to tell you guys last week that Max Cleland said in very easy to understand terms that "it was time to get our troops out of Iraq!". I was blown away by his bluntness. Now some of you read and listen to more liberal outlets than me, so perhaps you had heard Max talk about this before (he did do a Democratic radio address, but I don't remember him saying that we need to get the troops out now). I had never heard this kind of talk from him before, and I was quite frankly stunned, because I just feel like Max and John tend to be on the same page on the issues, especially war and the troops.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but if Max Cleland is saying it's time to get out of Iraq, will similar conclusions from Kerry follow? And, if so, will such a declaration be a major gamble, possibly knocking him out of the running for '08? The thing is that he's definitely an underdog for '08, so why not just say what he feels in his gut, and throw caution to the wind? And perhaps he could somehow make his speech be a combo of anti-war (Iraq) while being heavily commited to national security (the global war on terror). That we need to fight them in a different way from simple occupation of an Arab country.

Based on what you guys have talked about in Kerry's decision making style, I bet you virtually nobody knows what he is going to say on Wednesday night, except him and maybe Teresa. I'm interested in what everyone's thoughts are. My opinion is that he should go for it, and let the chips fall where they may. I don't think I'm being overly critical to say that he was too cautious in '04, trying to please so many different factions (the anti-war base, the swing voters, the liberal hawks, the disaffected conservatives). And what did that get him? I think it's time for him to just SAY IT, lay it all out there with no ambiguity whatsoever. With all that has happened and continues to happen in Iraq, the time for nuance has passed. I'm ready for blunt talk from JK. Anyone else feel the same way?

[sandnsea]

10. My impression

I never got the impression JK & Max were on the exact same page on the war. Max always seemed to be a bigger critic. I would be a little surprised if JK calls for immediate withdrawal right now, that's not where the party is. If he does, he may say it's because it's clear Bush will not change course and that being the case, there's no way to succeed. I always thought he truly believed Saddam was a menace in the ME, that he would get and use bio/chem weapons if he could, and that, after the invasion, it would be dangerous to have Iraq as a country that would openly sponsor terrorists. Some intelligence says that Saddam was a key financial backer of Arafat and Hammas. Iraq has never been simple. It is definitly part of any President's foreign policy strategy, even when separated from the "war on terror". If he says we need to withdraw, then he's still left to present a different foreign policy for the ME and terrorism. Unless it's bring all the troops home from all over the globe, the left wouldn't like it either. This just is not easy stuff, probably with no perfectly good answer.

[beachmom]

12. Cleland's evolution in the last few months

I just went and googled Max, and here are 3 statements from Aug., Sept., and Oct. He is definitely now very anti-war:


8/22/05

"The Bush administration needs to step up to the plate. It's time to face the truth. It's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out," said Cleland, who lost his Senate seat from Georgia in 2002.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1053046



9/15/05

After discussing the Katrina Hurricane disaster and its horrific effects on the lives of the tens of thousands of people in the Gulf Coast area, Cleland said, “We are spending more money in Iraq then rebuilding New Orleans, Biloxi, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. It is time to bring our troops home-especially the National Guard that was created to guard America and to deal with disasters in our own country rather than being sent to die in the deserts in Iraq. It is time to put America first!”

http://www.miami.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/2390.php



10/21/05

So, I think it's smart for us now, since there are no weapons of mass destruction there; since there is no tie between Saddam Hussein and the attack on this country, 9/11; and there are no nuclear weapons materials coming up from Africa, so I think it's time to get the hell out and bring our troops home and bring——defend our country.

http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/transcripts.shtml


I think you're right, Sandy, that Max is ahead of JK on the Iraq War. But he actually was against the Vietnam War before JK jumped in, too. I don't know. It may seem simplistic, but Cleland has said already that he would support another Kerry run for the WH, so I don't see the two men ever straying too far apart on the issues. No, JK my not be to the point that Max is, but I can't see him being too far behind. I agree it's complicated, what with the Zaqawi organization now acclipsing bin Laden's, but maybe there is a better way to win the GWOT than having 140,000 troops plunked down in Iraq like sitting ducks. Maybe there's a better way . . .

