Transcript: John Kerry on the Ed Schultz Show today

[Democrafty]

ES: Follow the money. Show me the money! The American people are saying “How much is this gonna cost? Again?”

Good to have you on board, folks. 1-877-934-6833. Love your emails at [email protected]. The fireworks continue in Washington with all the testimony that's going on. And joining us right now is Massachusetts senator John Kerry. Senator, great to have you back.

JK: Ed, it's great to be with you again. Thank you. Happy New Year to you.

ES: And to you too, sir. How was your trip to Syria?

JK: It was very interesting. I spent several hours with President Assad, during which he said to us very clearly that is was his desire to have a non-secular – I mean, you know, a non-sectarian government, a stable government, next door in Iraq, and it seemed to me that that's worth exploring as to what he's prepared or not prepared to do.

ES: We're just stuck in the mud with them, aren't we? Why can't we talk to them?

JK: Because this administration has a form of foreign policy where they make talking to you a reward. Regrettably. You know, Ronald Reagan was prepared to talk to Gorbechev even though he called it the Evil Empire. Remember what Jack Kennedy said, you know, don't fear to negotiate? You never negotiate out of fear, but don't fear to negotiate? It seems to me that, sure, we know what Syria's interests are. And you can make it very clear you're not giving up on X, Y, or Z, you're not going to give up on the Hariri Assassination Tribunal, you're not going to give up on Lebanon and so forth. But at the same time, you can find a mutuality of interests. That's usually how it has worked between countries that have competing interests.

ES: So when you walked away from that meeting in Syria, do you feel stronger about meeting with them, or – what's your sense? Could we really gain a lot by going face to face with them and getting conclusion in Iraq?

JK: It's not going to bring a solution to Iraq. Iraq's solution lies in Iraq. But it can be helpful. And right now, they need all the help they can get. And the fact is that, you know, there are networks of terrorism that coming through Syria. There is money coming through Syria. There are bad guys holed up in Syria. And he could help us with all of those things. So every bit of help you can get – the border is like a sieve. He can help us with that.

Now, you know, it seems to me, though, the more important thing is to look at what the President was talking about last night, and measure that against the reality on the ground in Iraq. If they don't resolve – and Ed, you and I have talked about this. You've talked about it and pounded on it day after day.

ES: Yeah.

JK: If they don't get to the fundamental rivalries between a guy named Muqtada al-Sadr and a guy named Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the SCIRI party – both Shia – if they don't get to those rivalries, and begin to get a united Shia front, that can then leverage, you know, whatever you can put together on the Sunni side to get a unity government, there isn't a prayer for this. And there's nothing an additional 20,000 troops are going to do to resolve that.

ES: You know, Senator, I've been paying attention to all of this, obviously, and this deal about rules of engagement, I think is the story. I mean, the President says, “Oh, we've got the green light now!” He used that term, “green light,” and said the reason why the policy hasn't worked previously is because we've been restrained, and Bartlett said this on the talking heads the other morning. So what does “the green light” mean?

JK: What the green light means is that they are going to be an equal opportunity hunter of militia who are death squad militia, bad-guy militias on either side. That's what it means – that' they're going to go after those militias, the bad guys. Now, that's, you know, that's all well and good, and you can get a certain number of militia folks, and you can do it. But you're also going to be stirring up the hornet's nest. And at the same time, without enough troops to be able to quell the total amount of violence in the country, I can tell you from formerly being in a country where we had 500,000 troops, and I was one of them on the ground in Vietnam, and you tried like hell to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, and you tried hard to look at a piece of paper that had a name on it and see if that's really the piece of paper the guy on the contraband list – you know, discerning these things is very difficult. Our guys don't speak Arabic.

ES: Yeah.

JK: Our guys are going to have a hell of a time out there, and some of the troops they're talking about putting in there with the Pesh Murga, who are kurds – they don't speak Arabic, either!

ES: So what's 20,000 troops going to do?

JK: I think it's going to make matters worse, personally, in the end. Unless we get some political settlement in the meantime. If you get some political settlement, then you don't need them. But, you know, it'll look as if they've made a difference, and, in the end, that's the key here. No political settlement, you're not going to end the killing. It's that simple.

ES: What would you, uh, where do you stand on cutting the funding? And I know this is a, you know, a work in progress, a process. There's a process to all of this; you just can't cut funds right away. You've got to have the debate and go through the resolutions and everything. But where do you think this is going to end up?

