Did Kerrey open up a can of worms today?

[theboss]

I didn't hear the testimony, but I read it. Here is a quote that really surprised me.

"I believe, first of all, that we underestimate that this war on terrorism is really a war against radical Islam. Terrorism is a tactic. It's not a war itself."

The one thing the Administration has tried to do is avoid calling this a religious war. Did Kerrey just call it a religious war? And if he did, did he just declare radical Islam the enemy?

For the record, I should disclose that I always that it should be called "The War on Wahhabiism" or something similar, because that is what it is. But I'm shocked that a politician said it.

Help me work through this.

PS I just realized it is Bob Kerrey and not John Kerry; I remain - as always - an idiot. But it is still amazing that someone finally said this.

[meegbear]

1. John Kerry or Bob Kerrey?

[OKNancy]

3. Bob Kerrey said it

not John.

[Renew Deal]

2. Who said that? Got a link?

Your post doesn't make much sense.

[LittleApple81]

7. Radical Islam is not Islam. It is the result of the Madrasas (sp?)

and instilled hate.

[Eurobabe]

23. any radicalized religion/dogma is dangerous

n/t

[deutsey]

4. Just FYI, it was "Kerrey" not "Kerry"

:hi:

I was a bit startled by his statement, too, but the way he framed it makes more sense than saying there's a "war on terrorism." I've always thought that this is the equivalent of LBJ's "war on poverty."

[dolo amber]

5. You might want to edit your subject line

to correct the spelling of Bob *Kerrey*, so as to avoid confusion. Just a suggestion. :hi: :)

[OKNancy]

6. Need to change subject line

change to Kerrey. It's confusing.

[Beware the Beast Man]

8. This quote needs to be taken in proper context.

I dont think it condones war against Islam, so to speak. Kerry, if he did indeed say this, is telling the truth. It IS a war on radical Islam, thinly veiled as a war on "terrorism" or "evil".

[Beware the Beast Man]

12. Oh OK...BOB Kerrey...

My point still applies though

[VolcanoJen]

9. Hey, theboss! Just edit your subject line...

... to read something like "Did Bob Kerrey open up a can of worms."

Then, let's get on with this discussion, 'cause it's a good one!!

:-)

[never cry wolf]

10. He was criticizing the admin's methods in Iraq

The context was that the way the military was handling this thing would have the opposite effect due to the fact that essentially the muslim world will see it as a religious war and he was sensitive that we have basically a xtian army fighting in a muslim country.

He did not call it a religious war and on the contrary wanted his opinion known that the way they are going about things will give a false impression that it is, to the detriment of the effort.

I was kind of surprised that this came out from the dem, yet hawkish Kerrey, but he is spot on.

[theboss]

15. I read it differently

I thought he meant it is a war on extremists. But by our methods in Iraq, we are creating more extremists.

I think this is a breakthrough for a number of reasons.

1. It is accurate, and we've been talking in euphamisms on this for nearly three years.

2. It actually allows you to run to the right of Bush on the war on terror (kill the radical islamists!!!) while running to the left on Iraq (give peace a chance!!!)

[Kolesar]

11. Lou Dobbs named it a "war against Islamists" two years ago

So I don't think a "war against radical Islam" is off the mark.

Here is a reference. I did not want to post the danielpipes link I found so I posted this.

http://www.apmforum.com/hariini/archives/000168.php

[BlueEyedSon]

26. The problem with such a clear definition (vis a vis the bushies)

is if this were a war on Radical Militant Islam (or something like that) they couldn't justify invading Iraq. "Terror" and "Terrorist" are sufficiently vague words that they can be used to justify making war wherever.....

[theboss]

27. That's a really good point

It also allows them to tie in things like the Drug War. (Remember those ads?) It's a catch-all for a lot of spending and military action.

[Guaranteed]

13. Yes, he did say that.

Joe Scarborough said that this morning, too, on Don Imus.

[Cocoa]

14. since you read it

do you have a link, so we can see some context?

[theboss]

16. Link

http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html

[fryguy]

17. I think a can of worms has been opened

but it is bushco that will be dealing with it. Kerrey said what many many people were thinking, as you noted. Now it will be up to smirk and friends to explain why this isn't a war on Islam. That is what WE would want them to do, but I'm guessing what we will get instead is a bunch of canned rhetoric about "us and them" and lovers of freedom, etc.

I think it also needs to be hightlighted that condi and the other members of the bush league keep talking about the war on terrorism as if its akin to WWII or something, and that there will be a point at which it will end. This is a total falacey and miscomprehension of what is going on. This war is like the war on poverty, the war on drugs, or the war on crime - all of which have been ongoing for upwards of 40 years. If we are being asked to give up freedoms because we are at war, we are going to be without these freedoms for a long, long time because this "war" does not have an end.....

...sorry for going a little off-topic, was about time for my afternoon rant....

[theboss]

18. It IS a war on a portion of Islam

And I feel it should be. And I think by putting it in this context, you can also exploit the Bush's affinity for the Saudis, the leading exporters of this brand of the religion.

Of course, you may piss off 2 Billion Muslims too. But odds are they are pretty pissed off anyway and besides they don't vote.

[stellanoir]

20. Kerrey's right

we can't win a war on a tactic especially when our idiotically simplistic dualistic "good versus evil" mentality perpetually keeps inciting that very tactic.

[thinkingwoman]

21. I prefer to call it....

the war against religious fundamentalism.

When the world realizes it has to battle fundies of all persuasions, we'll finally be getting somewhere.

[doni_georgia]

19. Islam already sees this as a holy war

Islamic groups have been saying this was a war on Islam from the beginning. I think Kerrey's remarks were right on. Terrorism is a tactic. Are we fighting non-Islamic terrorists? No. This is a war on Islamic extremists - period.

[Mari333]

24. This is a war to prop up US corporate interests in the Mid East

thats all. Our soldiers are dying to protect Halliburton.
period.

[theboss]

22. I'm sorry I screwed this up at the beginning

And I think people are misunderstanding me a bit.

Here are my questions (and my personal answers)?

Is this a war on Radical Islam, not "terror?" Yes.

Should we be at war with Radical Islam? Yes.

Does the Iraq war help us in this overall war? Hurts us.

[BlueEyedSon]

25. It's about time someone said this in a very public forum.

There is no such thing as a "war on terror". Even if you do not discount this phrase as meaningless, it does nothing to identify the enemy. How can you defeat your enemy (i.e. win a war) if you cannot identify him?

Zbigniew Brzezinski's remarks from the "New American Strategies for Security and Peace" conference (this paragraph addresses the "war on terror")

It deals with abstractions. It theologizes the challenge. It doesn't point directly at the problem. It talks about a broad phenomenon, terrorism, as the enemy overlooking the fact that terrorism is a technique for killing people. That doesn't tell us who the enemy is. It's as if we said that World War II was not against the Nazis but against blitzkrieg. We need to ask who is the enemy, and the enemies are terrorists.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html
A good read, check it out

[chookie]

28. This is the crux of the matter!

The division in the US, and in the world, about terrorism, is whether it is a tactic, or whether it is war. Different definitions lead to different strategies on how to combat it.

Please have a look at my thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1372200

Since the Clarke book came out, the spin has become, "Clarke was just a minor player. All he wanted to do was swat flies. What George W had requested was a *comprehensive* approach to terrorism." Sounds like war to me. Apparently, that comprehensive approach was the implementation of the PNAC plan to totally remake the Middle East, by taking out dictators (like Saddam Hussein) and replacing them with America and Israel friendly democracies -- in other words, a major use of military force in the entire region. The democracies that he would put in by force in the region would provide an alternative to the kind of Islamic state promulgated by Al Qaeda, and make the Middle East friendly towards the US, and, of course, Israel.

Bush uses code words. "Generational challenge" means "regional warfare in the Middle East for the foresseable future" (or what some people call "quagmire" or "another Viet Nam."
Even the meaning of the "War on Terror" has been changed -- people assume its against terrorists, when actually Bush is REALLY saying he intends to bring about regime change via military force all over the Middle East.

With every bloodletting in Iraq, Bush speaks proudly of how he is fighting terrorists in *their* backyards rather than in the streets of NYC. With every horrific setback, and renewal or spread of violence in the region, he declares it is a sign that his strategy is working, because "terrorists" are no longer hiding, but are out in the open, fighting in Iraq or whereever.

If people believe terrorism is war, and want to commit our country to a prolonged war in the Middle East, and believe that we can successfully establish American-friendly democracies there, and that only this can completely irradicate terrorism -- they should vote for Bush.

If people believe that terrorism is a tactic, then they *MUST* reject Bush's agenda. It's already too late, but regime change in the US in 2004 will be the beginning of the end of this debacle.

[calimary]

29. Kerrey's quote (from my notes):

He referred to "A Christian army in a Muslim nation." Context: right off the top of his questioning time, when he said he'd probably seldom get the chance to have the national security advisor sitting this closely in front of him, so he felt compelled to put this out there. Then he pointed to what our military activity in Iraq was leading to, saying it was going to do "all bad things." "A military operation dangerously off-track." Provoked one of the rounds of applause today.

[theboss]

30. This came after the quote I gave.

From the transcript:

"Let me ask a question that _ well, actually, let me say _ I can't pass this up. I know it'll take into my 10-minute time. But as somebody who supported the war in Iraq, I'm not going to get the national security adviser 30 feet away from me very often over the next 90 days, and I've got to tell you, I believe a number of things.

I believe, first of all, that we underestimate that this war on terrorism is really a war against radical Islam. Terrorism is a tactic. It's not a war itself.

Secondly, let me say that I don't think we understand how the Muslim world views us, and I'm terribly worried that the military tactics in Iraq are going to do a number of things, and they're all bad. One is...

(APPLAUSE)

No, please don't _ please do not do that. Do not applaud.

I think we're going to end up with civil war if we continue down the military operation strategies that we have in place. I say that sincerely as someone that supported the war in the first place.

Let me say, secondly, that I don't know how it could be otherwise, given the way that we're able to see these military operations, even the restrictions that are imposed upon the press, that this doesn't provide an opportunity for Al Qaida to have increasing success at recruiting people to attack the United States."

My one big fault is Kerrey is trying to have it both ways. He supported the invasion but is now upset with the way it is being fought. But the point that the war in Iraq right now hurts the "War on Terror" is strong.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

31. I also loved it when Kerrey said

"Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once ... How the hell could he (Bush) be tired," Kerrey asked.

That was a reference to a 1998 missile strike Clinton ordered against suspected terror training camps.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept_11_commission&cid=544&ncid=716


Bob Kerrey is one fiesty dude!