[TayTay]

15. I agree. It isn't as simple as saying Bring the Troops Home

I think that Max Cleland and Chuck Hagel are influences on Kerry's thinking. They are intelligent people who usually have good reasons for why they think they way they do and someone as savvy and politically intuitive as Kerry would be smart to pay attention to them. He also shares a background with both men and knows where they are coming from. They are all veterans of a war that was a mistake.

Saddam Hussein was a very bad and evil man. He did gas his own people. He did order the deaths of tens of thousands of people and he did run an absolute dictatorship that was devoid of concern for human rights. This background is part of the reason why * eventually got support from the American people to invade the country. However, Americans don't go to war just to free an oppressed people. (In fact, we are extremely reluctant to intervene in another sovereign nation just for human rights reasons. It is actually a problem. Look at who supported the intervention in the Balkans and why it was not deemed a worthy military goal by so many. This is a good topic for liberals to explore; when should the US use force in another country? Sigh!)

You hit the nail on the head Sandy. Kerry knows from his BCCI investigations that international terrorists were receiving funding and money laundering services from countries in the Middle East. We know that the Saudi's are, at best, deceptive friends as they fund the extremists teachings of Wahabism. (See Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi) The Middle East is not Vietnam and we can't just ignore the area.

We also might not be able to stay. The world community knows that our occupation is fueling the insurgency, which is a home-grown effort. (The * Admin wants people to think that the insurgency is fed by foreigners streaming into Iraq and that the Iraqis are not as behind it as they really are.)

I wish Senator Kerry a lot of luck on this. As you said above, he also needs to articulate what happens next and what a comprehensive policy toward the Middle East would and should look like. What happens post-Iraq? It is in no way as simple as saying, Get out now.

[TayTay]

11. I agree with you, and I think that's what we'll see.

We have heard during the course of this year an unwillingness by Kerry to give up on Iraq. I don't think that's because he agrees with the neocons or with * about the invasion and about the goals of the neocons. (Yuck!) I truly think he was horrified about the prospect of leaving Iraq and it's people to the deadly aftermath of what we have done. It is, in a sense, not a humanitarian act to leave Iraq.

I think the whole war in IRaq has been an ache in the soul for Kerry. He never advocated for total war, he never advocated for * and Rumsfeld to go in and destroy that country through neglect, incompetence and arrogance. I am sure that Kerry is as disgusted as anyone at the corruption and lack of accountability that we have in Iraq. I bet it sickens, disgusts and angers him. It didn't have to be this way.

I think Kerry was reluctant to completely turn against the war because of the importance of the Middle East in world affairs and because of the humanitarian disaster that Iraq has become. He laid out, time and again, a plan that might have made it better. The days that any plan might make things better are (or appear to me at least to be) gone. We now have to confront this horrific understanding that we are unable to fix this problem.

What did Kerry learn in Vietnam? You can't win a war when the native population is not engaged and refuses to fight in their own cause. You can't win the 'hearts and minds' of the local people by killing their relatives and friends. You can't prevent a civil war once events have propelled it too far down the path. I believe he also learned that some fights damage the soul and fundamentally damage the nation. This is one such fight and one such war. We have indeed, as Pogo said in the comics so long ago, met the enemy and he is us. We have to get out for the sake of our own people and our own sense of who we are as a nation, a democracy and a people that love and respect human rights.

I would expect this to be an difficult speech to deliver. I don't think so because of any idiotic 'warmonger' stuff in GD. I think it might be difficult because it will be a searing speech to think about and to deliver. Sometimes wisdom is painful thing to gain. It can be an equally painful thing to try to convey. I wish him good luck and Godspeed on this one. I want the speech and I want to see it or read it, but I also think it will be a difficult one to give. The issues are so troubling and so frightening.

[beachmom]

13. Wonderful post, Tay Tay

I also found Iraq to be a slow torture for Kerry, especially when it was pitted against his lifelong dream to become president. I don't think that telling the truth about Iraq means he has to give up his dream, but I do think that at the end of the day, speaking from his gut is what will be good for him. From one of my motivational tapes, it is said that success is not achieving a goal, but rather working toward a goal. Kerry is already a success, and he should say what is best for this country, and lead, and let the results of '08 fall where they may. Then he can be at peace.

[globalvillage]

14. Well, then, I hope Wed isn't Fitzmas day.

This will be buried if the indictments come down just before or on the same day. I will hope for good timing and a kick ass speech from the Senator.
You think this will be difficult for him? I guess it will, but I think it's probably tougher to keep it in. If he gives the speech we're hoping he'll give, it will be painful, but liberating. Of course, he's going to take a lot of heat from the neocons, but I think the media's ready to give him some support.
Very insightful (as usual), Tay Tay. Thanks.

[TayTay]

16. That depends on what you think the speech should be.

I don't, in a very general sense, have a specific 'thing' that I want from Sen. Kerry. I have been reading the tea leaves (which have been pretty clear) from the last few weeks and I see that the gloves are off. I heard it in the Brown Univ. speech, I saw it at the SFRC committee hearing with Condi last week. I think Kerry honestly gave * as chance after the election to try and unify the country and to try and do something that would make Iraq a better situation.

Instead, * seems to be stuck in his own arrogance and blindness. Iraq is not getting better. There is evidence that the election in Jan. was fixed (according to Sy Hersh) and that the election on the Constitution was also fixed. (Ballot box stuffing. How could 99% of some areas of the country vote for the Constitution. That just defies reason.) Our troops are still not getting the armor and protection they need. Corruption is rampant in IRaq and the Congress refuses to do any oversight on this. (This is criminal neglect on the part of the Rethugs and a dereliction of their sworn duty as Cong. and Sens. btw.)

I want Kerry to say this. (But he has already said this, numerous times in the last few years.) I want him to point out that Iraq is not getting better, but is getting worse. (He has already said this numerous times.) I'm not sure what else I want to hear from him. (He never favored this kind of war.) What I want to do is hear this speech with a clear head and listen to what Kerry has learned this year and what he honestly thinks. He's a smart man and knows a great deal about the whole of our foreign policy and the world situation. I want to hear that. I also want to hear from the morally outraged human being who sees a wrong unfolding. I want to hear that as well. (Heart informing head.) Kerry knows what it's like to serve in a war that was based on lies and exaggerations and he knows what it's like to see people abandoned in that war effort. I want to hear that and I want to hear the moral outrage. Other than that, I am not expecting anything, but I am willing to listen.

[globalvillage]

17. What do I want to hear him say?

I want to hear him say what he started to say to Condi last week, and would have, I think, if he had more than 15 minutes including her inane jabbering. I want to know what he knows about what's really going on, all in one speech. I want the facts and the outrage.
I don't know if it should be 'out now' or 'timeline' or neither. I want him to tell me that, because he has seen it up close and I trust his judgement.
That's what I want. I want the truth, and if Sen Kerry says it, I know that's what I'll get.
I have heard that 85% of Iraqis want foreign troops out. I don't know if that's true or not. I'll bet it's close. I have heard that it's getting worse. Well, he was there. He can tell me how much worse.
I just want the speech. The one that the media can't ignore. The one that people will hear and say Kerry was right, bush* was wrong, and that this country made a huge mistake last Nov. The one that will be the beginning of the end of this stupid war. I hope this is it.
So, I guess we pretty much want the same thing.

[fedupinBushcountry]

18. Very good insights from all

This is such a complex situation, and Bush has made it even more complex. I happened upon a speech given by another Bush Administration defector, Col. Larry Wilkerson, Chief of Staff for Colin Powell. If you get a chance listen to it. I don't agree with everything he says, but I will say he has made me realize what John Kerry was up against when the IWR vote came about and how John Kerry was right in his way of tackling the Iraq situation.

So if you have time give it a listen it is an audio so you can listen while browsing the internet.

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/wilkersoncabaloct05.mp3

[globalvillage]

19. Well, I had a hard time getting past

him fawning all over Bush 41.
I'm sure it gets better.

[fedupinBushcountry]

21. I know

like I said I didn't agree with everything he said. But to me what was interesting was about the Intelligence of the last umpteen years and just what a dangerous situation we are in and how he talks about Eisenhower's warning of the Military Industrial Complex and we better take that seriously now.

[sandnsea]

22. Here's a commentary on Hamas

To complicate the situation even more. Can you imagine selling the US on the concept of "moderate Hamas"? It would be nice if we lived in a country where the truth was more important than politics. Very interesting piece though.

"The U.S., meanwhile, is missing an opportunity. It cannot back down from the rhetoric created by its "war on terror," but it can acknowledge that the mere desire by Hamas to become part of a body created by the Oslo Accords constitutes a serious moderation, even if implicit, of the group's position on the conflict. If Washington wants to implement a two-state solution, it needs to strengthen this moderate stream rather than alienate it.

While it may not be able to actively support Hamas running for elections, Washington could at least apply pressure behind the scenes on Israel to allow for the possibility. Including Hamas in the PA's body politic will stabilize the internal Palestinian situation, strengthen Hamas' commitment to the legitimacy of the PA and ensure, for the time being, a prolonged commitment to a cease-fire. Washington can then, with greater leeway, apply overt pressure on Israel to abandon a unilateralism that by its very nature dooms any political settlement.

Indeed, zooming out for a second, reaching out to moderate Islamists - who across the region remain the only viable opposition force, not only to existing regimes but also to more radical streams - ought to be a guiding policy if the U.S. hopes to attain any of its regional objectives (assuming that these are indeed the stated objectives of democratization and political liberalization). Doing so with Hamas moderates would send the signal that the American understanding of democracy in the region is not restricted to the participation of those Washington finds acceptable. It is also crucial to getting anywhere in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The greatest long-term challenge for U.S. policy in the region is not in dealing with specific instances in Iraq and Palestine, crucial as these are. The greatest challenge is how Washington decides to come to terms with "Islamists," a moniker that has been thrown around too lightly for too long. The sooner Washington comes to a less black-and-white understanding of Islamic political movements, the better for all."


Omar Karmi is managing editor of the Palestine Report and Jerusalem correspondent for The Jordan Times. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=19532

[karynnj]

29. I agree with you on most of what you say

I also really want to hear what Kerry has to say, because I trust him to give an insightful, thoughtful view of both what the situation is and what can be done. I agree with everyone who said this is likely a very painful, very serious speech.

In 2004, he could (and had to be) be optimistic, spelling out in clear cut (but not too detailed ways) how he would use diplomacy to help bring this to a better end. It was implied then (and he said it to Cindy) that some things he could do Bush, at this point, can't. More than anything, this is what we lost in 2004 - imagine how quickly Kerry with his history could be believable in saying we will obey international law and that America does not torture people.

In early and mid- 2005, he, when still asked for a plan THAT HE COULDN'T IMPLEMENT, defined goals and suggested what could be done. What is interesting is how, to some degree other Democrats are saying what he said this summer - Levin, in his op-ed used some of the same phrases; even Hillary in an AP quote on a DU thread spoke of the US having to say that we won't be there forever - which was the first time I heard her say anything on that. (The main part of the article was that she claimed Bush wasted "Bill's surpluses".) So it looks, like there may be at least some basic Democratic position - which egos will keep the Dems from saying this was their consistent (NO flip flop) 2004 + position.

