Did the impeachment talk make Kerry back off

[LittleClarkie]

from what he was going to do re: the Downing Street Memo? Or was the letter he's circulating likely his planned response all along.

I found myself wondering if he backed off, because as with Jan 6th, his involvement would discredit the process and turn it into uber sour grapes.

I don't think people understand this. Getting the memo the attention it deserves could be derailed if it is seen as merely a failed candidate crying in his beer. It could be so much more easily fluffed off that way.

I was going to post this out in GD, but I think you guys are more likely to get what I'm saying. They would say he's covering his ass. I'm saying that too strident a contribution from him re: the Downing Memo could damage the cause.

Even so, his little comment in a Mass. newspaper did something to get the issue covered I think. But what I'm not sure about is whether the impeachment talk made him back off, or if HE outfoxed THEM by making it look like THEY were jumping the gun and going off half-cocked.

What do you all think?

[TayTay]

1. Hmmm, interesting pondering question

Let's review: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml
This is what William Rivers Pitt wrote tht Kerry said in his article back in Dec. 2003:

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

Don't the Downing Street Memos say that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html
The DSM show that the Senate was lied to and that basis upon which they voted to give * the authority to go to war was false. Kerry specifically says what he voted for and what he thought the precautions were. The DSM say he was plainly lied to. I would be pissed and would definitely bring it up.

[Mass]

11. I dont think he is backing up

but clearly the noise created by his interview to a small MA newspaper took him by surprise and a lot of people expected a lot more than he could do quickly.

In addition, the leaks by (apparently) some of his staffers do not allow the noise machine to stop.

If Kerry is going to do something substantial on the issue (more than a speech), he probably need time to convince his colleagues this is the good thing to do (it is not as if the Democratic Senators were running to the Senate floor to speak about the issue), and a lot of convincing that it is useful and not just a way he has found to prepare 2008.

When he will be ready, he will do what is necessary. I just wish that they stop talking to the media (as unnamed sources) if nothing is going to be done.

[DoBotherMe]

12. What was the time frame

for "After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there," that John referenced. And why didn't US Intelligence know. Just wondering for my own edification. D ; )

[TayTay]

13. In 1998, Clinton Bombed Iraq

for violations of the UN sanctions. In retaliation, Hussein kicked the IAEA inspectors out and pretty much closed the country. So we (U.S.) we fairly blind in what we could see in Iraq. However, we did have intelligence coming in from other resources and from reports from other reps from other countries that were in Iraq. (And we paid for all that satellite surveillance, so we knew when structures went up and so forth.)

[DoBotherMe]

16. Thanks for the info

[gordianot]

2. I guess you could call me a strident Kerry supporter.

Kerry is at his best when he is angered. Even then he appears to be very controlled (an asset). There is no doubt as far as Congressional organizations are considered that the culture of the Senate places an emphasis on formality, obviously Kerry knows the rules and functions well in that environment Remember though during the election there was a library setting with "It Could Happen Here" in the background that was not an accident and the message was noted.

I hope the Senator is taking off the gloves in the Intelligence Committee. It now appears some in Corporate Media are saying they knew Intelligence was fixed all along. Kerry not responding forcefully soon to all of the recent revelations is no longer an option.

[beachmom]

3. Iraq has always been torture for him

You can't erase his Vietnam history -- it's there and it always will be with him. Both his anger at his government for what happened to him AND the realization that his going all out anti-war cost him his first congressional election. When asked, Kerry denies that Iraq has become Vietnam or he dodges the question. I think he's angrier than hell about all of it -- in private -- but feels straightjacketed in public for telling us what he REALLY thinks for fear that what happened in '72 will happen again. I want to rip that straightjacket off of him (okay, ladies, keep your minds out of the gutter -- I'm being metaphorical here) and say to him -- you're 61 years old, your dream of being president MAY be over, now just say to hell with it, and tell us what you think and what you think we should DO ABOUT IT!!!! A new Band of Brothers are DYING. And that's more important than your goddamned ambition.

There. I've said it. It's the worse thing I'll ever say about our beloved JK, but I needed to get that off my chest. He's been awesome on everything this year, except Iraq. We hear from Conyers and the Black Caucus, we've heard from Feingold. Well goshdarnit -- I want to hear the TRUTH from Kerry about how he really feels. Now I look forward to y'all's reaction to my speculation here.

[gordianot]

4. I hear you good speculation. The ultimate Irony.

Vietnam Gulf of Ton-kin resolution was based on a contrived attack of American Destroyers. You could call that false intelligence. Now Kerry is part of that culture that took him to war and he is in the same place as the old men that sent his brothers to war. This IS about more than political ambition.

