Sen Kerry on Fox News Sunday

[globalvillage]

Sen. Kerry did another kick-ass interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday this morning. Here are the highlights, but I’d watch the replay.

On Gonzales:

“Nobody wants the White House or the Congress interfering in our judicial process. That's why we have a separate branch. And the fact is that this was clear political interference.
It's always been wrong. If it happened politically under Clinton, it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact is that this was political and it's wrong.
And there's a cloud over this attorney general. It's not just this. It's Guantanamo, it's the Patriot Act excesses. I believe this attorney general does not have credibility within the judicial system itself as well as outside.”

On Iraq:

“General Petraeus himself has said there is no military solution to this war. Now, if there is no military solution to this war, where is the political diplomatic solution?
I get really angry — I mean, I heard about those four soldiers killed today, and I say to myself, as someone who remembers going out on patrols that sort of had a huge question mark over them, "What are we doing? What are these kids doing going out there and finding an IED the hard way? What has that accomplished?"”

On the Senate vote:

“And what we've learned in the great fights of the Senate and historically in this country is you have to keep fighting. You keep trying.”

On the Media distortions:

“ … you and others in the media, and particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, continually characterize the plan we put forward as a complete withdrawal of all the troops and as a precipitous withdrawal." ... "This has got to — this debate has to be real, not a straw man debate where you set up a phony deal which is precipitous and complete withdrawal. It's a responsible plan that allows us ... to stay positioned against Iran and do what we need to protect American interests."

On the troops:

“I believe this issue, Iraq, is just so monumental. It's so important. You talk to those families. I was with troops yesterday who are leaving, some of them going over.
One fellow volunteered after his son-in-law was blown up by an IED, and he volunteered to go so that some other family might not have to go through what they've already gone through.
There are amazing sacrifices being made, and they're so personal and so real that those of us in public life have a huge responsibility to get this right.”

Full transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259449,00.html

The interview will replay at 6:00 EDT on Fox News Channel

[Eric J in MN]

1. We need to leave Iraq, but also we need to stay "to protect American interests."

Keeping 160,000 troops there is wrong, but 80,000 would be fine, seems to be the John Kerry/Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama consenus.

Personally, I want all US troops out of Iraq.

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. Ummm

80,000 ? John Kerry has never said 80,000.

[Eric J in MN]

8. Has he said how many? NT

NT

[ProSense]

10. The plans are quite different:

Here is Hillary quoted on her plan and an assessment.

The general language of withdrawal and limited troops doesn't address the specifics, where and how the troops would be used and positioned, and how many.

[fedupinBushcountry]

14. Senator Kerry

has never specified a number but he has advocated for a pullout of MOST troops, and the remaining numbers be used specifically for finishing training and to guard our military there.

For full details just click on my setadeadline icon below.

[Eric J in MN]

18. The Iraqis had a good army for decades. Why do they need...

...American soldiers to train them indefinitely now? Why can't Iraq train its own soldiers?

[fedupinBushcountry]

19. For one thing

they would be FINISHING up the training and another thing Senator Kerry has advocated loudly for NO PERMANENT BASES in Iraq.

[TayTay]

37. In Dec of 2005, Kerry said he wanted 30,000 troops left in-country

by Dec of 2006. This loose goal was in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in NYC. That was part of Kerry's plan and the speech and transcript are accessible on-line here:

In the Q&A portion of the speech from Dec 2005, Kerry was asked flat out, what he would want to see in terms of a troop commitment a year from the date of this interview: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9390/real_security_in_a_post911_world.html

MODERATOR: So just to try to quantify it, 160,000 now; this time next year, if you were in charge —

KERRY: I believe you could get at least 100,000 out over that period of time, bring it down to somewhere in the vicinity of 30(,000) to 40,000, and then, you know, you’re going to have to see where you are. But the — that would be my goal. And I would not do it on a fixed automatic table; it has to be results-coordinated. And that’s the way I would do it.

Again, this was in Dec of 2005. Kerry changed his stance after the Feb 2006 bombing in Samara that resulted in the Grand Mosque being blown up by Sunnis. Kerry didn't say 'insurgency' anymore, he used the term civil war and argued more strenuously for less troops in country. That is a documented fact that you can look up for yourself at the link above.

None of this, obviously, happened because the Democrats as a whole, and Sen. Kerry in particular lack the power to stop the war or affect the pullout of troops without some Republican cooperation. But the goal of getting our troops out of there has only become more urgent to Kerry since this Dec 2005 speech.

[Mass]

27. Add Feingold to your consensus. It is not 80, 000 but he also wants to let troops there.

as do many Democrats.

Even Maxime Waters, the other day on Fox, was talking about keeping a force above the horizon.

However, Kerry has made clear, quite a while ago, that he thought about 100,000 troops at least should leave Iraq. However and sadly, he is not the CIC, or we would not be in this mess in the first place.

[MODemocrat]

39. He was good and to the point, I was so proud of John Kerry

He said some would be left there to train the troops. :thumbsup:

[TankLV]

43. If it happened politically under Clinton, it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

He should have kept his trap shut. To speculate on what Clinton did that could have been wrong, when NO SUCH THING EVER HAPPENED is playing into the repukes hands - again.

He ALWAYS does this shit - and I for one am tired of it...

I saw nothing admirable in his performance - he gave the repuke more ammo for the "everyone does it" lie when he could have quashed this bullshit...

[blm]

65. He didn't say what you claim he said. I'm sick of people SPINNING instead of comprehending.

Just like Hillary joining in with Bush and McCain and the RW lie machine just so she could PRETEND that THEY ALL supported troops while Kerry insulted troops.

[Toots]

59. He said in the area not in Iraq

Redeploy to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Quatar or ?? but someplace that they aren't bombing out troops and if Iraq needs immediate assistance they are within hours with full support. That is what he said if you paid any attention at all.

[Turbineguy]

2. Fox ticker:

"Kerry says Gonzales responsible for global warming by wearing cloud as a hat"

"Kerry supports use of soldiers as IED detectors"

"Kerry accuses ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN of distorting Iraq news"

"Kerry to enlist for duty in Iraq"

[AlinPA]

4. Senator Kerry on Fox "News"? Even he is legitimatizing them now. Damn..

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. No

he is facing the enemy and speaking truth to power.

[MBS]

25. absolutely right

Believe me, he was in control of that interview, and had Chris Wallace sputtering at least twice, and apologizing (for misstatement of fact) once.

[globalvillage]

15. Al, as much as we both wish they wouldn't,

people watch this show. And better that they hear something of our side than nothing at all.
I think it's rather brave for our people to go on Fox, knowing full well that they'll be attacked by the right afterwards.
That's one of the things I admire about Gen. Clark. Like Sen Kerry, he's not one to shy away from the enemy. Better to face them head on.
This was a really good interview. Sen Kerry didn't give an inch to Wallace's slanted questions, and gave him a couple shots in the process.

I hope my mom was watching. I'm almost positive she was. She turned on Fox a few years ago and hasn't looked for the remote since. Perhaps she's not completely hopeless, though. The last time Sen Kerry was on Fox, she said "Your Senator Kerry looked really good on the TV (she adds the 'your' to distance herself, and 'the TV' = Fox)."

Hey, it's something.

[AlinPA]

20. OK. You probably know that I make these comments about Fox "News"

often here, and I usually get an answer like yours. I understand what you are saying. But don't you think that it allows them to then say that they are "fair and balanced" when they are not? My position is: let Fox bark like a stupid dog- after awhile, no one will pay any attention to them except their faithful audience. Peace.

[globalvillage]

23. I don't think either of us is 'wrong'.

You have a good argument.
But I don't think many people believe Fox is 'fair and balanced', even if they do have a Dem on from time to time. Even their regular viewers can't believe they're balanced, otherwise they wouldn't watch.
As for Sen Kerry's appearance, I suspect he feels an obligation to get the message out without the spin to as many people as possible. Even the wingers. Maybe especialy the wingers. And after all, some of these people are his constituents, and he represents them whether they like it or not.

OTOH, he might do it just to piss them off.

Peace back atcha.

[AlinPA]

26. re: "OTOH, he might do it just to piss them off." Now, thats a possibility.

Lets hope so.

[globalvillage]

28. What part of PA?

I'm in Pittsburgh.

[AlinPA]

31. Near IUP campus.

[globalvillage]

33. I think I've asked you that before.

:hi:

[blm]

61. I think ir's because more from their side are joining OUR side week by week, and

part of the reason is because there are a few from our side who go on and speak the tough truth. I have always seen Gen. Clark's time on FOX as a Dem willing to speak to the enemy, and I see Kerry the same way.

Neither of them go on and REIFY the RW talking points, they CHALLENGE them.

It's the smarmy Dems who go on FOX and REIFY the RW talking points that do Dems a disservice.

[karynnj]

35. The problem is that we will never get to the point we need to be at

if we do that. At this point over 60% of the country supports an exit plan at least as aggressive as this Democratic plan. This has pushed 48 Senators to back the plan. To make it an even greater consensus, we need to reach the people now hearing only Limbaugh and other talk radio people and Fox News. These people have been fed succinct easy to remember counter arguments to the Democrats arguments. They then repeat them to their peers around the water coolers and lunch tables.

I may be wrong, but it seems that people are split more homongeneously into groups now than they were even 25 years ago. It is possible that every time Clark or Kerry speak on the war some listener, already troubled by the war not seeming to go as promised, will grasp the truth they are speaking. In winning over some of these people, you gain a foothold (or maybe a toehold) in the population that has been totally "red". They may first stop spreading the RW message themselves and possibly even counter it at some point.

Consider that the Democrat that wins will likely implement something similar to this. It will be far better for the country, if a very large proportion of the population already sees some merit in the approach. I also think that there is real merit in Senator Kerry being one of those speaking on Fox. He is one of the strongest voices the Democrats have, one of the least likely to be hit with anything he can't answer, and the least likely to react out of anger. It also may cause some to question the stereotyping and lies of 2004 - he is very impressive and real. Seeing this could help whatever Democrat is the nominee in 2008.

[AlinPA]

36. I hear you. But it seems to me that Fox "News" viewers are not going

to see it any other way than through their blinders of flags, bibles and the right-wing republican way. My main gripe is that it is a pure propaganda channel and if Democrats stayed away people would see more clearly how silly it is. We will always have people like Colmes helping to make it "credible". I wonder what they pay him to be the wimp.

[diamidue]

50. I agree.

Democrats have been frequenting Fox for years now and the Right hates them as much as ever. Appearing there just adds legitimacy to a non-legitimate propaganda source. I say, "starve the beast".

[Mass]

53. My inlaws watch FOX. They like it and only get the crap from the RW.

They are long-life Democrats, but they are also elderly people who find the FOX news easy to follow. There are many people like that. They need to hear both side of the arguments. We cannot afford to be that elitist.

[ginnyinWI]

5. Kerry has used the "two wrongs don't make a right"

argument a few times recently; it's a really good way to counter the, "yeah but Clinton (or substitute Dem of choice) did it too!" argument. And it's very true: just because the other side may have done it, or people think the other side has done it, doesn't give Republicans license to do the same--particularly if it's of questionable legality!

There is nothing, nothing you can answer to the statement, "but two wrongs don't make a right."

[billybob537]

13. Clinton is ancient History

Whatever he did is irelevant now. Get on with today's business and stop living in the past.
We are HERE NOW and we need to know how to fix today's problem.

[globalvillage]

17. Wallace used the Clinton firing of Jay Stephens

as an attempt to draw a parallel with what Bush is doing.
Classic RW 'Clinton did it' strategy.
It is getting old, but the wingers will use it every chance they get.

[WinkyDink]

22. So then, by FOX logic, what Clinton did was OKAY! HAHAHA!

[karynnj]

32. True, and the best way to cut that at its knees

is - when Clinton did do the same thing, that yes, that was wrong. Kerry should be able to speak from his own sense of right and wrong - which he has always done.

When what Clinton did was different, like firing all the attourneys when he came in, they should explain how it was different and why what was done here was wrong. Kerry did a great job with that on Imus, where he also pointed out GHWB did the same thing when he came in.

[TankLV]

45. And he STANK on it on this interview - he gave life to the "clinton did it too" lie...

[ProSense]

47. Exactly the opposite!

Senator Kerry smacked down Wallace's phony argument.

Kerry said it's always been wrong to interfere with the judicial process, saying Clinton did it too is no justification because two wrong don't make a right.

Remember, the Republicans controlled the Congress. If Clinton was in the wrong, they would have been all over him. Wallace is simply trying a different distraction with the Dan Rostenkowski incident because he knows the other RW talking point about the firing all the attorneys is BS.

[Mass]

55. You are entitled to your opinion. However, he explained clearly the difference

between what Clinton did and what Bush did b(one did it when he came to power, the other in the middle of his second term and explicitely when a US attorney did not want to do what Bush wanted). When it became clear Wallace would not let go, he just stated the obvious: if Clinton had done it, it would be wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right.

There were places of the interviews I did not particularly like, but this one is not one. He was not there to defend Clinton's memory (would he be supposed to defend Mark Rich's pardon if the GOP was using that as a way to defend a Libby pardon?). He was there to say that this was wrong, and that it does not matter whether Clinton did it or not. It is still wrong for Bush to do it.

[karynnj]

30. Also, I think it's a very true honest old fashioned answer

As you say there is NOTHING you can answer that statement with - as I know when I often heard that from my midwestern parents. I like that implicit in it is that something being wrong is based on some absolute value rather than a relative value. (It fits very well with Senator Kerry who holds himself to a high standard of integrity.)

[TankLV]

44. but the problem is the CLINTON DID NOT DO IT TOO! Kerry just handed these repukes more ammo in the

"everybody does it too" lie. THAT is the only thing the repukes will hear.

Kerry should just shut the fuck up and go away - he RUINED the "discussion" for us - again - with his slips of the tongue - bending over backwards to appear reasonable and falling over...

I'm sick and tired of it...

[globalvillage]

49. That response was specific to the question

of Jay Stephens firing while he was investigating Dan Rostenkowski. It was no 'slip of the tongue'.

When Wallace suggested Pres Clinton was the only person to fire all the Attys, Sen Kerry corrected him.

WALLACE: Back in 1993, Bill Clinton, as Senator Specter noted, fired 93 of the 94 U.S. attorneys, the first time that had ever been done in such a summary fashion.

KERRY: Well, I believe that history will show that George Herbert Walker Bush, president 41, also asked for the resignations.

When asked specifically about Stephens' firing, Sen Kerry did not say it was political, he said If it was political, it was wrong.

WALLACE: ...because one of the U.S. attorneys that President Clinton fired back in 1993 was a fellow named Jay Stevens, and there was a big furor at the time...

KERRY: I remember that, sure.

WALLACE: ... about the fact that he was weeks away from deciding whether to indict a very powerful Democrat, Dan Rostenkowski, then chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

KERRY: ... If it happened politically under Clinton, it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact is that this was political and it's wrong.


Sen Kerry was right. Wallace suggested the Stephens firing was political, not Kerry. And the point of the interview was to discuss Iraq, not Pres Clinton's decision regarding the firing of one Atty. If Pres Clinton wants to defend that decision, then perhaps he can go back on Fox and do that. I'm sure Wallace would be thrilled to have him back on.

And Sen Kerry absolutely should not "shut the fuck up". There are few voices willing to speak the truth, they should not be silenced.

[mloutre]

52. Also, the "Clinton did it too" canard (in re Stephens) is an already-debunked RoveCo talking point:

Not only that, Rove's little buddy Kyle Sampson himself debunked that particularly bit of bullspin a couple of months ago:


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/sampson-rove-attorney/

Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too

"But in an e-mail to Harriet Miers on Jan. 9, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday) admitted that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.”

Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta previously told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claims that the Clinton administration also purged attorneys is “pure fiction.” He added, “Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.”

(ref: Documents Regarding Department of Justice Firings)

[karynnj]

54. Kerry did NOT slip up here

he brought the focus back to the issue - what Bush did was wrong - Kerry had already made the point that Bush 41, like Clinton fired all the prosecutors when he came in.

Here, he did not concede Clinton wrongdoing, he brought the question back to the issue - what Bush is doing is wrong. He called him on the idea that "Clinton did it too was a valid defense." I don't know about you - but to this midwestern, this gave Kerry the high ground. ( There was quicksand here - Kerry avoided it.)

[Mass]

56. AND KERRY DID NOT SAY CLINTON DID IT. Did you even listen to him?

[TayTay]

60. Clinton did replace the US Attorney's. So did Bush I, so did Reagan

I am sorry that this issue is so complicated for some people to understand. It's not that bad if you step back from it for a second and look at it.

Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Clinton did replace the US Attorneys at the beginning of their Presidencies. This was normal and nothing unusual or that would trigger a Congressional investigation.

Firing the attorneys in the middle of a 2nd Presidential term is highly unusual. Firing them because they may have been too zealous in prosecuting Republicans for the wrong things or not zealous enough in prosecuting Democrats for imaginary crimes can trigger a Congressional investigation.

Sen. Kerry correctly noted that replacement of the US Attorneys at the beginning of the term was part of a political process. Replacing the US Attorneys in the middle of a term because these USA's may have been pursuing investigations that the White House didn't like is a whole nother matter. That is the politicizing of justice and the intentional pollution of the independent judiciary by White House partisan interference.

Defend Pres. Clinton on the merits. Don't defend him out of fear that some RWer somewhere is going to hear 'Clinton did it too.' There is truth in this argument, use it. The idiotic assumption that anything said against Clinton is automatically wrong defeats the argument, makes Clinton look weak and makes the Democrats look like they have something to hide. This is false, 100% false.

Defend from your strength. This moronic attempt to pretend that Clinton did not fire a US Attorney is silly, he did. However, he did so for cause. Don't play the dumb RW game of false equivalency. What Clinton did was just, stands up on the merits and was defendable. What the Bush White House is doing is politicizing justice. That is not the same thing and not defendable.

Stop whimpering with fear about questioning Clinton. Defend him on the merits. The argument works for Clinton here.

[_dynamicdems]

63. If you don't like what Kerry has to say, I have a suggestion.

Don't listen.

Senator Kerry speaks for a Hell of a lot of us, so when you make a blanket statement such as you just did, you are telling us all to "shut the fuck up and go away." This is America, pal. We are not going to do that.

[blm]

64. Try reading what he said instead of spinning what he said and if anyone should shut up

and go away it is all the people who trampled on Kerry's voice while propping up the REAL BushInc enablers in the Democratic partyu for the last 15 years.

Bill Clinton and his gang of coverup artists working for the BFEE are the ones who need to shut up and go away.

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

[Blaukraut]

6. thank you, GV

In case anyone missed the interview - it will be repeated on Fux cable news channel at 6 PM. (at least on the east coast.)

[jillan]

7. one of my favorite parts of the interview:

discussing the Iraq vote this past week in the Senate:

WALLACE: But in any case, you needed — you were 12 votes short. You weren't 3 votes short. You were 12 votes short of the 60 you would have needed to actually pass this.

When Democrats are still so short, so far away from passing something that will actually force the president's hand, limit his policy, what do you do now?