Kerry consistently spoke of the unmet need of diplomacy. He had talked of a narrow window of opportunity in early 2005 - last week he called Rice on the fact that it wasn't done and that the Constitution doesn't deal with these issues. He lined up that the Iraqi leaders, people and our military think our presence is part of the problem. It was interesting that Gen Casey and the Iraqi leader both talked of a huge withdrawal by the end of year - about a third! It really sounded like even in his Rice questioning he was making a case for this.

What will be interesting if he points out in this speech and others, that the Bush strategists are alone in not seeing this - if the press will follow him, ignore him (waiting for Hillary, Hagel or someone else to say the same thing), or criticize him. It would send a huge, unambiguous signal if we withdrew a third of our forces. Whether he feels the US can at this point help on the diplomacy is an interesting question? (How do you influence diplomacy on the way out?)

To some extent part of the challenge may be the desire of the press for simple minded concepts. Kerry seemed to be pointing out that the Shiite dominated government they were moving toward would likely end up on Iranian influenced Islamic government - which although it might be the result of pure democracy, would be a very bad turn of events. (Ironic - Bush pushing democracy - under which Gore would be President; while Kerry suggested that the rights and interests of the minority need to be protected (which leads to a more complex government) and prefers the government to be secular. What Kerry seemed to suggest is far more like the US, but how many
people would recognize that.)

[europegirl4jfk]

20. Well, I don't know Kerry as well as you guys do...

But did you see or read Larry Wilkerson's (ex-Powell-aide) account on the Iraq situation? Well, he is ex-military and admires G.H.W. Bush, but I think it's interesting what he's saying. He sees a big difference between Vietnam and Iraq:


"We can’t leave Iraq. We simply can’t. I can make that case. No one in this administration has made that case. They have simply pontificated. That’s all they’ve done. Now, I’m not evaluating the decision to go to war. That’s a different matter. But we’re there, we’ve done it, and we cannot leave. I would submit to you that if we leave precipitously or we leave in a way that doesn’t leave something there we can trust, if we do that, we will mobilize the nation, put 5 million men and women under arms and go back and take the Middle East within a decade. That’s what we’ll have to do. So why not get it right now? Why not get it right now?"

......

"There are a number of reasons why I believe that this is strategic in a sense that Vietnam was not. Vietnam was a misinterpretation, in my view, of a Cold War side battle that really wasn’t a Cold War side battle except in a superficial aspect. It really was a civil war. And the French misinterpreted, because of their colonial remnants, and we misinterpreted it because of our fixation on the Cold War, although I have some very provocative opinions about what we could have done in Vietnam if we’d stuck it out too. Nonetheless, Vietnam was not something that when we left, however with honor or without, we were going to have to revisit 10 years later because it was so strategic. I think Iraq is."

Link to the video: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveID=520
Link to the transcript: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm


I agree with you, TayTay, and think that it's a very difficult decision to make for Kerry. He said in the hearing last week and already before in the campaign etc that he would opt for a political solution over a military one. And I think he would have been able to bring Iraq's neighbors to the conference table, but he isn't the president and Bush won't take that road and even if he wanted to now, nobody would take him serious anymore. He has gambled away America's credibility.

So, if Larry Wilkerson's estimation that an unstable Iraq is a permanent threat to America's security is correct (and I really don't know if he is right) but the war can't go on and on and with the Bush administration there is no political solution in sight, then the USA is in a very dangerous quagmire. And I think John Kerry knows that as well and is very worried about the state or your Nation.

A while ago I read a book written by the French author Emmanuel Todd (After the Empire : The Breakdown of the American Order) in which he talks about a new world order centered on homogeneous continental areas in which the United States would loose it's super-power status. That could all be a peaceful evolution without doing a lot of damage but in my opinion, Bush's aggressive war politics are weakening the USA in such a speed that it is unbalancing the whole world order.

[TayTay]

32. It is such a huge problem and all the 'solutions' are bad

That's what makes it a quagmire. It is in the best interests of thw whole world if the Middle East is not roiled and in turmoil. The largest Islamic countries are not in the Middle East, but in places like Indonesia and such. The US presense in Iraq, right in the middle of Shia holy places and so close to the principal holy sites of Islam is destablizing to more than just the immediate area of Iraq.

