Wow. I just got an advance copy of Kerry's speech coming later today.

[WilliamPitt]

He's giving it at 1pm EST. I am trying to find out if I can bang it up here, or if it is embargoed. If I get permission, I will post the text immediately.

It's a thumper. And for those pissed at him, there's this:

"The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were
not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we
know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full
measure of the Bush Administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt
there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority
they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush
Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged
there was no "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there
never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just
as there's no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of
regimes we rightfully despise.

"I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can't rewind the tape
of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, 'enough blame to go
around,' and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes
of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching
ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of
American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to
our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go
from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to
say so plainly and unequivocally.

This speech sounds like its worth watching. If I can post the text, I will.

[WI_DEM]

1. I admire that he is willing to admit that he was duped

[FreedomAngel82]

83. Me too

It takes a bigger guy to admit he was wrong and take responsibility. We haven't seen Bush do that and we probably won't. I admire him for that.
I know in my heart I'll never regret voting for him. He's more of a hero than Bush will ever be.

[noahmijo]

2. I voted proudly for John Kerry in the last election

I'd proudly so do again should he be the nominee. Say what you will about being too little too late he had been talking like this during election time. Now he's finally stepping it up.

[Left Brain]

48. A Gore/Kerry ticket

would just plain do it for me. They're both the true leaders of this nation anyway, according to the voters.

[AwakeAtLast]

50. I'm going to admit that I agree with you.

Both of these men have what it takes to lead our country, otherwise neither of them would have received so many votes the first time around.

:hi:

[noahmijo]

72. I'll happily take that regardless of whose name comes first

[FreedomAngel82]

84. Me too!

Earlier this week or late last week Stephanie Miller was reading some poll results (not sure from where I didn't hear her say) and she said that John Kerry has an 89% approval raiting with self-described democrats. This is the highest approval raiting for a former nominee of his party since 1944. Kerry is doing all the right moves. I'll support him in 2008 over Hillary any day.

[LiberalVoice]

3. Does he mention the word "Impeachment" anywhere in there?

If not his words dont really mean much to me anymore.

[Richardo]

8. On the contrary, if he DID mention impeachment...

..he'd be rightfully dismissed as an out-of-touch whackjob.

[LiberalVoice]

24. To the RWers.

Not me or anyone else on DU.

[seabeyond]

13. so now we make another line for kerry to cross. impeachment

if he doesnt use the word impeachment,...... go away kerry. hm

[LiberalVoice]

25. Well considering he didn't stand up to them during the election.

When it really could have mattered for our party and the United States.

[seabeyond]

28. he did stand up to "them" a number of times. this is just a

ridiculous, hyperbole statement

[LiberalVoice]

30. Would you like specifics?

How about the evening of Nov. 2nd when Edwards had to come out and say "every vote would be counted" only to have Kerry acknowledge defeat the next morning.

Whats ridiculous is our parties base allowing themselves to be duped over and over by politicians whos words are not backed up by their actions. Thats whats ridiculous.

[FreedomAngel82]

85. There is a trial in August of 2006 by the way

If you'd check out the election 2004 forum you'd know this. Kerry is still fighting in Ohio.

[Dawgs]

33. It wouldn't have mattered.

He wouldn't have received any more than he did. Anyone that was anti-war was already voting against Bush. I agree that Kerry was not the best choice, but I think you're wrong on this point.

[LiberalVoice]

56. So you are trying to convince me(and yourself apparently)...

that had Kerry stood up and attacked the administration like we here at DU would have liked that he would not have been better off? Then what was the point of the 04' elections?

If Kerry received the absolute best amount of votes he could have then we also make the faulty assumption that their was no voter fraud in Ohio or anyother state for that matter.

Bush just won because more people voted for him. :eyes:

[wryter2000]

It's not up to him to impeach

That has to start in the House. It would be a usurpation of their power to call for impeachment, imho.

"I was duped, and I regret it, and I'm taking a stand now," is what I want to hear from our folks. Unlike the silly drivel that came out of Schumer's mouth over the weekend.

[eyesroll]

22. Thank you. Too many people get that wrong.

Kerry does not have the power to impeach anyone.

[LiberalVoice]

26. But until someone crosses that line...

And our politicians begin talking about impeachment it'll never happen. I didn't say he was supposed to impeach Bush himself.

[glitch]

37. Hear hear. I think we should let them know we appreciate their admission

it's quite brave in the current climate.

[maddiejoan]

46. Oh for christsakes.

Read the speech again -- Kerry accuses Bush of lying to Congress. That IS calling for Impeachment.

This is a total Je'accuse speech.

[LiberalVoice]

57. "That IS calling for Impeachment."

Yeah. Without actually calling for it.

[electropop]

4. Finally! Dems are recognizing that the only thing to say about a pro-war

vote is "I am sorry: I was duped. I won't be fooled again."

This is the only strategy voters will accept at this point. Idiots like Schumer will have to get their acts together and repeat this meme.

[htuttle]

5. Well. Finally.

"The country and the Congress were misled into war."

Better late than never. Let's hope this spurs even more in Congress to make the same statement.

[OKNancy]

6. Thanks Will. Guess he is one more

that some will now have to take off their " bash Democrats" list.

I'm glad he said the above.

Edit: I guess not. SOme people will bash about ANYTHING, even some things that are ridiculous or out of Kerry's control.

[MaineDem]

7. I just got the link to it int he mail

It's up at the website.

[liberalnurse]

9. It's a start.....

I'll give him that much. Maybe this thing, this collection of indictments needed to happen first.... so the next President can come in on clean turf.

I'll keep my eye on him...but he needs to be a Leader not just a team member.

PS

This may be why he did not stand with Cindy during the D.C Protest late September. She acknowledged speaking with him prior to the weekend protest and told her to wait a month or so;that he would have something to add.

What do you think?

[papau]

10. withdrawing 20,000 troops post Iraq Election before 12/31/05 sounds good !

From today's ABCNote:

"On Iraq policy, Kerry will argue that the United States is entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq, and he will detail the steps he thinks the country must take to bring troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.

According to an aide, Kerry will make it clear that the way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay "as long as it takes." To undermine the insurgency, Kerry will say that the United States must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks.

At the first benchmark — the completion of the December elections - Kerry believes the US can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays."

[JDPriestly]

11. At long last!

He should have had the courage to come forward and make this speech during the 2004 election. But, better late than never, he is overcoming the biggest obstacle to the success of his 2008 campaign with this speech. Thank you, John Kerry.

[Ian David]

12. I voted semi-proudly for Kerry. I really wanted Howard Dean

in hindsight, I should have been supporting Clark.

Anyway, if this is what Kerry actually says, then I think I will be much more proud of supporting Kerry.

And I will call his office and apologize for cussing them out when he didn't contest the Ohio results.

[HereSince1628]

14. Is this the "After Indictments" version or the "Pre-indictments" version?

I hope those are one in the same.

It's way past time for Democrats to call a halt to a policy that is getting nowhere.

[wryter2000]

15. Will it be on CSPAN?

Is he delivering it in the Senate?

[andyhappy]

16. too little too late

whatever ...I know I am going to get flamed here as a lot of people on the DU still love kerry, but where was this speech a year ago...

besides...I remember him saying knowing what we know now that he still woulda invaded iraq.

[theplutsnw]

43. That is what he said

[GR]

17. But He Said Just the Opposite At The Grand Canyon....

Knowing what we know now he would have still voted to authorize Bush to go to war...I guess there's a slight distinction but I think he lost the election that day...

But what exactly is that "better course?" More troops....Not now, no way...it's too late....

And let's not give him or any other dema a pass that they were duped. We knew Bush couldn't be trusted and the case for war was specious. He certainly got better information than we were privy to. I think he just voted for it because it was politically expedient...

[karynnj]

52. I totally doubt he lost the election that day

The Republicans didn't even do much with it because it didn't fit their frame - they couldn't say both Kerry was as much for war and he's soft on terrorism. Kerry in September (including at the well watched debates) several times said he wouldn't have taken the country into war, but would have let the inspectors continue.

The GC has been mentioned more since the election on DU than anywhere before the election. He didn't hear the whole question and gave a stock answer to the question he thought he was asked. Do you think you could talk as much as he did for nearly a year with so little sleep or down time and not say something wrong?

He didn't have more information, he had more DISINFORMATION.

[sandnsea]

18. And there's this

"In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

The Military Agrees:

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country."

[Just Me]

19. Well done, John. You should have been my President.

:cry:

[TayTay]

20. Well, this is consistent with his feelings on the DSM

Which is why he wrote that letter back in early summer to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence asking them to hold the next hearing on what went wrong with the intel on Iraq.

That fits with someone who is saying, we didn't get the straight info and we need to acknowledge that and also move forward and find a way out.

[WilliamPitt]

21. FULL TEXT HERE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5177000

[mopinko]

23. i hope he repeats himself

[longship]

27. The facts about the Grand Canyon statement

...as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we
know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq.

But that's not what he said. Here's a report of this from the Boston Globe:

The sheer pace of the campaign left him unable to follow up on hurried requests to aides, he said, causing mistakes to occur at crucial moments. On Aug. 9, while campaigning at the Grand Canyon, Kerry answered yes to a question about whether he would have voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq knowing what ''we know now" -- that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Kerry said the question was poorly phrased and he thought he was only reiterating why he had voted to give Bush the authority in the first place.

''When it got misinterpreted, I said I hadn't said that," Kerry said. ''And I told my campaign . . . they should go out and correct it."

They did not. Bush made hay over the fact that Kerry had endorsed invading Iraq even if there were no weapons of mass destruction. But Kerry, keeping up his rigorous series of speeches, was unaware for a while that his campaign had never cleared up the matter.

''I later learned" that no correction had been issued, Kerry said. ''But it was clear to me that was to be clarified."

This is puzzling. Why in the Sam Hell did he not set the record straight himself. I think Mr. Kerry is telling a fib here. In other words, he's flip-flopped.

Just hope the neocons don't roast him on this.

[smoogatz]

38. Oh, for Christ's sake.

Yet another contorted rationalization of something he sort of said but didn't exactly mean to say. He also said repeatedly, knowing there were no WMDs, that Saddam was "a threat." Did he not exactly mean to say that, either?

[confludemocrat]

40. Yeah, that's pretty lame blame game excusing of himself in that fiasco.

And unless this speech calls for withdrawal, then his position has only moved glacially.

[ginnyinWI]

60. he was not referring to the Grand Canyon statement

He was referring to a statement he made on Letterman, Sept. 2004.

The other one was obviously a mistake that didn't get corrected.

[milkyway]

29. I wonder if he uses the word "criminal" to describe the bush campaign

for war. David Gergen has suggested it might be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Now that the polls say it's safe to be against the war, he speaks.

"Duh, I was duped." Even though 23 other senators and most of the rest of the world weren't.

But, though long overdue, it's a tiny move in the right direction.

[karynnj]

53. In october 2002???

The big protest movement came later

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. It's about time. I wonder how many Dems will join him

in this? Is this a speech to be givEn on the SenatE FlOOR? C-SPAN 2?

[yodermon]

34. Funny, Will.

I guess he didn't read your book back in '02.

How come you, William Rivers Pitt, knew that the WMD claims were bunk THEN; but John Kerry, Senator, BCCI investigator, and DLC member, was oh so maliciously blinded and duped into believing that saddam was a growing and gathering threat?

HMMM?

And now we are supposed to applaud the fact that they are "calling bullshit" 2000 lives later? Fuck that.

I state this very plainly:

John Kerry and the rest of the DLC corporate Democrats knew full well that Saddam was completely, utterly disarmed and defenseless. They pretended to be convinced by Powell's bullshit UN dog & pony show because they deemed it to be politically expedient in the run-up to the 04 elections. It is now politically expedient to claim that they were duped, and they always knew they had this "out". They are duplicitous and mealy-mouthed, and I grow weary of them.

To hell with John Kerry.

I'd rather vote for Will Pitt.

[mike_c]

35. yep, they knew....

Scott Ritter and Seymore Hersh have made this plain-- the U.S. government knew as early as 1992 that Iraq was disarmed. After that they reframed the debate for political reasons in such a way that disarmament could not be certified. Kerry's statement today is fine-- I applaud his admitting the mistake-- but it's also disengenuous. He was not duped. And his later attempts to cover his IWR vote-- "I was only voting to give the president needed authority to put pressure on Saddam to disarm"-- were equally disengenuous, since Iraq had been disarmed for more than a decade by then.

[WilliamPitt]

36. I asked him exactly the same question

back when I interviewed him in December '03.

WRP: I wrote a book last September called "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know," which stated that Iraq's WMD capabilities had been grossly exaggerated by the administration, and therefore their rationale for war had no standing. That book, over the last fifteen months, has been proven to have been absolutely correct on this point. A lot of people read that book, and have subsequently turned away from your campaign for one reason: These people believe this data was out there before the Iraq vote, that it was available to you, and they believe you chose to ignore it or disregard it and vote in favor of the war. How would you answer that charge?

JK: There were a number of people offering contrary opinions, but this was compared to the overwhelming evidence that was put in front of us in very specific and factual terms. When someone shows you a photograph and says, "Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations," it is pretty compelling.