A long memory is definitely an asset.

[beachmom]

5. He holds the key

Because of Kerry's history, his higher profile, his votes, his war experience. Everything. If he steps up to the plate, fully loaded with a ton of ammunition, a bit of that controlled angry tone, and memorable, hard hitting rhetoric, he WILL make the news. And make Iraq -- why we went there, why we still are staying there -- the story it needs to be. That's why I'm willing to kick him in the butt for this one. Mainstream news media like Lehrer, the networks, CNN, and MSNBC would cover it. And he could withstand the attacks. I know he could. I would have his back. With everyone I talked to. I'm ready. Is he?

[LittleClarkie]

6. I don't see this as being part of his ambition

I've been reading his book about international terrorism and crime. Imagine if Kerry in 1972 actually believed in the domino theory and that the Communists represented a real threat to the world. The Kerry of that time was no fan of Communism, but he saw no threat to the US from the Vietnamese Communists either.

I think our Kerry is torn because he CAN see the danger in internation terrorism. In fact, he sees it more clearly than Bush, which is the irony of it.

Also, he's always been this moderate, work within the system sort of fellow. I don't think our SUV is going to turn into a Mustang any time soon. Always deliberate and careful in what he does. It's the reason he ultimately left the VVAW.

[gordianot]

7. He is the antithesis of Bush.

Obviously Kerry would do much better covering your back. The greater issue is what is happening here NOW, the international terrorist are in Washington D.C. in postions of power. It is time to throw the bums out and start over, then worry about the rest of the world.

[TayTay]

15. Oh, btw

Welcome to the JK forum.:hi:

Glad to see you dive right in!

[gordianot]

17. Thanks I intend to stay around.

[beachmom]

8. I know what you mean, Little Clarkie

about Kerry's cautiousness. I know that's in the mix, too. You're right -- international terrorism IS a major threat, and it's a different kind of threat than the Cold War. But I still don't see what the Iraq War has to do with terrorism. Sure there are terrorists there now, but they weren't there before. And if we left, they might get bored not having American soldiers to blow up, and leave, too. But as long as we stay, there will continue to be violence in Iraq, and right now there are no real specific goals coming from the administration as to how we're going to get out of there. Since WMD and terrorism were only being used as a marketing technique, I quite frankly don't know why * wanted to invade Iraq. It's a complete mystery to me.

Despite Kerry's cautiousness, he WASN'T cautious for his speech in 1971 at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he's still being burned to this day for that speech. Although I think he should avoid inflammatory rhetoric, I still think he needs to step it up and blast * away. The question, and the one we're exploring in this thread, is why hasn't he? Part of it may be that he is trying to get more Senators on board with that letter, part of it is he's gathering and assembling evidence, but part of it is he doesn't want to make a mistake. Sometimes you have to take risks. As far as the DSM stuff, I'm being patient with him, but he does need to do something soon. The Conyers DSM hearing was on page A18 in my newspaper. Why not page 1? Because Conyers is a reliable liberal with a low profile. Kerry or maybe a prominent Republican senator (God that would be great) would bring the story closer to the top of the news. I'm at the point where partisanship doesn't matter -- I just want congressmen and congresswomen and senators to start speaking up on this issue -- either DSM or exit strategy from Iraq.

[MH1]

9. I don't think he's backing off.

Can't post much right now - getting ready to go out of town and I have company - but I've noticed a weekly trickle around Tuesday / Wednesday (go back and look at statement to Standard Times; then Boston Phoenix; then leak about the letter. Each separated by about a week.)

Won't be surprised if another little tidbit comes out next week. Or maybe he will present that letter he's been circulating.

Have faith...

[TayTay]

10. Anybody remember this?

Former U.S. presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) (D-MA), lays flowers on the casket of U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Dimitrios Gavriel during his military funeral at Arlington National Cemetery near Washington DC, December 2, 2004. Gavriel, from Haverhill, Massachusetts, died November 19 while fighting in Al Anbar Province in Iraq (news - web sites) and his funeral is the 99th 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. REUTERS/Jason Reed

This is not something you dither over. It matters how we went to war and it matters how long we are there. Kerry is a US Senator and his constituents are dying and getting horribly injured in *'s war. He owes it to the mother that he hugged at that funeral to speak up if he thinks the Admin screwed up.