JK: I think, uh, we'll have a first vote here, initially, which will be a non-binding vote, but it'll be an advisory vote, over whether or not people support putting these troops in. I suspect a majority of the United States Senate will vote - I say I suspect – will vote that they don't. If the President doesn't listen to that at all - and the likelihood is, he's probably not going to – then there'll be a subsequent effort to try to not cut off funds for troops who are there now, because I think that people are obviously, for appropriate reasons, uncomfortable with that, are going to support those troops now – but to prohibit further funding for the purposes of escalating the war.

ES: Would you support that?

JK: I would absolutely support that.

ES: You know, that's a big step. So, in other words, I think, maybe this move to put 20,000 troops in may push forward for a faster conclusion, and bring the Senate to conclusion on what we're really going to do.

JK: Well, it's hard to say. You know, there'll be a lot of people nervous about the issue of the funding. But I think, if you're opposed to the escalation, then you can't be content just to say “I'm opposed,” or to vote for a non-binding resolution. You've got to make an effort to try to say, “we don't want this bad policy to be implemented.” And you've got to think about those young men and women in uniform. I mean, they, they're the ones on the front line. They're the ones who are going to be put in harm's way. They're the ones who are going to go out there with some Iraqi soldiers of, you know, a dubious level of experience, and go out into the community. And I think they deserve to know that we're doing everything in our power to put the right policy in place for them.

ES: Senator Kerry, if you look at what's going over on the other side, over in the House, they've passed the 9-11 recommendations, they've passed minimum wage, stem cell research. Those were all the things that you supported and were vehemently pushing during your campaign. You've got to feel vindicated.

JK: Well, I do in that sense. But there's still another guy down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

ES: Well, we'll take care of that.

JK: Um, yeah, sure, I feel vindicated in that sense. I can't wait till we get at those issues over in the Senate. Obviously, we're not going to be able to move as rapidly, because we operate under a different set of procedural rules, but I look forward to getting to those issues. It is long overdue that we raise the minimum wage of working Americans. I mean, it's just a disgrace what's happened, and I really look forward to that. Stem cell research – look, nobody can guarantee the outcome, but that's research which I believe is pro-life. I think it's important to do that, with ethical guidelines, with ethical standards clearly respecting the life process and so forth. We have to do that. But there are ways to do it. Nobody – you know, those petri dishes are going to be thrown out, otherwise. They're going to be discarded. And I think it's very important for us to guarantee that we have the right ethical standards, but we also do the research necessary to cure or prevent disease.

ES: Couple of quick questions left here. I'm going beyond time, but I have to, 'cause you're John Kerry. You've given a lot of speeches. Why do I get a sense, after watching the President the other night, he just didn't believe what he was saying? He didn't have total command of what was going on. I got a sense like, it was just kind of spooky.

JK: Well, you know, that is an interesting observation. It's a funny observation you make, 'cause I turned to the couple people who were watching it with me, and I said, you know, he's really nervous. He seems really – you could hear his breathing, you could tell -

ES: Unsure of himself!

JK: There was an – yeah. There was a lack of certainty in it, I thought, and I think it's because he knows this is a hell of a big gamble. I mean, he's putting, you know, he's putting his legacy and presidency on the line on this one. I mean, it's this or nothing, and - because there's not much else to show. You know. We've got a huge deficit that's grown. We haven't done healthcare, we haven't fixed anything. No Child Left Behind doesn't get funded. I mean, you look across the entire span, we haven't done any global climate change thing worthy of ANYTHING. There's been no serious effort on the environment, no serious effort to fix Medicare. I mean, you run around and look at these things and say, what's this all been about?

ES: The list is long, there's no doubt.

JK: The list is unbelievably long, and there's just a remarkable, pent-up agenda for our nation.

ES: Patriots / Chargers. What do you think?
JK: Well, obviously I'm rotting for the Patriots. I'm a big fan. I think – but the Chargers are a darn good team! It's going to be a hell of a game. I can't remember what the line was on it, I think it was about five points or something.

ES: Patriots better play run defense. Holy smokes

JK: It's gona have to be good, and Brady's going to have to hit'em, but he's awful good. He's -

ES: Great to have you on, John. Thank you.

JK: Alright, man. Take care of yourself. Thanks.

ES: You bet. Senator John Kerry with us here on the Ed Schultz show.