Kerrey was not very supportive of Kerry on Imus

[karynnj]

Kerrey first talked about how the war was necessary - We had to have pilots at risk in the no fly zones for 10 years, Saddam was evil etc.

On Dean, he said Dean's comment that we won't win is not going to make people vote for Democrats, but did say in answer to Imus' question that it wasn't teasonous to say this.

On Kerry, he said he shouldn't have used the word "terrorize" then went on to say that the actions Kerry spoke of were necessary for Americans to do and that the Iraqis would be more brutal. Imus made a little fun of Kerry saying at the end of the excerpt that the "Iraqis should be doing it", asking if he meant that the Iraqis should be terroizing people. He ended by saying that the liberals should be concerned that bad things will happen if we withdraw quickly. < This was not Rush - like, in that both Imus and Kerrey made it clear that they knew what he meant - Imus simply said Kerry needed to think before he spoke. (Seeing the clip - I think Kerry knew immediately he misspoke because he was atypically inarticulate in finishing the sentence - even stuttering to some degree.)>

The key point though is that Kerrey clearly thinks that the US should continue to do this. What's strange is that Kerrey, of all people, should have learned the problem with this from Vietnam. Maybe Kerry's beautiful compassionate defense of Kerrey was too generous - in the sense that Kerrey doesn't get it that he is putting soldiers in the no win position he was in.

Although I hate his position, Kerrey handled this fairly - he seems near Lieberman in his views on the value of the war and he disagrees with Kerry on getting the US out of this function. (His view that the Iraqis will be more brutal is racist to some extent - as long as each faction polices itself - there is no reason to believe this.) He did correctly interrupt what Kerry meant.

Warning: from memory and while doing other things, so waiting for the transcript would be a good idea. Kerrey was kinder to Kerry than to Dean - who he was somewhat contemptuous of.

They said Kerry would be on tommorrow.

[Mass]

1. Not surprising when it comes to Kerrey. He is an hawk, nearly as bad

as Lieberman when it comes to these issues. Which is amusing is that, between Nelson, Kerrey, and Hagel, all three from NE, Hagel is the one who is the less hawkish.

I remember during the campaign, just a few days before the election, he went on TV and said that Kerry was wrong to say that Bush ignored Bin Laden at Tora-Bora.

[karynnj]

3. The hawkishness didn't really surprise me

I was shocked when he said that about Tora Bora before the election - as he had been an early Kerry supporter. I am surprised he doesn't see the parallels to what he was asked to do in Vietnam. Accepting that unplanned brutality against nom-combattants might be an acceptable by-product of war, may be why he was able to live with what he did. It's interesting that for Kerrey, McCain and Kerry, the lessons of Vietnam are so different.

In all the times Kerry has spoken of the US doing the search and destroy missions, I've gotten the impression that he is trying very hard to explain why us doing this is a problem without spelling out the details. The press reports of these actions have been far more explict giving examples of what has happened. (I wish - rather than bashing him - the DU "liberals" would see the risk he is taking and realize why he is doing this. Kerry wants to end the war.)

[ProSense]

2. Thanks for the recap.

I'm not a fan. Kerrey confuses me. For example, what's the point of saying that the Iraqis would be more brutal?

Kerry was right in what he said and he had a point. What is the point of Kerrey's comment? It's okay to be brutal, because the Iraqis would be more brutal?

[karynnj]

4. I think the big difference is that when it comes down to it

Kerrey, like Lieberman and McCain, feel the war was a good thing to happen - but it was done badly. I suspect that if Bush took the US out of these functions, large munbers of troops could leave. What would the soldiers do? Guard the borders? It would clearly save American lives.

Transferring this function (as well as pushing for involvement of the Sunni neighbors) are the key for getting us out - which is not Kerrey, Liberman or McCain's position.

The ironic thing that I forgot to say - is that after Kerrey left - the musical segment played was John Lennon's "Merry Crristmas, War is over". (I miss John Lennon. I wonder what he would have thought of Kerry running for President. In the 70s, he ultimately rejected the Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin faction and specifically wanted to appear with Kerry. I imagine that he would have got Kerry last year too.)