[TayTay]

14. I think Sen. Kerry is working up to it

From what I can gather, the plan this spring/summer was to have the Senator transition back to being a Senator. (Ah, he's sort of been away for awhile on other pressing business.) Sen. Kerry has been putting out a whole bunch of press releases that highlight issues in Massachusetts. He has been spending a lot of time touring the state and getting deeply back in touch with the constituents in his home state. This was absolutely necessary. (Sorry, but politically, it is.) Sen. Kerry has met with editorial boards at papers all over the state and has been talking about national issues that affect Massachusetts and about local issues that his office can help with. (Ahm, he is the Senator from Massachusetts and he needs to do this, just as a senator from any other state needs to take care of business for the home folks. It's part of his job description.) Does anyone remember that Sen. Kerry's troubles with the Gay Marriage issue came when he was interviewed out-of-state and the Globe specifically put that in the story. (What? Isn't he done running for Pres yet. Come home John. Seriously, we want to hear this stuff first. Sigh! We are so provincial sometimes.)

That said, he should also be picking up on just how deeply unpopular *'s War is with the folks back home. Should he decide to speak out on the DSM, he will have oodles of cover back home. (I mean, it's Massachusetts, come on.)

Sen. Kerry has always been a thoughtful and deliberate man. It's why he keeps getting re-elected, people like that fact that he is, in the words of one old Globe article, there in Washington thinking deep thoughts about the future of the country and it's policies. (There's something charming about that.) I think that Kerry will come out with a very strong statement and fairly soon.

[sandnsea]

18. Alot of issues going on right now

Russ Feingold just introduced a resolution for Bush to define our Iraq strategy. There's Bolton. The UN Reform legislation. Guantanamo. And DSM. I'm getting the feeling the Democratic Party might be laying out a larger strategy for all of it. It is all connected, after all. If that's the case, I wouldn't think he would jump out in front of it. I just don't know but when they shoot, I hope they do their own "shock and awe". We certainly have the ammo to do it. Like Robert Redford just said, there's at least 15 situations which are worse than Watergate and need that kind of honest investigation.

[TayTay]

19. The Dems are the minority party

We have neither the White House nor the Congress. It is extremely difficult to command attention when you don't have a big platform from which to shout out the charges. Look at John Conyers and what he has to go through to get some hearings. The Rethugs are mean, vindictive and care nothing for niceties like freedom of speech, inquiry and respect of the opinions of others. They control the purse strings in Congress and can allocate how much money the Dems get in Congress to investigate. The House is horrible and it is a true miracle that Rep Conyers has been able to have any kind of hearings at all.

The Senate is a little better, but not by much. As Sen. Kerry complained in his speech about the filibuster last month, Dems can't get hearings scheduled and they can't get wrongdoings investigated. I agree that there is a crying need to investigate things, but from a practical point of view, exactly how many things can you investigate when money, access and short media attention span are the obstacles?

[beachmom]

20. Sorry if I was too harsh yesterday, guys

I think the Massachusetts angle, Tay Tay, is right on the mark. Perhaps I am dead wrong in thinking that ambition is playing a role here. There are so many variables, that it is presumptuous of me to think I understand why Kerry does what he does. I guess I am SO frustrated about Iraq and the administration (heard from David Brooks that * may start to talk more frankly about Iraq instead of the sunshine bullshit. I'm at the point where I would welcome ANYTHING from the dipshit that doesn't say 'we're turning the corner', 'the insurgency is in its final throes', blah, blah, blah) that I am lashing out at poor Johnny because the administration and my own representatives in Congress are unreachable. Writing a letter to my senators or Congresswoman or the White House would be useless. Yes, the Senator must represent first and foremost the state of Massachusetts, but maybe he could think of folks like me once in a while, how we have taxation without representation . . .

[Island Blue]

26. I think everyone on DU (certainly not just in this group)

tends to forget what busy people Senators and Congressmen are. We can sit at our computers and concentrate on just one or two issues (DSM or whatever) but they're juggling many, many issues. That occurred to me the other day when I saw some committee meeting on C-Span that didn't interest me at all (JK wasn't on the committee), but there they were, plugging away.

As far as Kerry being gun shy about bringing up the DSM because of what was said about impeachment, I think he is really damned if he does, damned if he doesn't and I'm talking about with some folks in his own party. If he doesn't bring it up, the lefty freepers will bash him - if he were to bring it up, you know some of them would be saying "well he's just doing that because he still wants to run for President."

I think on this one he isn't thinking of the issue politically, but rather thinking of what would be best for the citizens of Mass. and of the country.

