John Kerry was on C-Span's Washington Journal this a.m...here's what he said.

[KoKo]

A caller who said she was a Republican but had voted for Kerry last time asked about Poppy Bush's connections to the Saudi Royal Family and wondered if protecting the Saudi Royal family could be the reason we went to war in Iraq. She said that her husband worked for ARAMCO years ago and told her that the Bushs were tied into the Saudi Royals and that's why she asked.

Kerry replies that there were allegations about the Bush family and the Saudi's but there was no substance to Bush going to war to protect them. He went on to say that Radical Extremists were undermining the moderates in the region and that he felt that Bush/Cheney really believed that would be remaking the Middle East by supporting the Moderates and not the Radical Extremists who want to undermine the moderates. He did mention Doug Feith and Richard Perle but didn't refer to the Neo-Cons as a group. Basically he blew off the war for Oil Connection and that the terrorists do have legitimate reasons for questioning the Saudi's and others who keep them in poverty.

When the C-Span Anchor asked if he would rather begin negotiations now to get out of Iraq or wait until General Petreus's report on September 15th ...Kerry said..."I would rather wait."

What's going on with Kerry? The whole interview seemed odd. :shrug:

[leftchick]

1. wiretaps?

or lack of courage?

[KoKo]

10. Don't know what it was....He seemed extremely cautious in his statements

and I wondered what was going on. Maybe he was just tired but saying that the "insurgents" are working against "moderates" in the Middle East didn't address the real grievances of those who are killing our troops. He didn't address that we are less safe because we are seen to be occupiers and we are just increasing the terrorism. With the Middle and Upper Class of Iraq having fled and 60 percent unemployment amongst the Iraq's who are left it would seem to be more an issue of what we've done to destabilize the ME than that the "insurgents" want to destablize moderate forces and leaders. :shrug:

[Mass]

31. I am not sure we are talking about the same interview. Once again, he was not talking about the

insurgents, but Al Quaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and the Bushies empowering them. Reread what he said if you have a chance.

[MH1]

32. He DIDN'T say "I would rather wait"

Okay I only caught the last few minutes but I caught THAT part perfectly and you are mistaken, at least as to the exact words. Without a transcript I can't quote exactly but it wasn't as plain as you state.

What he said was poorly worded and I winced when he said it because I KNEW it would be misinterpreted. The host asked "would you rather or would you rather" and I believe his exact words were "yes that would be preferable." Unfortunately, when most people hear that I guess they think the person is choosing the last of the options. But your confusion shows the problem - the last option is inconsistent with Kerry's stated position.

A more reasonable interpretation is that he didn't really wait for or maybe didn't hear right, the second option she gave (which was to wait for the Petraus report.)

It's a shame because in the part I caught, he was EXCELLENT and I just think he misheard the last part of the question in this case.

[Mass]

2. This is NOT what he said. I do not have the transcript, but he was asked about

a Schumer proposition to do something in August (not clear what as the interviewer did not say and Kerry did not answer). Kerry answered he preferred to wait until September if it was just for show, because, as he has said before, he thinks the 60 votes will be there in September.

[MH1]

33. Sounds like you understood better than I did, but anyway I know he didn't say what the op said.

I only caught a few minutes so maybe didn't have the full context, but I felt when he said that it would be misinterpreted as "wait for the Petraus report" but I ** KNOW ** that he is NOT for waiting for the Petraus report - ** IF ** something ** SUBSTANTIVE ** can be done sooner.

I don't think he wants half measures that actually set back the ultimate goal of getting us out of there. If he was saying waiting for the Petraus report is preferable to half measures that do more harm than good, well then that would be consistent, but I know it isn't what he wants - like all of us he really wants the Congress to pass a good bill NOW to redeploy troops out of Iraq and fix what we can of that policy mess.

[IndyOp]

3. Disappointing. We really need to lock them in a room and discuss "groupthink"...

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.

During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.

A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[MH1]

35. No, people should watch the discussion for themselves before making conclusions.

I hope a video is made available, or at least a transcript.

A) I know the exact quote was not what the op stated.

B) In context it will make more sense, but it did seem like a soundbite disaster to me, even when he said it. Of course soundbite disasters only exist because people will so easily believe what they are told to think about what someone else said, without waiting to find the context for themselves.

[Jack Bone]

4. evidently, something happened to him overnight..

I heard his speech on The Senate floor yesterday morning..at one point a Repub senator rose..I believe it was Hatch, to question him about the Intelligence Report...

Sen. Kerry was pretty adamant about there not being any substantive difference in what we now know in Iraq compared to what Gen. Petreus will tell us in Sept. The only difference is the US losses & casualties in the meantime..