[beachmom]

5. It is no surprise that Bob Kerrey wouldn't defend John Kerry

Look, that was nice of John Kerry to stick up for his colleague many years ago, but in the case of the Tiger Force, I actually don't think he should have defended him. Here is the link to the story:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

This was NOT a right wing (or left wing) smear campaign. This was a carefully reported story by a Toledo paper and it won awards. It involves the systematic killing of unarmed civilians over seven months of an elite force which Sen. Kerrey was part of. I believe the story, although I can also believe that Kerrey has remorse for what he was a part of. But Kerrey is the opposite of Kerry. John Kerry tried very hard not to kill civilians (but he like most soldiers in an insurgent war made mistakes), and he even saved 40 who were starving to death. He came home and protested the war, and made light of atrocities that occurred. Bob Kerrey took part in some of those atrocities, or at least witnessed them, and said nothing.

I consider John Kerry to be one of the good guys. Bob? Not so much.

[ProSense]

6. More insight about his stance on brutal vs. more brutal. n/t

[karynnj]

8. It also says Kerry gave him far too much credit

Kerry blamed the people who put them in that position. Kerrey (although not in office) supports the people who are setting up similar situations now.

[ProSense]

10. Exactly to the point! n/t

[karynnj]

7. His defense was not for the actions

What always amazed me when Kerry has spoken of the atrocities is the kindness and real understanding he offered those involved. He absolutely didn't excuse anything Kerrey did, but wrote an explanation of the very surreal, fearful fog that people were in. That's why the charge that he was against the soldiers then and now is so false. I was amazed that even in 1971, Kerry didn't defensively say either that he worked to avoid unnecessary killing or talk of saving the villagers. Even so, even last year, per the article on SBVT Hoffman said he asked Kerry why he protested, Kerry said because of his conscience.

I read the NYT magazine article on Kerrey - which came out earlier. There was a lot of ambiguity and it was possible that he was quilty more of shooting without checking things out. Kerrey seened to have had the ability to suppress his memory of what happened. It was at this time that Kerry defended him. What I find interesting is that Hoffman (SBVT) was involved in directing Kerrey. It also sounded liked Kerry was actually commanded to commit a war crime - as he was continually asked the number killed when he kept saying civilians, but he refused. Kerry was more mature and could reasonably have known that his father and important people he knew would have defended him if he was court martialed, Kerrey may have felt he had to follow orders. (Nuremburg, not withstanding)

I agree with your conclusion; Kerry was an inately moral man in an immoral situation - who not only did what he could, clearly has felt pain over things he did. (he line wishing a merciful God could wipe away the memories in his testimony is almost painful to hear.) I don't think Kerrey was evil, just that he was not strong enough to fight against what he was asked to do. Most of us don't know what we would do in the situation. There are far more Kerreys than Kerrys in the world.

[_dynamicdems]

12. I was surprised to learn that about Bob Kerrey.

John Kerry is one of the good guys, but the entire truth may not have been in the open years ago when he defended Bob Kerrey.

Interesting how Vietnam has stayed with us all these years. The heroes and villains and dodgers are still duking it out. Makes you wonder what will be the legacy of the Iraq war.

[globalvillage]

9. Sen Kerry on Imus tomorrow

At 7:29am eastern we're going to welcome Senator John Kerry (D) MA to the broadcast. It's been a while since we've spoken with the former Presidential candidate.. so there's obviously a lot to chew on. First up, his comments from this past weekend on CBS' "Face the Nation." He didn't really mean to say that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children and that this is a job better left for the Iraqis.. did he? Also, in the past couple of weeks we've heard from a number of people (with differing opinions) in the Democratic party over what we should do in Iraq. What does HE think should happen and why isn't everyone in his party on the same page? If he were President now... how would things have been different? Has he gotten over the loss and does he plan on getting back up on the horse for a run in 2008?


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3226997/

[ProSense]

11. Thanks for posting the reminder and link. n/t

[_dynamicdems]

13. Good! I'm not a big Imus fan but this is the perfect medium for

debunking the BS that has been floating around about Senator Kerry's 'Face the Nation' statements.