Something Kerry Should Have Included in his speech

[liberalpragmatist]

Now, quickly, let me preface this by saying that I thought the speech on the whole was excellent. And I realize that with a 55-minute running length and only an hour-long timeslot from the networks, Kerry couldn't have added much more.

Even so, I think he should have taken a couple minutes to talk about the Iraq War votes:

On the Cong. Resolution:
I had my doubts, but I gave the president the benefit of the doubt. He promised to uncover the truth about the WMDs, promised to let inspectors finish their work, promised to seek full UN support, promised to go to war as a last resort (emphasis), and he promised to make a plan for the peace! He did none of that and betrayed Congress and the American people. And I was caught with egg on my face for having trusted his judgement.

On the $87 billion:
Then came time to fund the war. Fair enough, especially since the administration had underfunded and understaffed the war to begin with. Together with John McCain and Democrats in the Senate, I supported a bill that would have given the necessary funding by rescinding the upper-income tax cuts. We all have sacrifices to make in times of war and as John McCain said at the time, "The United States has never cut taxes and gone to war at the same time." Deficits exist as far as the eye can see. But that bill was defeated. The Republican leadership put up an alternate bill that refused to repeal the tax cuts. I was angry. So was John Edwards. With passage of the bill assured, John Edwards and I decided to cast a protest vote against the bill to protest this administration's irresponsibility and lack of planning. So the next time some the President, his surrogates, or the TV spinmeisters try to tell you that I'm the irresponsible one, remember this: the president is the irresponsible one for thinking tax cuts for his friends like Ken Lay are more important than American security.

*Note: I realize that these are long, but I estimate that reading them would probably take only a few minutes at the most. My feeling is that he should have included a brief explanation, at least about the $87 billion, b/c the pundits and the Repubs continue to beat him over the head with it and I think he should've taken the opportunity to defend himself fully against the attack.

[leeman67]

1. those are excellent

and although like you, I agree the speech was great, these would've been home runs. Hopefully someone close to Kerry is a DU member and sees this, and perhaps they can be said in the upcoming debates. :)

[shockingelk]

2. He also should apologize for WMD claims

"I stated as fact that Iraq had WMD that were a direct threat to our security in homeland America. It doesn't matter if I was mislead or not, I the important thing is that you were misled."

I don't think such a statement would be damaging to Kerry in any way, but it would contrast him - a challenger who's willing to be held accountable - with an incumbent who refuses to accept accountability. Or, on the off chance Bush makes a similar apology - that would be extremely damaging to Bush.

Also, a statement about the vote on the $87 billion could be much shorter: "I voted for making part of the $87 billion funding package when part of it would be eventually paid back to the US by Iraq - the version of the bill that the White House promised to veto. When congressional Republicans caved in to the White House's threat to leave our troops high and dry, I made my outrage part of the public record by registering a resounding 'NO!' vote."