[TayTay]

29. You were not too harsh at all

Someday I should figure out a way to word a thread about regional differences that isn't too icky or protective. It would be nice. Senator Kerry was never really in trouble in his home state. The people were a bit grumpy because he lost, which is to be expected. They wanted him to get in touch with the home folks as a way of checking in and letting the home folks know that he is on the job for them. I don't think it was too difficult to do, as he appeared once in Western MA and got absolutely glowing reviews. (Seriously, did you read them? Ahm, that guy is not in trouble here.) People were a little possessive of him and wanted to make sure that going national didn't mean he was going to abandon his home state. (Which is kinda stupid, but people think irrationally sometimes.)

People around here are not generally known for being shy. If there is an issue with Kerry, then someone (or several someones) will directly confront him with it. Up front and to his face with direct speech that is honest and to the point. Every region of the country has it's particular charms and particular ways. This is ours. Politicians are to be questioned, examined, reviewed and critiqued repeatedly and unsentimentally. That's democracy as practiced.

I saw Sen. Kerry in April at Faneuil Hall at the kids event. There he was hobbling around on crutches trying to impress on the audience what his post-election points were. Nice speech. After the speech the Senator hobbled off the stage and was immediately confronted by a couple of nice women who pointedly asked him why he conceded the election so quickly. He answered them. No one booed the question as it was a legitimate inquiry and he isn't feeble, he can answer it. (See what I mean? I have this strain in me. He's not a dumb bunny, he's a wicked bright guy. The questioner was entitled to the question, now let the Senator answer his constituent. That's democracy. Direct confrontation is a good thing.)

Anyway, direct confrontation on Iraq will become one of the most dominating issues from his constituents. The Senator will be asked this directly and to his face more and more at local events. (The war is not popular here.) As I said, he is wicked bright and thoughtful and will come up with an answer that is deliberate and well-researched and he will be challenged on it. (Again by people who are not the least bit put off or shy about questioning Senators. It's what we do around here.) I like this and it is what I am used to, but it can be a little hard on the politicians sometimes.

[whometense]

21. I agree,

and I'll take it one step further for you guys who are newer to the study of How John Kerry Works.

First, yes, of course he's ambitious. But what I love about him is his integrity. Which is to say he would flat out never put ambition ahead of doing what is right. Unlike many others who I will not name for the sake of unity.

Since, as TayTay said, the democrats have essentially no power center in congress, they have only two avenues open to them that I know of. They have the internets. And they have strategery. Harry Reid is a centrist, but he's proven himself to be pretty damn good at strategery.

The internet, though, is an interesting issue. Howard Dean got all the acclaim for his internet savvy, but imho it was Joe Trippi, not Deran, who was responsible for that buzz. A lot of other dems are using the DKos megaphone (Conyers, Boxer, Kennedy, etc.) to amplify their message.

Kerry has taken his use in a different direction, choosing more than anyone else to talk directly to each supporter through his emails. I am not any kind of political strategist, but I like Kerry's approach a lot. When he sends me an email he has something he feels it's important for me to know. It has less of a PR feel, and seems more personal.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he will take action on the DSM. He will take action in the way he feels is most effective, though, and no one will push him to act before he is ready. Don't ever forget BCCI and Iran/Contra. John Kerry knows better than anyone else on our side who the enemy is and what they are capable of.

I have faith in him, and that whatever he does will be appropriate and timely.

[fedupinBushcountry]

22. I agree 100%

About the e-mails, my son who lives in NYC, signed one of the petitions Kids First Act and the other day mentioned the e-mails he has received from JK. First thought was oh no, he is going to complain and I was about to tell him that he could unsubscibe to them. But what I heard out of my 24 year old mouth was just amazing. He said he so enjoyed the conversation that John Kerry was having with the PEOPLE, and that he is very impressed with what John Kerry has been doing since November. In his words he has still got our backs.

My son is a musician in NYC and said he has just written a political song , as soon as I get a copy of it I will post the link here.

PS This is my who voted for Nader in 2000 and was for Kucinich in 2004, but just saw one Kerry townhall meeting in January 2004 and totally was taken aback by the man and his deep thoughts and not flip-flops but as my son put it, changing your views in a changing and complex world.

Don't you just love young minds.

[Klimmer]

27. Patience and Hope . . .

I know we can all get really impatient, but the right thing to do is to wait and get the evidence so we can be absolutely sure. We need all our ducks in a row. JK is circulating the letter regarding DSM for signatures through the Senate to back-up Congressman Conyers effort. He is doing the work. He is on the job.