This makes me wonder what happened since then??

[global1]

8. I Happened To Catch Kerry Speech As Well - It Wasn't Hatch That Asked Him The Question......

I'm can't remember who it was - but - I noted that before the question that Kerry was sounding 'strong and definite' then the question and then he sounded 'stuttering and unsure'. His voice, his inflection and his demeanor seemed to change. He seemed to be stepping on his tongue after the question and that is when I turned off this so-called all night debate.

Something is 'rotten in Denmark' - I tell you.

[blm]

13. Only sidetracked for a minute to answer Inhofe's inanity and got back on stride

right after. Read the kos liveblogging of that night - it was more thorough than most of the others.

Here's the link - about 1/3 down.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/18/13146/0413

[Inuca]

18. It was Inhoffe

And I completely disagree with your interpretation. I think that he was rather slow at the beginning of his speech, but after a few minutes (including the Inhofe interruption) he was really on fire making excellent points (do not ask me for details, it was 4:30 or so where I am after all :-)).

[blm]

15. Wait for the transcripts - the OP is a bit off the mark on what was said this AM

Kerry said wait till September when we'll HAVE the votes for a substantive withdrawal plan **IF** the interim plans put up are just for political CYA and show for both sides. He thinks smaller 'show' plans submitted will hurt the chance for substantial withdrawal change while providing temporary cosmetic cover for those involved.

Somehow the OP missed that important distinction.

[global1]

5. After The Happenings Of The Last Few Days - I'm Becoming More And More Suspicious That.......

all up on the Hill are in this together and just making it look like the two parties are at odds with each other. You hear some Repug's come out verbally against this war - but then they don't vote according to their words. The Dems vote and push to change things knowing that they will lose the vote. Impeachment - and removal from office of this evil cabal - is off the table. With the outrageous 'signing statements and executive orders' coming down from *Co - there is really no outcry of any substance from our elected officials. We go one way one day - (i.e., overnighter in the Senate) and the next day you get the likes of Kerry saying what he just said on WJ. Today I hear they are going to have a hookup with the Ambassador of Iraq to discuss what is going on.
On the media side - you get Tweety supporting *Co on Hardball and badmouthing them on Leno. Something is just not quite making sense to me about this whole thing and the more and more I watch and listen - the more and more suspicious I get that they're all in this together and that even if the Dems win the WH in '08 - that there still will be no major changes. Think about it - I don't recall any of the Dem Pres Candidates - commenting on the 'signing statements nor the exec orders' - they seem to be going along with all this because if and when they take the Presidency - those powers will revert to them.

Is my 'tinfoil hat' on too tight?

[davidwparker]

7. global1, you have to evaluate based on what is ACCOMPLISHED, not

what say. You can always tell how someone feels by what they DO, not what they say.

[global1]

9. And What Was Accomplished?.......nt

[davidwparker]

16. so far, no troop withdraws. no impeachment proceedings. not big ticket

items that we were expecting. I for one, think both sides are punking us. Just watch to see what does happen ... if anything.

[KoKo]

17. global 1....is there some reason your DU Profile is disabled?

[snappyturtle]

12. I think you're closer to the truth than most want to believe. nt

[Inuca]

20. Tinfoil too tight?

I am afraid so :-).

[Vilis Veritas]

21. ....

edited to retract opinion not pertinent to the site...

Peace

[blm]

26. Read the National Security Archives - only ONE LAWMAKER in the last 35 years

has investigated and exposed the government corruption and covert dealings of the BFEE in any substantive and historic way - John Kerry. And did so despite the stonewalling and obstacles put up by members of his own party who sided with the DC powerstructure against him.

Bill Clinton was not S&B and did WHAT with all those outstanding matters in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning left to his administration?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[Vilis Veritas]

28. Ok. I took off my hat...and retracted.

I will learn someday...how to play nice in the sandbox...promise.

[blm]

34. Oh, I'm not one who wants 'nice' play - but, I am a stickler when it comes to

historicly significant issues, and the exposing of govt. corruption and advancement of a truly open government are the two biggest reasons I make these points repeatedly.

S&B is a too convenient avoidance of actual fact. There are many nonS&Bs who have advanced the inner clique's (BFEE) agenda while there have a been a few who have fought against that clique their entire careers and taken the hits for doing so.

[Vilis Veritas]

39. I will defer all comments on that which I know not...

Thanks for the clarification.

Peace

[blm]

40. Peace back at ya....

BTW - Read some of the BCCI report and you'll get a clearer view of WHO sides with the Bush Crime Family and who has worked to expose them.

As a heads up, when Bush was doing that Dubai port deal he was going to hand over our ports to the very people who started BCCI in the 70s, the bank which Kerry had closed down in 1991 as the world's largest terrorist bank.