What's more, what I thought was equally compelling was not just the evidence, but were the very direct promises of Colin Powell and others within the administration about how they were going to proceed, about working with the United Nations, about using weapons inspectors, and about war being a last resort. In foreign policy, traditionally, we have worked across party lines to try to have one voice to speak with as a country in the interest of our national security. Obviously, the President, we now know, broke every single one of those promises and disregarded his own word. He is not a man of his word.

Given the information we were given at that time, however, a lot of very smart people made the same decision. Bill Clinton thought we ought to do what we did. He was the former President of the United States, and made his judgment based on eight years of experience. Hillary Clinton voted for it. Tom Harkin voted for it, as did Joe Biden. A lot of people made the judgment that this is a serious threat, and made the judgment that the administration was committed to going through the international process, build a coalition and do this right.

They didn't do it right. They did it wrong. I was one of the first Senators to stand up and hold them accountable for it. In fact, I forewarned them each step of the way about what they needed to do to legitimately live up to their obligations

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

[seabeyond]

41. see this just makes so much sense to me. it seems reasonable

it isnt hard for me to see this was happening. we seem to dismiss the times, in 2002 easily too. this vote came up pretty fast adn went thru pretty fast. moments before election. over 80% if the nation was supporting bush at this point

i know as i listened to it all, after powell listening to one of bush speech i told husband. bush must know something we dont know. he would lie about this, he would be in sooooo much trouble if he did. well he did lie.

now he needs to be in sooooo much trouble

just isnt hard for me to see where kerry is coming from here

[yodermon]

54. curious,

what did these guys know that Kerry did not??

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Oh, that's right. They voted against the IWR.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position

Guess they were just politcally naive.
Whoops! one of them's dead now, too. Oh well.
:mad:

[confludemocrat]

66. None of them were salivating over a 2004 Prez run for starters,

that includes Graham who was like the last in first out in that 2004 field.

[sandnsea]

69. They're anti-war on principle

They vote against the "R" on principle. They vote against Bush on principle. They need the anti-war vote in their states (like Wyden). It's not just the right wing extremists who adhere to ideology or play partisan games.

[confludemocrat]

75. What utterly insulting spin. How does that make Kerry look better?

Kent Conrad? Antiwar on principle, Robert Byrd? These people simply have principles and had nothing to gain by voting against the war. Levin who was once with Kerry in asking that Iraq be attacked in 1998. Inouye, always pro-military. What a shameful stretch.

But nice try, damning with a kind of backhanded complement.

[LittleClarkie]

58. Even better is your "The Trial of John Kerry"

I quote it all the time, esp. where he says it was a mistake to believe the Pres. of the United States.

[Garbo 2004]

63. Just because other politicians were on the bandwagon isn't a sufficient

justification. Apparently his own critical judgement and gut instincts were overruled by what the Bush administration was selling like a used car salesman? That Kerry resorted to citing others' votes and views in apparent justification of his own decisionmaking was lame IMO. Well, the other Senators were voting for it...

A lot of politicians didn't want the political flack that would undoubtedly come their way if they didn't vote for it. And some no doubt thought the ends justified the means. They weren't all just sheep who didn't have a clue where it was heading and were then "shocked, shocked" when Bush did what he did. Or were they all just dewy eyed innocents?

There was no reason to rush into anything and the Bush administration was in a real hurry to get its hands on that authorization. Wanted the Iraq war wrapped up before the summer heat of 2003. The rest, UN, inspectors was just showbiz and PR. Didn't need an intel briefing to see that in 2002.

I wonder how Kerry views those who voted on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. What I find almost incredible is that after Viet Nam and the lies that got and kept us there, Kerry of all people really trusted the Bush Administration to make a legit case and keep its word? Especially since in early 2001 both Powell and Condi said Saddam wasn't a threat? Well then I've got some real estate Kerry should look at.

I voted for him in the general election but his vote on IWR was his vote and he chose to go along with the Administration. Others among his colleagues in the Senate, who presumably had access to the same "compelling evidence" and heard the same Administration promises, didn't.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[Just Me]

45. They're as vulnerable to deception as any human being.

It's strange that, instead of placing full responsibility for intentional deception and manipulation on the BushCo/neoconster regime, you choose to impose super-human, psychic capabilities on those who damn well should have been able to believe the leadership was being forthright.

What a load of crap. Seriously.

[yodermon]

51. Thank you

for recognizing that Will Pitt, Scott Ritter, myself, and thousands of others have "super-human, psychic capabilities", while JK is a mere mortal.

