Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Kerry and Casey

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:29 PM
Original message
Kerry and Casey
Gen. Casey that is. Now I know why Kerry keeps referencing Gen. Casey's comments: use one of their own to refute their arguments. Check out the first paragraph of this AP article:

U.S. Commander Says Iraq Crisis Has Passed
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
Fri Mar 3, 10:56 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military commander in Iraq said Friday it appears the crisis has passed as violence spawned by the bombing of a sacred mosque there continued with yet another deadly day.

While Gen. George Casey said anything can happen, he downplayed suggestions the country is headed for civil war.


Now check out the "A Recent Surge In Violence..." thread on the home page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's a good strategy
because in part it's good policy. Kerry does listen to the people doing the job. His policies don't have to be theirs - but the facts are often theirs.

It's also like in 2004, where he would cite the fact that Hagel, Lugar or McCain agreed with him on something where they did. He's using their experts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree. On another note,
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 10:55 PM by ProSense
Mass posted this:

For Kerry, It Feels Like 1972 Again

This is posted in GD-P:

Spike Lee says Cantbelievher Lies should "Stop smoking crack."

And a little nostalgia:

Rice and Dice
John Kerry nails Condoleezza Rice on Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2005, at 8:20 PM ET

Twenty minutes into Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings this morning, John Kerry entered the chamber and took his seat as the fourth-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no doubt poignantly aware that, had 60,000 citizens switched their votes in Ohio, he wouldn't have to wait in line to speak anywhere, much less put up with back-bench Republicans smirking and joking about how happy they are to see his return to the committee.

Not since 1972 has the loser of a presidential election held on to a post of power afterward, so there was some anticipation over how Kerry would handle these hearingshis first official, public confrontation with such a tangible token of his defeat. Would he be aggressive in his questioning, or lean over backward to be conciliatory and polite? If his performance is a signal of how he views this new phase of his career, he'll probably be abandoning the back-seat deference that he's often displayed the past two decades as the junior senator from Massachusetts.

Kerry didn't play the Democrats' bulldogthat role had been assigned to Sen. Barbara Boxer, who assumed it later in the morning with venombut he did strike the demeanor of a stern, dismayed taskmaster. He recited the common wisdom that Rice's confirmation was assured, but added that she might not get his vote. "I have reservations," he said, as if in a tone of regret.


Kerry, who had recently returned from a trip to Iraq, found Rice's reply "disturbing," and not just because it marked another instance of the Bush administration's refusal to admit mistakes. There was nothing "unforeseen" about the insurgents' re-emergence, he said. The U.S. military "encouraged" them to vanish from the battlefield, promising to pay them if they did so. "But we didn't pay them," Kerry said. So "they got angry and organized."

This is an oversimplified view of the insurgency, but it has some validity. Certainly it rebuts Rice's explanation of the insurgency as the result of an all-too-speedy victory by U.S.-led forces (or, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has described it, a "catastrophic success"). Kerry's argument also speaks to a broader failure of Bush's policy in Iraqa failure to come to grips with the internal, sectarian tensions unleashed by the removal of Saddam's oppressive regime.

Rice replied that the insurgents are angry not because we didn't pay them, but because "they've lost power and they want it back." Kerry agreed, but noted that's precisely the point. In the Iraqi election, still scheduled for Jan. 30, the Shiite parties are going to win, and win big, partly because Shiites comprise a strong majority of Iraq's population, partly becauseowing mainly to poor security and insurgents' threatsfew Sunnis are likely to vote. Kerry asked: What is the administration going to do, right after the election, to help reconcile the sectarian factions and thus stave off a potential civil war?


One remark in particular raised the possibility that Kerry might emerge, in Bush's second term, as an insistent critic of the president's war policy. "Our troops are stunning, superb," Kerry said, but "they're going on missions that are questionable in terms of what they're going to achieve." Was it by chance or intention that this statementmore than anything Kerry has uttered publicly in the last 30 yearsstirred memories of the famous line during his testimony before this same committee in 1971, as a protesting Vietnam veteran: "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The condi one in the middle was was funny
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 01:33 AM by karynnj
When you go to the NY Daily News referenced page - the Hillary story where she is comp lots of tickets to a fund raiser (in the gay community) was interesting.

As was the blind article referring to a "political daughter" with many hostile comments about her famous dad missing her sports events. I have no idea who they are referring too. (Kerry's kids speak of how consistently he was there, Hillary is a woman, Kate Edwards didn't speak that way. So, I don't think it's a Democrat (does Warner have a daughter)

McCain did have a pretty strained relationship with his first family. Allen would seem sexist enough to ignore a daughter's sports - girls don't play football.

Re-reading the Rice confirmation hearing one now is devastating. Kerry was so on target with what had to be done. I thought he made sense then, but as time goes by it only becomes cleare. Interesting that the article was looking mostly at what role (politically Kerry would take, but managed to capture the fact that Kerry ws saying in Jan 2005 what he has been saying since - and what everyone is beginning to agree with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Warner's girls are too young so it wasn't him
Yeah, McCain is a DEFINITE possibility. Well, it would have to be someone athletic. God, why did they print that without telling us who??? Why, why, why? I'll be wondering about this all day.

Sometimes I think I'm just as pathetic as the celebrity watchers who absorb every detail of the latest on Nick and Jessica . . . but politicians are more fun to gossip about because they hold power, too, AND they can be voted out of office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. They do this all the time
I hate it too, for the reason you mention. I really think you can rule out the Democrats, because it is unlikely to be any of ones the press has been following and some they have been ignoring.

McCain might be a possiblity because political kids old enough to do this know they would hurt their dads. Another possibility is Guilliani who has a son and a daughter (and a nasty divorce). The Bush daughters are a possibility - but that would have made more news.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 19th 2017, 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC