Kerry Keeps Overcoming

[Feanorcurufinwe]

On the way back from New Hampshire this week, I ran into James Carville, and I borrow from him something he said about Kerry: He has faced three of the fears that haunt almost every man. The first is how we would conduct ourselves in combat. The second is how we would handle cancer. (Kerry recently underwent surgery for prostate cancer.) And the third is whether we would face ridicule for sticking with a losing effort. Kerry, who was 20 points down just a month ago, persisted -- and now has won the first two Democratic contests.

But I would add something else: moral courage, or indignation -- call it what you want. Kerry exhibited that as a leader of the Vietnam vets. To my mind, this was as important as his battlefield valor, including the rescue of an all-but-doomed colleague who had fallen out of Kerry's Swift boat. Turning on a war in which he had distinguished himself says something about Kerry, and suggests that one line of attack on him is off the mark. He may well personify the Washington establishment -- 19 years in the Senate testifies to that -- but he is capable of turning against it.

John Kerry may yet revert to being the remote figure he once was. But in a life of privilege, he has overcome challenges that most men have chosen not even to face. He is not the most affable of men, but somewhere in his gaunt frame is a rod of steely determination that enabled him to come off the mat and win the first two Democratic contests. He is not, like John Edwards, a natural, but in the end he asks, as he did back in the Vietnam War era, the right questions. "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" Another couple of victories, and George W. Bush had better have an answer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58511-2004Jan28.html

[AnnitaR]

1. Moral courage?

Where was his moral courgage when he voted for the IWR?

[sandnsea]

2. Clark shouldn't have recommended it

That's how Senators make their decisions. Based on testimony from a variety of people, including Generals.

"...But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed..."

The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongr ...

[mikehiggins]

13. Would that be the testimony that Perle referred to?

PERLE: (in regard to Clark’s testimony) No, I don't believe it and frankly I don't think he made a very convincing case in support of that cliche but it was one of many cliches. At the end of the day when you sought to elicit from him a reconciliation of the view that time is on our side with what he acknowledged to be our ignorance of how far along Saddam Hussein is, he had no explanation. He seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies as though we hadn't been through diplomacy for the last decade, and relegating the use of force to a last resort, to building the broadest possible coalition, in short a variety of very amorphous, ephemeral concerns alongside which there's a stark reality and that is that every day that goes by, Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has, improving their capabilities, improving the means with which to deliver them and readying himself for a future conflict. So I don't believe that time is on our side and I don't believe that this fuzzy notion that the most important thing is building legitimacy, as if we lack legitimacy now, after all the U.N. resolutions that he's in blatant violation of, I don't believe that that should be the decisive consideration. So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.

--------

Oh, you must mean some other testimony. Obviously Perle knew what Clark was saying. I'd be concerned to think other politicians didn't.

[sandnsea]

14. I read, I think

I don't give a rat's ass what Perle said Clark said. I read and posted his testimony right in front of your eyes. Clark recommended a course of action and that's the course of action Congress took.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. It is one thing to disagree, but it is offensive to question the courage

of a hero like John Kerry.

If you want to say why you think your candidates position on that issue is superior, or even different, you should do so without the ad hominem attack.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Yet they do it all the time here

I take no offense myself. It's their right to do it.

[blm]

8. Sometimes I'm offended

sometimes not.....I just wish they'd study the facts and the record and stop spreading disinformation.

[jsw_81]

4. Excellent column

I especially liked how he noted that John Kerry has faced -- and overcome -- the three big fears that virtually all men have: combat, cancer, and sticking with a seemingly hopeless cause (like Kerry's pre-Iowa campaign).

We Democrats are very, very fortunate to have such an outstanding candidate on our side.

[blm]

6. great article

I almost missed it.

[dreissig]

9. Steely Determination

The John Kerry version of what people call "steely determination" isn't what you'd expect. It's not all that steely and it's certainly not very determined.

Kerry ought to be a laughing stock for his clumsly attempt to explain away his miscalculated IWR vote. You'd think this was some inscrutable Chinese riddle, but it was a simple up and down vote. Shall the President have the authority to invade Iraq?

After he voted for it, Kerry claimed all kinds of nuances and secondary meanings. It's amazing how Kerry's position vacillates on votes he's already made.

Come on. If we get a wishy-washy character like this in the White House, we'll never pin him down to anything. I question the judgement of the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Kerry is a loser.

[robbedvoter]

10. Wow! No more back of the bus for him, huh!

Poor underpriviledged little guy - such courage...
Sorry, but your use of words is about as appropriate as "I won't take a back seat to no one on race issues"...
Here's kerry overcoming adversities:
Kerry fails to get 5000 signatures in NY (#88) (No rating)

by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/27/2004 09:15:56 AM EST

Reply

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/153468p-135093c.html
Kerry, Dick Short Names on Petitions
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Dick Gephardt were allowed on the New York
State primary ballot even though they did not file enough nominating
signatures to qualify, officials said yesterday.
The candidates took advantage of a secret political peace treaty
hammered out by Democratic state chairman Herman (Denny) Farrell in
which they agreed not to challenge each other's petitions." More
In related news, Clarkies gathered 43,000 signatures for Wesley Clark, well in excess of the 5,000 required.

[blm]

12. Yes...sad, really. Too many in the media declared Kerry's candidacy dead

for so many months, it was a very difficult time. Especially since it effected his fundraising which dried up, benefitting Dean and Clark throughout that time period.

Oh well. Kerry pulled through and survived anyway, in spite of the media. So did Edwards. I'm certain Clark can, too.

[WiseMen]

11. The Real Deal