Dear John: An Open Letter To John Kerry

[fedupinBushcountry]

James Boyce
Dear John: An Open Letter To John Kerry

Dear John:

I saw some pretty amazing things during the year I spent on your campaign, it's an amazing collage of emotions and memories I suppose I will never feel again. The joy of the early primaries, the anxiety of that endless afternoon in Miami before the first debate, the incredible sense of joy and relief when you took the entire campaign on your shoulders and carried us that night. The long night in Boston when slowly, we all realized we had come up just a little short.

But of all the things I saw, of all the experiences, the one that was the most remarkable was when I watched George Butler's film “Going Up River”, with Cam, and saw you, just over thirty years ago, in black and white and with utter conviction and clarity, asking the unanswerable:

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

more>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a002998

[Mass]

1. Extremely good letter.

[TayTay]

2. It was. And the inquiry is fair

(and not fair at all, of course) The one single legitimate thing that the SBVT had in their nasty little lying ads last year was the reference to the '71 testimony and what it meant. They raised the question of how to render criticism of the country's foreign policy in a time of war. (And then they lied about the answer.) I wish this was addressed more strongly last year (or that the media covered the actual response or that the talking points went out or whatever the hell it was that gummed up the works.)

That one question was valid then and is valid now. (Sigh!) So are the rest of the questions in that speech, like when the hell are we going to take care of the vets and treat them for what they went through for defense of the country?When are we going to start putting some money out to treat the vets coming back from Afghanistan who are heroin-addicted?When are we going to address PTSD issues and have a compassionate response to that? There was a lot more in that speech than war crimes and mistakes.

There was so much more in that speech that also applies to today. It is depressing and firghtening to think just how much parallels Iraq and Vietnam.

[rox63]

3. Superb letter

I hope he gets a chance to read it. And it would be wonderful if he stood up and said what needs to be said. It's a big risk for someone of his position and ambitions. But perhaps he needs to defy those risks and do it anyway. Nothing would make my heart gladder or prouder of him. :loveya: :patriot:

[TayTay]

4. Gawd, yes

I agree. That would be
I don't know
something to behold.

On the other hand, there is the equally legit opposite question:

What do we say to the parents/widow/children of the first Iraqi killed because we pulled out? After all, we broke the place, what do we owe the innocents who would die without our protection? (Then again, are we protecting them or are we placing them in greater danger? Some people are better off, unquestionably some, as in Vietnam, will die if we leave. I guess that's why it's called a quagmire.)

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. I would definitely have his back

on this matter and would proudly stand with him. :patriot:

[Dr Ron]

6. I wasn't impressed

This just adds to the claims that Kerry supported the war, and ignores all of his anti-war statemetns. Far too many people are totally unaware of what Kerry has actually said on Iraq.

Note both Pamela and I have comments at Huffington Post on this.

[Mass]

7. I did not read that in the letter.

Of course, Kerry has made some strong anti-war statements, but recently, he has been more busy on other issues and therefore silent on this issue.

As people have short memories, you cannot expect them to remember (even honest people). This is why somehow I dont find this letter shocking.

I am happy to see that my other senator is speaking on the issue today (though I am getting less and less sure this is going to happen due to the senate schedule). It is not a big deal if Kerry has decided to keep quiet for now. I am sure he has his reasons.

[beachmom]

8. Iraq is a big deal

I agree with the sentiment in this letter. I want him to speak up. I'll still love him even if he doesn't, but it will be a missed opportunity for him if he stays quiet. Everyone has been talking about DSM, but the current situation there is just as, if not more important, than what transpired in 2002. What should we do? Someone said this in a different thread -- the followers are beginning to lead. The people want action. At the least, I want it clearly and intelligently stated from the * Admin. why we are still there, what our goals are, and what does victory look like. I also want those opposed to the war to explain how, why, and when we need to disengage. I want frank talk from all sides. I realize that JK is a cautious politician, which oftentimes has served him well. I don't think it will serve him well right now. With what I viewed from the PBS show Frontline from last night, the numbers of American dead are well over 2000, because many private contractors are doing the work that back in Vietnam, the military did. And those contractors are dying, too. When you figure in contractors, there are well over 200,000 Americans in Iraq. The operation is bigger than you think, and the losses, too.

I defended JK with a comment on the Huffington Post, but also urged Kerry to speak up on this issue. Because I admire him so much and have kept up with his actions in the Senate, I feel justified in criticizing him on this issue.

[Mass]

9. Iraq IS a big deal, I agree

and I obviously would like Kerry to speak strongly on the subject.

What I meant is that Kerry has his own way to do things and that he probably has good reasons if he does not talk about that. I respect him enough to accept that, whatever I would like.

I liked the letter too.

I like this : the followers are beginning to lead. . It seems that some people on DU do not remember that this is the real sense of the word populist. The people decides which issue is important to them and their representatives talk about these issues, not the opposite. This complex of the "providential man" and leaders that some people have on DU is beginning to bug me.