KERRY: Well, actually, Chris, we're 19 votes short because you need 67 to overcome the veto. And there would be a veto. We all understand that.

But last summer when I brought that resolution to the floor, I got 13 votes, 48-13. That is an enormous change in a very short time.


Kerry threw it right back in Wallace's face :)

[MH1]

11. That's excellent!

I'm hoping to catch the replay. I'm looking forward to that part.

[Gato Moteado]

12. i would get excited if i heard at the end of the interview....

....kerry grabbed that slimy weasel chris wallace and twisted his head around a few times to snap his neck. now THAT would be MUST SEE TV...watching a war hero crush a nazi sympathizer.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. I'm so glad he brought up Guantanamo and P.A.T.R.I.O.T.

This stuff to me is even more egregious than the US attorney firings. Gonzales is just not a good person to be watching over the law. His loyalty is to George, not to the Constitution ... or even centuries-old common law, for that matter.

[WinkyDink]

21. Sen. Kerry, ask The Donald how to be succinct.

[Mass]

29. The Donald is an idiot. Kerry says what he has to say.!

[TayTay]

38. The Donald is an idiot

Who does things with no concern for the rights or views of others.

Why would Kerry, or any other sane human being, give a damn what The Donald does?

[TankLV]

46. maybe because he's a better speaker and we heard CLEARLY his points and not the thousands of other

words that drown out what Kerry was saying.

I hate the Donald too, but damn he sure is clear, concise and too the point - and he was clear on his intended points, unlike Kerry...who drones on and on and on...

soory, but the "donald" has it all over Kerry when it comes to speaking - AND "the Donald's" IS AN IDIOT TO BOOT!

[ProSense]

48. Oh bullshit! Donald is a mumbling idiot. n/t

[Mass]

57. Trump is a good speaker? Ok, this does it for me. We are definitively living in two different ..

planet.

[karynnj]

58. When the words you are remembered by are,

"You're fired.", it's true that they are clear and concise. The key is that "The Donald" did not have to convince anyone of anything - in that world he had the one and only one voice. He did not have to be right or to persuade anyone that he was right. He also controlled the mic and the camera. It didn't even matter if the firing decision was reasonable. How is this equivilent to a serious politician, working hard to change opinions?

With a less jaundiced eye, you might see that many many people - including the ISG - are now speaking of Iraq through the frames and words that Kerry has used in 2005 and 2006.
- In October 2005, he was nearly alone saying there was no military solution, that they need a military one.
- It was also then that he said the US should not be doing Search and destroy or the door to door policing. (His descriptions of why this was unworkable were made personal by his VN experience)
- He was one of the first to speak of Civil War.
Many Democrats have echoed these words.

So, if you prefer a NYC real estate magnate, who inherited a portfolio of properties from his dad and has inexplicably become a media celebrity, that's ok by me, but it would be good if you could get beyond whatever reason you have for hating Senator Kerry.

I seriously think Senator Kerry's straight from the heart/gut question on Vietnam will stand the test of time better than the trivia of "You're fired".

[wisteria]

41. The Donald may know about real estate, but he knows nothing about campaigning

or politics.

[blm]

62. Ask Donald Trump how to man a foxhole with you and your family in it.

Or how to end a war.

Or how to expose government corruption.

Where was Trump's succintness against Bush in 1999 and 2000, and again in 2003 and 2004?

[globalvillage]

24. This is replaying on Fox 'News' Channel in a couple min.

After Specter is finished blathering.

[Island Blue]

34. K & R.

Thanks for posting GV!

[wisteria]

40. That was an awesome interview. Senator Kerry commanded the whole thing

and even put Wallace in his place at one point. This is definitely one interview worth watching again.

[wisteria]

42. See the video , The video is up at John kerry.com. Now!!!

http://www.johnkerry.com/

I am telly you this is worth watching again.

[mmonk]

51. Are we going to attack Iran soon or will it be

a long harrassment and push on shakey grounds to get the American sheeple on board?