The US is at an important crossraods. The rest of the world is catching up to us in terms of being able to produce goods and services and at a cheaper price than we can. The PNAC solution to this was to make America feared in the world by flex our muscles in the Middle East and using overpowering force to subdue other countries. (We were imposing democracy, which is an oxymoron. You can't impose democracy, it's an organic development.) China and India, who together have more than 1/3rd of the world's population are combing economic forces into a Pan-Asian economic union to push for their own interests. The US could have been a force for tipping China and India into greater concern for workers rights, human rights and the environment and so much more. But Iraq has casued us to forfeit so much of that moral voice.

We do face a diminished future. We just had a historic labor give-back in the US as General Motors, which is tettering on the edge of bankruptcy, forced it's union workers to give back health care benefits. We have companies lining up to shed their pension funds and dump health care obligations to workers. We need a strong voice with a vision to help America steer through these times. (We need a Democrat who speaks for working America.) We need someone who can repair our relationship with Europe, Canada and Latin America. Sigh! This is so difficult and the present regime in Washington just doesn't care. They believe they can accomplish everything through force. Well, that's not working out so well. I don't think we are feared in the world, I think we are either pitied or thought of with extreme suspicion.

[ginnyinWI]

30. it would differentiate him from Hillary in a very clear way

Last I heard, her position is lined up with the WH: this is no time to leave, stay the course, etc.etc. And this strategy is not working. And it's exactly what they kept saying, for years, about Vietnam. And they were wrong.

[karynnj]

31. She may have moved very very slightly

An AP article that was mostly about her accusing Bush of wasting "Bill's" surplus, quoted her saying that we could stay there for a long time - very vague, not explicitly talking bases or defining long - Nixon didn't say we would be in VN "long".

She mainly seems like she tries to avoid talking.

[wisteria]

23. IMO, there will never be any peace in Iraq as long as the Sunni's

do not feel they are part of the process. They are the biggest losers in this whole mess because they have lost the most power. Bush has rushed both of the votes along for political expediency (I also have my doubts that this administrations even knows the definition of the words compromise nor negotiate )-not allowing the time it would actually take to address the Sunni concerns and gain enough trust from them to ensure more harmony among the groups. There also appears to be much mistrust between the Shiites and Kurd's against the Sunnis' for past atrocities under Saddam.Maybe a little-getting even. The Shiites and the Kurds have much to gain from this new government, the Sunnis' only have some promises from the others to review their objections to the Constitution. Peace among the groups will never be an overnight process- it will take a very long time. Condi spoke about the insurgents as being a malignancy, I think that we are the malignancy, our continued presence and interference and our unclear true intentions only further anger and mobilizes the Sunni's who in fact,are the majority of the terrorists. We can continue to battle them, but how does that make us any different than Saddam? He maintained power and control by force too.IMO, we are not helping the situation as much as hurting their chances to succeed at this point.
I think Kerry, based on what I heard during SOS Rice's testimony last week, will definitely touch on the continuing Sunni anger and exclusion from this whole Constitutional process.

I hope the press treats this speech fairly and affords John Kerry the respect he deserves. It's time they stop playing games by asserting he has motives other than his country's best interest in mind when he speaks out against this administration. That means Daily Kos also.

[sandnsea]

25. unclear true intentions

That's it in a nutshell. Doesn't really matter who is in and who is out over there, Bush's motives are completely dishonorable and they all know it. The only hope would be if the voice of this country would force a change in our military strategy, I think most Iraqis would respect that if they saw a clear change. But I don't think Bush will ever change which doesn't leave alot of options except to support getting out. But then, that probably creates a bundle of ME policy problems that wouldn't have happy solutions either. If anybody ever truly needed a sudden and profound spiritual awakening, it's George Bush and he needs it in a hurry. :)

[wisteria]

26. What a mess, huh! Maybe the best thing Bush could do

other than the impossibility of him having an awakening, would be to clean house and get some new blood involved in this serious situation. Maybe, new people can offer a fresh approach to Bush and the Iraqi's. Maybe, they can offer a new direction. In the meantime, Bush needs to make his intentions clear in regards to Iraq. I don't by the new reasoning that we are going to make Iraq a model country in the ME, that others will admire and strive to emulate. Religion and oil will never allow that to happen.

[sandnsea]

28. Permanent paid vacation

Cost to American taxpayers: $1.2 million
Peace of mind for entire world: priceless

Seriously, the best thing Bush could do is just go home. Him and the whole insane cabal. I don't think there are any Republicans who could advise him on a rational approach to Iraq because they're all a bunch of pro-Israel at any cost militarists and that's half the problem. I don't even trust Chuck Hagel, no matter how reasonable he tries to sound on Sunday morning. When he gets on the Senate floor he turns into a Bushbot, just like the rest of them. Maybe that Congressman from the Carolinas, the one who actually changed his whole and complete mind on the war. Maybe he should be Secy of Defense.

[kerrygoddess]

24. I'm assuming...

The press release that Sandnsea posted here went out on Friday. I just posted it because I didn't want to post it too far in advance and have folks forget, plus I have been working all weekend between redesigning the DD Blog and my business.

I was told JK was working on the "Iraq" speech last weekend and it was still pending. I am assuming they repackaged it some as national security. It all goes hand and hand.

If I find out more I will let you all know, of course.

[Mass]

33. Difficult excercise, particularly for JK who is too honest to propose

simplistic solutions that do not address the problem.

Though I know he is not going to agree to a solution I agree with 100 %, I am fairly confident he will have all the pieces of a reasonnable solution, put together in an intelligent and articulate way:

- Criticism of the Bush's administration conduct of the war: before and after March 03,
- Explanation of the real situation on Iraq as clearly as he sees it,
- Presentation of what he thinks a solution would involve (and, from all I saw these last weeks, it will involve a plan to withdraw troops at in a reasonnable timetable.
- Stating that this war was taking his toll in the fight against terrorists (both militarily and diplomatically).

Relative to Iraq, I could difficultly believe Schumer at MTP yesterday. Asked by Russert if he regretted his IWR vote, he said that he did not because it was strong vote against terrorism.:wtf:

[TayTay]

35. I saw that and I was surprised by Schumer.

He didn't express the thought very well. Schumer was too brief in his explanation. This is what he said on the floor of the Senate in the IWR debate:

Let me first address the question of how by making three points.

One, we must certainly try less costly, less ultimate options before we choose the last resort, war.

Our first option must be working with our allies at the United Nations to secure a strict resolution that will compel Saddam Hussein to disarm and submit to unlimited and unrestricted inspections.

The administration believes a unified Congress that authorizes the President to wage war will importune the United Nations to take the kind of vigorous and unified action that has eluded that body for the last 11 years: real inspections, real sanctions, real threats of military force. I hope and pray they are right.

Let me repeat: inspections and sanctions backed by the threat of military force. These must come first. These are the reasons to favor this resolution.

And if after exhausting these options, Saddam Hussein remains a threat, I believe other nations will support and follow us as we pursue the last option, war.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r107query.html
107th Congress
Senator: Schumer
Search term: Iraq
Senate, Second session. (Speech made on 10/10/02)

Schumer's speech was much shorter than Sen. Kerry's but he hit the above points. I think all the Dems who voted for IWR hit these points. There is a consensus that the Senate voted for this on the basis that military action would be a last and not a first resort. They were deceived.

Hmmm, did Schumer sign Sen. Kerry's DSM letter? The indictments are coming down this week from Patrick Fitzgerald and I should think that the whole subject of how we were lied into war will be revisted. Schumer should be most interested in how that plays out. It goes right to the heart of that vote for a lot of Senators.