I dont think we need leaders as much as we need people who represent us in what we want, not people who decide for us what is important. Actually, Kerry seems to understand very well this idea. The best examples are his emails where it is all about we and you, and rarely "I ". I have real problem with pols who send emails about what they do, as if other people did not exist.


MOTE: Iraq is obviously one of these issues, IMHO.

[Dr Ron]

10. I think he's looking towards the future

Kerry has mentioned Iraq recently in being the first Senator to talk about the DSM, with promises of more to come.

My suspicion is that he doesn't want to be identified primarily with criticism of Iraq. First that leads back to the nonsense claims of him having voted for the war. Secondly, I think he is concentrating on issues which will matter more in the future.

Hopefully Iraq will be over by 2008, but we will still have problems such as the uninsured. It makes sense to be working on those issues between now and the next election.

Of courseI wouldn't mind an ocassional talk criticizing the war--but I bet we haven't heard the last on this from Kerry.

[politicasista]

11. I know Kerry has been speaking out,

But the longer he stays quiet, the more people are going to suspect that he really supported *'s war and is in favor of staying there (in Iraq) when things are getting worse, not better. I don't think he has anything to lose by speaking out.

[TayTay]

12. Reply #1, What has Sen. Kerry actually said on Withdrawal

From Meet The Press interview, Jan 30, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726/

MR. RUSSERT: Specifically, do you agree with Senator Kennedy that 12,000 American troops should leave at once?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal of American troops?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: What would you do?

SEN. KERRY: I understand exactly what Senator Kennedy is saying, and I agree with Senator Kennedy's perceptions of the problem and of how you deal with it. I would--in fact, last summer, if you'll recall, I said specifically that if we did the things that I laid out--the training, the international community, the services and reconstruction, and the elections and protection--we could draw down troops and begin to withdraw them. I think what Senator Kennedy is saying--and here I do agree with him--is that it is vital for the United States to make it clear that we are not there with long-term goals and intentions of our presence in the region. I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem. Now, obviously, you've got to provide security and stability in order to be able to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops, so I wouldn't do a specific timetable, but I certainly agree with him in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the new government, as soon as it's possible, begins to negotiate some modality like that. And I wouldn't be surprised if they even asked us to leave in some way over a period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration privately, behind closed doors, asked them to ask us to leave. I think there are plenty of ways to skin this cat. But the most important thing is that you've got to have stability.

What Iraq is after this is important to the world. It cannot be a haven for terrorism. It cannot be a completely failed state. Now, you'll notice the administration has backed off significantly of its own high goals of full democratization and so forth, and I don't think you're going to hear them pushing that. There are a lot of conservatives, neo-cons and others in Washington debating now sort of what the modality of withdrawal ought to be.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any information that the Bush administration is privately requesting the new Iraqi government to ask us to leave?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: You just suppose that may be happening.

SEN. KERRY: I think that over a period of time, this administration is going to face the reality of Iraq which is that a prolonged American presence in Iraq is neither affordable nor wise nor will it ultimately enhance our goals in the region, prolonged, but we're going to have to be there in the short term to do the training we've talked about.

MR. RUSSERT: Short term meaning a few years?

SEN. KERRY: Well, Tim, it's hard to figure out. I mean, if you go at the pace they're going today in the training, it's a long time. I'm appalled at the level of training that's been taking place. I mean, President Mubarak himself said, "I could take five, six times the numbers of people that are here today and we could be training them." Other countries could be training them. We could be training from the same syllabus, bring people back into country. We could be training people more rapidly even in country, and only now I think General Luck and others are coming to the conclusion that what we've been saying for a long period of time is, in fact, finally what they may be trying to move toward.

Okay, tell me I'm wrong, but that IS a qualified case for withdrawal. But it is a case made that tries very hard not to abandon the people of Iraq to civil war and to the purveyors of terrorism.

Sen. Kerry, specifically, does want the US to disavow permanent bases in the area and wants the US to do this in a much smarter and less scatter-shot way.

In light of the fact that the Iraq Assembly just passed a Resolution that requests the US to begin to leave Iraq, I wonder about Sen. Kerry's remark that he thinks that the * Admin, behind closed doors, might be asking the Iraqis to ask us to leave. I truly wonder if he's not right on this, as he has been right on so much else.

[beachmom]

13. Terrible, terrible situation

Okay, I read what he said, but it was right at that time when the elections occurred, and we were all hopeful. That's gone now. Here's the thing: if we wait to withdraw until stability is reached in Iraq, we will be there for 30 years. That's typically how long a civil war lasts. And the Iraqi government, although whining here and there about the U.S., has NO CHOICE but to keep us there. If we leave, they will be annihilated. Fresh from watching that Frontline special on PBS, it was a stark reminder for me as to how dangerous, even the "green zone" is. The members of the Iraqi government need our protection -- it's a co-dependent situation from which neither side can escape.