BCCI dealings are at the root of just about every major issue this country has been facing the last 4 decades, including terrorism and oil wars.

[Vilis Veritas]

41. I never heard of this before at all.

Thanks for adding another layer...

Thanks again.

My head does hurt now though...;-) Probably the result of several ignorant synapses being severed...

[blm]

46. heheh - the saying goes - for those who decide to 'look into' BCCI -

Great - see ya in about a month.

heh

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. Yes, It's On Wayyyyyyyyyyyyy Too Tight. Seriously. Wayyyyyyyyyy Too Tight.

[Vilis Veritas]

23. Oops...I guess I set myself up...oh well...

Feel free to lambast me, I guess I deserve it.

:hide:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. I Wasn't Talking To You. But After Further Reading, I Might As Well Have Been. n/t

[Vilis Veritas]

25. I retracted...not pertinent to DU...just my opinion. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. ...

:eyes:

[davidwparker]

6. It's well-documented. See link:

http://www.houseofbush.com/

[KoKo]

11. Yes...it is...but Kerry didn't want to address it. And, yet he knows.

He ran for President against these people. He investigated BCCI....He knows. He knows that we out here know. Why the extreme caution.

[davidwparker]

14. self-inflicted wounds to the back of the head? three times?

[Mass]

30. He actually DID address it. He said there were links between the two families, then proceded to

condemned Cheney and Faith political philosophy as wrong and dangerous. Sorry, I was happy to hear him say that, because there are not that many people who say that. Enough with letting the neocons and the conservatives off the hook. It is not only they are corrupted. IT IS THAT THEIR PHILOSOPHY IS FAULTY.

[sandnsea]

43. It is about geopolitical control

And the neocon philosophy in gaining that control. It is important people understand that this was so much more than just an oil grab.

[donsu]

19. he showed the most fire when a caller griped about his medals

other then that, everything was monotone and same old

[kenny blankenship]

38. "...everything was monotone and same old"

and suddenly I'm transported back to 2004, and it seems as if Kerry's White House bid is still on.

[sandnsea]

44. Yeah he should have set the desk on fire

Worked real well for Howard Dean. :eyes:

[politicasista]

45. LOL!

:rofl: :toast:

[Mass]

29. 13 mn most of which were given to a RWer, I thought he did very well.

He condemned STRONGLY the neocon philosophy, but I guess you were expecting something that Kerry will not do, and for my part, I am happy he will not and that he understand that, while we attack Bush on his links with the House of Saud, that he recognized, the neocon philosophy can safely prosper, because we let it off the hook.

[blm]

37. I think he won't get detailed without the access to the documents that PROVE what he says

because the prosecutor in him knows that is exactly what is required. And THAT is why he needed to be in the oval office, imo.

There are too many powerful Democrats willing to come out publicly and call Kerry a conspiracy theory nut....again....just as they did when many sided with Reagan and Bush on IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning and Iraqgate operations.

Documentation is EVERYTHING.

[Blaukraut]

36. The last question was as follows;

'Let me go back to tactics: Senator Shumer made reference to the fact that there is one key amendment- an amendment for clean withdrawal - that might be debated in August. Do you see that happening?'

Kerry: 'I don't know, honestly. That will be a leadership decision...'

'Would it be wiser to wait until September with the Petraeus report?'

Kerry: 'If that were the option, I would rather do that, yes.'


So he was responding to a question on tactics. Is it tactically wise to debate a clean withdrawal amendment in August? In what capacity would this happen? Would the Defense Authorization bill come back?

Senator Kerry has expressed many times in the last few weeks and longer that waiting for the September report is foolish, and that something needs to be done right away. He has already said he would co-sponsor a Feingold amendment to pull funding by April 08 if no withdrawal progress is made. That's pretty decisive.

Also, listen to the radio interview from last night he had with Jay Severin. Again, how much clearer can it get?

http://www.wtkk.com/Programs/tabid/55/Default.aspx

As to why he did not entertain the tinfoil hat contingent when asked about whether Bush went to war to protect the Saudi Royals - well, honestly now; would you really expect him to do that, without any tangible evidence? We do still want him to be taken seriously and remain effective. Making or confirming such allegations without any evidence would not be wise.

[sandnsea]

42. It wasn't to STEAL the oil for Cheney

It was to reshape the region into governments who would happily sell our companies oil. There is a difference. It's about geopolitical power and US interests in securing resources that our people need. The left doesn't get the difference which is important if you're going to be taken seriously in advocating policy change.

It sounds to me like Kerry was trying to explain what the Bushies were up to, and he's right.