Robert Byrd tried to filibuster the Iraq war resolution. I'll be glad to inform him and the 22 other senators that you consider them to be super-human psychics.

Your implication that I'm not placing blame on the neoBushCons is bizarre. They are traitorous war criminals of the highest order and shall receive their due. duh?

[grace0418]

55. But they hold a lot of power and are therefore that much more

responsible to examine the evidence and rationale for the war. Even more closely than average citizens should. I'm sorry, but I don't find Colin Powell holding up a photograph to be all that "compelling" (as John puts it in his response to Will Pitt). First of all, I saw that photograph, and it didn't look like much. Second of all, I know what can be done with Photoshop. Therefore I know not to trust a photograph in the hands of the most manipulative administration this country has ever seen.

It doesn't take super-human, psychic capabilities for me to know that the Bush administration has NEVER been forthright. Ever. Why did it take John Kerry years to figure out what I knew in 2000? I'm not super-human or psychic. But I know a pile of shit when I smell it.

Look, I blame BushCo 99.9% for all the intentional deception and manipulation they've pulled over the last however many years. But some teensy weensy bit of responsibility lies with those that could've stopped them and didn't, for whatever reason.

[seaglass]

64. You don't need to be a super-human psychic if you're a

partisan because you automatically believe evil about those who are your enemies.

I'm not saying I don't think that way often myself but it doesn't mean that our elected representatives do or should.

And by the way, there were many on DU who were second guessing after Powell made his speech.

[grace0418]

76. Well that's not true at all. Not for me at least. You're getting me mixed

up with someone on FR. I do not, nor have I ever, automatically believed evil about people who have different opinions than me, nor do I automatically consider them my enemies. That would make me just as bad as the Fred Phelps and Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the world. There are decent Republicans out there. Those who actually believe in small government and fiscal responsibility. Many of them have left or have doubts about their party right now, but they do exist.

I knew not to trust BushCo because they've proven themselves untrustworthy again and again. Even before they foisted a blurry photo on Congress and told them they must believe it was a photo of WMDs. And yes, it has gotten to the point that, with BushCo, I wonder what nefarious plot is behind every word that issues from their lips. But they earned that mistrust. And John Kerry, being a Democrat and a "dreaded" liberal (which I don't think he really is but that's the label he got), should also have had ample reason to mistrust BushCo. Even if it was just the smallest shadow of doubt, when someone is voting to put thousands and thousands of lives and billions of dollars on the line, that shadow of a doubt should be enough to make you pause.

I'm sorry that some DUers were second guessing after Powell's speech. I don't know why they were. The difference is that DUers weren't in Congress, voting to give BushCo an insane amount of power. John Kerry was.

[seabeyond]

77. of course you knew not to trust bush. i also knew not to trust saddam too

there is a whole side of this discussion not being discussed. ignored. saddams role

[grace0418]

78. There are a lot of dictators out there, but I wouldn't want Congress

to give BushCo carte blanche to start wars with all those countries. Just because I don't trust Saddam doesn't make my trust in BushCo increase.

[seabeyond]

79. bush took cart blanche, wasnt given by iwr. why would trust of bushco

even increase not suggesting it ought to. and i wouldnt want congress to be taking out a lot of other dictators either.

there is still a whole nother story on this iraq, war, gulf 1, after 9/11, inspectors we never talk about

[Vinca]

39. Finally . . . FINALLY

a Democrat is stepping forward and stating the fact that they were conned, we were conned and the world was conned. I checked CSpan - where's he giving the speech?

[stevietheman]

42. Wow.. I like the language... maybe this will bridge the chasm for the...

Dems who voted for the resolution.

[confludemocrat]

44. How does this differ from Kucinich's position? Political plagiarism?

I'll take the original any time over a cheap imitation.

[LittleClarkie]

59. You'd rather that Dennis was the lone voice in the woods?

How utterly romantic and useless would that be?

The more the merrier, don't you think? And, God bless Dennis, I haven't heard his stance reported in the news, and I heard Kerry's stance reported on the radio this morning.

Publicity a problem?

[confludemocrat]

65. Nice one, but a close reading shows this is only a glacial shift

also he can't claim to be duped. He sought since 1998 to take "appropriate action" mentioning cruise missiles, etc--meaning force of course against Iraq on the basis of WMDs even in the face of no evidence that there were WMDs and inspite of UNSCOMs work which should have shown any reasonable person not clamoring for war and trying to make up for a regret over a 1990 vote against the Gulf War that there was nothing there.

Yes, the more the merrier, I agree, but this is not an act of courage, it is partial acceptance of the obvious. Someone here talked in terms of "lead follow or get out of the way" so get out of the way of JFK , he has come to lead. He is not a leader, but a follower in this instance and that should be duly noted.

[LittleClarkie]

67. Follow behind who? Dennis?

Shouldn't more people have heard of him then?

Few people besides Russ Feingold have said what Kerry just said and gotten attention for it. Forget WHO it is. Focus on the action. If this were ANYBODY else folks would all be cheering. Pretend it's somebody you like, and then look again. It's a good speech, eh?
dddaam should be held accountable, but you make the same mistake the Republicans do if you think by that he meant force. He wanted then what he wanted when he voted for the IWR, to get the inspectors back in and make Saddam stick to the agreement he signed to get himself out of the first Gulf War.

So I dispute your analysis that he meant "force, of course" and nothing else.

[sandnsea]

71. Scott Ritter's 1998 testimony

His testimony was key in the existence of Iraq WMD. A fact that far too many willingly ignore.

[sandnsea]

70. It isn't "out now", for one

In any event, I think everybody at DU has always recognized that Kucinich has always been purely anti-war. It's his solutions that have been a bit naive and hazy.

[confludemocrat]

74. Your man Kerry has cornered the market on hazy. anyway here's a real plan:

"The following is my detailed plan to quickly bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq:
from the Kucinich web site:

The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.
The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.
The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.
The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.
The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.
The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.
The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.
The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.
UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.
The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.
"I am working tirelessly to take America in a new direction, to gain approval of this plan at the United Nations, and to put it into action, bring all U.S. troops home in 90 days. Only if the United States takes a new direction will we be able to persuade the UN community to participate. Such a new direction is reflected in this 10-point plan.

If that's "out now" fine, but it doesn't read that way to me. He's compromising with the fact that we should get out NOW and stand ready to financially aid a plan that the rest of the world would come up with. Our chance for leadership on this is lost and deservedly so.

Now where's the Kerry plan? We just get, "I've been duped" (BS), "complete the mission" (what is this noble mission?), and withdraw sometime about end 2006, based on what, really, a wish, a hope things get better? No mention of it being fundamentally morally wrong, just wrong place, wrong time, whatever the fuck that means. And no forthrightness about the reparations we must pay. Why not? He's still positioning and praying his "fine tuning" of his line will work this time. It won't.

[MountainLaurel]

47. Is this the speech at Georgetown?

I work there, and vaguely recall seeing signs posted.

[Peace Patriot]

49. "I accept my share of the responsibility." Well, I'll be damned. I never

thought I would read those words from a Democratic leader who voted for the war on Iraq. I am dumbfounded--both my Kerry's simple humility and humanness--and by the simple reality of the truth being spoken at last.

That is a good man. That is a very good man. This has little odor about it of political expediency; some maybe (he is a politician, after all); but mostly not. Political expediency would not have said this ("my share of the responsibility"); it would only say, 'we were lied to,' and would blather about the 'evil liars and wrongdoers who lied to us, and, see, we were lied to, don't you know? Oh, those bad guy liars!' (Not me! Not me!)

See what I mean? But to go on to SHARE in the responsibility for these lies and heinous crimes--that takes virtue. I am impressed. And, yes, I would vote for him again, if Diebold decides that's who we get to choose.

(Sorry, couldn't help it...).

[KoKo]

62. yes...Peace Patriot....I gotcha' and understand what you mean...

it's hard to deal with this given what we've been through.

[KoKo]

61. thanks.....I guess this will give us hope...we need all we can get these

days...

[cantstandbush]

68. So where did he give this speech and did the MSM cover it? n/t

[lateo]

73. Then do something John...

For Christ's sake stop talking about how you, and all the other war voters, fucked up and go unfuck it.

Don't get me wrong...I am happy that he is speaking out but I'm sick of this act where people sit around wringing their hands about their vote of the war.

Come on! Get it together Dems and go kick them in the balls! The republican party has NEVER been in a more compromising position...the time is ripe!

[second edition]

80. This is soooo good! It calls for a new direction, calls out the

Bush administration for not being truthful,and IMO, establishes John Kerry as a true leader.

[dr.zoidberg]

81. Well, it's nice to know that Kerry now has a platform.

Where the fuck was this in 2004?

[seabeyond]

82. this wasnt there. it was also a year ago. he had what

was appropriate for iraq a year ago