Sorry, I am dissatisfied with JK's statements. Although around the periphery, he has better ideas than *, I'm afraid the situation in Iraq would be about the same even if Kerry were president. He probably would look 10 years older already from the stress (heck, it's even taken a toll on *). All of you may not like this statement, but I think the president, unless taking an extreme course change (doubling troops or withdrawing), has little control over what's going on on the ground in Iraq.

I have the soundtrack to the Broadway musical, "Miss Saigon", which has really fantastic music, but I find it too painful to listen to. They have a song when the Americans were completely pulling out, and Vietnamese who collaborated with the U.S. are desperately trying to get on the last helicopter. They keep screaming "We are betrayed". Most of them ended up in "re-education camps" after the war, some incarcerated for as long as 15 to 20 years. Many died. Although I completely agree with our decision to withdraw from Vietnam, it had dire consequences for the South Vietnamese. Iraq is even worse, because of the oil and global terrorism, which in many ways is more dangerous than the Cold War. On the other hand, the CIA says Iraq is currently a terrorist training camp with mujihadeen gaining a ton of experience they can later use on us.

I don't know WHAT we should do. There is no leadership coming from the White House. Not even bad, misguided leadership. * is simply in La La Land. But he did say yesterday that "he thinks about Iraq every day". Good for him (snark, snark). But, nothing is coming from the Dem's either (except the liberal wing calling for withdrawal). I suppose this makes sense, since foreign policy is mostly an executive branch thing, and people are waiting until it gets closer to '08. But since the White House is so adrift (and this goes beyond partisanship -- they need to DO something and stop bullshitting), a vacuum has occurred, but no one is stepping in. Howard Dean was on the News Hour, and he sidestepped Iraq mostly, too, except for vaguely referring to the DSM (not in name). The world is falling apart, and no one will talk about it . . .

P.S. -- Ron, my prediction is the war will still be going strong in '08, unless some major course correction occurs. At this point, there is no sign that * has any drastic plans.

[TayTay]

16. Same interview, but earlier

MR. RUSSERT: Election day, Iraq. Condoleezza Rice, the new secretary of State, has just told the United States and the world, "It has gone better than expected." What is your sense?

SEN. KERRY: I think it's gone as expected. I think it was a good report by Brian. I think it starkly lays out the challenges, Tim. Let me begin, if I can, by saying first of all I was just there a few weeks ago. I think our troops today deserve yet again a thanks and a word of praise from everybody. They are at extraordinary risk. They're doing a remarkable job, and I want to give them that credit.

Secondly, it is significant that there is a vote in Iraq. But no one in the United States or in the world-- and I'm confident of what the world response will be. No one in the United States should try to overhype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe this election will be seen by the world community as legitimate?

SEN. KERRY: A kind of legitimacy--I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote. I think this election was important. I was for the election taking place. You may recall that back in--well, there's no reason you would--but back in Fulton, Missouri, during the campaign, I laid out four steps, and I said at the time, "This may be the president's last chance to get it right."

Last chance to get it right. And that was five months ago. Hmmmmm, this needs some updating, me thinks.

[karynnj]

15. The more time passes, the better these answers sound

and they sounded brilliant in January. He was the only one brave enough not to play the "election day, everything is working out" game and took flack for it.

The only problem with this well thought out solution is that it needs a President who would work to implement it. A flaw Kerry would have gladly corrected if 60,000 Ohions would have cooperated.

[fedupinBushcountry]

17. Biden was on the Today Show this morning

of course Lauer asked him about what we should do, and Biden repeated exactly what JK has been saying for a long long time. I was waiting for Lauer to say but isn't that what Kerry said, but no, he got off as if it was all his ideas. You would think he would say that is what John Kerry and the Democrats were saying all through the campaign last year. Also Lauer did not interrupt or say well that is what the administration is doing as all the MSM did during the campaign. :shrug:

[karynnj]

19. Three possibilities of why Biden spoke using Kerry's words

1) The kindest possibility is great minds think alike - they just settled on exactly the same 4 points and neither thought a fifth was needed. (I would not want to defend that one to a hs teacher!

2) Biden was one of Kerry's surrogates and advisors, maybe they worked on the issue together, although if this was the case it would be in his interest to say this. (ie it was their plan and it still looks sensible a year later)

3) Biden still hasn't learned that plagerism is bad and figures fewer people listened to Kerry than to Neil Kinnock (where he at least changed some of the wording). Is he not afraid of Tim Russert and his technique of playing tapes? - one of which is from his show!

[fedupinBushcountry]

18. Just remember

there were 150,000 provisional ballots thrown out, and you know they were not votes for *.

[MH1]

14. I agree with you Ron.

I was saddened by this letter. It seems the author is including Kerry as an architect of this war, or at least a one-time supporter, when that is in fact not true at all.