I believe it is JK's style never to take credit or overshadow the work of another. Didn't we hear that he has a history where he would author legislation only to give it to another Senator and allow them to take credit for it? The man is incredibly humble and giving, and bolsters fellow colleagues when they deserve it, and he does so unselfishly, and off the radar screen. Man that is some powerful stuff. Makes me respect him so much. He truly is a man of honor. He truly lets his actions prove the evidence of his humanity and faith.

Congressman Conyers was scheduled to come to San Diego and talk about the DSMinutes. That is now canceled and he is headed to England instead. Great, that is better use of his time (although I was looking fore-ward to shaking this great American Patriot's hand and getting his autograph). I suspect when those in the British Government authenticate the many memos and what they say and allude to, then it will be our number one ally pointing their finger at the Bush Crime Syndicate, and no one will be able to dispute or refute it.

JK will fight and speak loudly when the evidence is proved. He would be a fool to do so before then, and he would be a fool not to do so after. JK is no fool. He knows who he is facing --- he is facing the Bush Crime Family.

Here is some more very interesting investigative journalism from Wayne Madsen on the Ohio, Florida, and now even Manhattan money laundering schemes by the the Neo-con Rethugs and BCF and how it relates to election fraud:
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/scoops/Lemme.htm

"Manhattan's veteran District Attorney Robert Morgenthau is on the verge of penetrating a major conduit for foreign money into the Bush family network and the American political system that parallels the campaign finance scandals in Ohio and Florida. Morgenthau's investigation of the notorious Sam and Charlie Wyly brothers of Texas, the billionaires who spearheaded the Swift Boat disinformation campaign against John Kerry and a similar distortion effort against John McCain in 2000, is focused on a Wyly-controlled Isle of Man off-shore account tied to the Bank of America. In 1989, George H. W. Bush dispatched a Houston attorney to the Isle of Man to take charge of the secret Bush accounts. One of the accounts was Five Star Trust, a multi-billion dollar account used by the Bushes as a covert off-shore money tranche for their political and business purposes."

Some of you might disagree with what I say next, but I've been thinking this recently . . . Just like you, I wanted John Kerry to be our President, and to be there in office now cleaning up the mess that the Neo-con Rethugs have made. But I do think some things do work out for the best, although we can't see it at the time. I believe now with everything that is happening and being exposed that ultimately our country will be better off if this can all come to end with the truth and justice ultimatley prevailing (although so much damage is being done in the meantime).

We now know so much more about this evil radical right-wing Rethug Neo-con party and their supporters that we would not have known had JK just simply became President. Much of the spider-web is exposed now, and now very little surprises us. We are finding all kinds of connections into their dark world. We are not just talking about taking down a President, we are now talking about taking down an entire administration, Neo-con Rethug party, and the Bush Crime Family. When all is said and done we will see their lies lead from the DSMinutes which leads to an illegal and immoral war, and if they lied about the war then they also lied about the election fraud, and if the lied about election fraud, then they also lied about 9-11, and if they lied about 9-11, then the truth will be exposed regarding their grand plan prior to ever coming into office, and this will reach back all the way to Bush I. We will even get to know the truth about the CIA assassinating JFK while Bush(I) was in the agency. It is all connected. The Bush Crime Family is an ultimate evil. I hope we can put an end to it.

For some of you this is probably way out there, and you don't want to think about it. But it is the way it is. All the facts are saying so, even as bizarre as this all sounds. Truth can be stranger than fiction. Check-out Michael's Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon." It is a great eye-opening read.

[JohnKleeb]

23. Personally as much as I hate Bush

It would be a huge mistake to impeach him because umm Cheney.

[Mass]

24. Impeachment cannot come before 07 anyway.

Then, if the Democrats win, they can do something (but they need to win the Senate as well to win an impeachment trial).

However, I imagine that the calls for impeachment are more to motivate the grassroots than for any serious projects.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Yeah I know

Yeah, people who dont understand things can be like but but we got Nixon, well guys, we had a majority dem congress back then and the Republicans in Congress seem to love Bush a lot.

[fedupinBushcountry]

28. I agree

There is no way that we can do it now, that is why it is so important we change the leaders in Congress in 2006. But I do believe he does deserve to be impeached not only for this but for all the corruption and harm he has done to this country. I signed an impeachment petition way back in 2003 led by former Atty. General Ramsey Clark, I knew it wouldn't go any place, but at the time it was my voice that had been silenced for way to long. I know my kids thought someone would be coming to my door and arresting me, I said bring them on, I don't care I just want the TRUTH again.

As for Cheney , if impeachment ever does come about Bush will not be the only one on the list.

I want the dull ache to go away in the pit of my stomach, I want to be able to enjoy being an American again. I want people to open their closed minds and care about this country.

End of rant :rant: