John Kerry interview at Salon.com

[rjung]

Not really a debate per se, but I’m sure the Dopers will be debating over the points soon enough. "The truth has a force of its own" A few excerpts:

You gave a major national security speech in Seattle this morning, but you didn’t talk a lot about your specific plan for Iraq. Your staff suggested that you’d done that before and maybe didn’t feel the need to do that again today. Do you need to do more to get your plan in front of the public, or is this an issue where you’ve decided to stay away and let Bush suffer on his own?

It’s not a question of staying away. I speak about it every day. I think it’s just a question of how much you can fit in one speech. I made it very clear that they’ve had a bad foreign policy, that they’ve broken our alliances, that we shouldn’t go to war just because they want to go to war and that they haven’t done what they need to for the troops. And I will. It’s pretty clear.

What’s the best outcome the United States can reasonably hope for in Iraq now? Is there any hope left of achieving the vision Bush set out for the mission?

There is, if he [would do] it properly, if the president leads and does what’s necessary. But I think he’s made it far, far more complicated than it had to be – far more risky and tenuous – and it’s entirely possible that they won’t be able to do it.

Is the only real solution – the only way to get the world community fully involved – a change in administrations here?

I think it’s going to take a new president to clear the air, to turn over a new chapter for America, to renew our relationships with the level of trust that’s necessary. I don’t think this administration has any credibility left.

As you know, the Republican line on you is that you’re a “flip-flopper.” Do you think the White House really views you that way, or is this just an intellectually dishonest political exercise?

Of course it is. It’s not only intellectually dishonest, it’s shallow beyond belief. It’s exactly what they said about Bill Clinton, it’s exactly what they said about Al Gore, it’s exactly what they said about John McCain. It is the standard operating approach of Republicans who have nothing to say for themselves, so all they do is try to brand somebody else.

Well, it’s not exactly what they did to McCain. Nobody’s accused you of having an illegitimate love child.

Not yet. I’m waiting for those. That’s probably August or September.

I’ll tell you what. What’s really so craven about it is that they pick something that they implement badly and screw up, like Iraq or No Child Left Behind or the Patriot Act. And when you point out that they screwed it up, they say that you’re “flip-flopping.”

But they, on the other hand, break a promise to have no deficit, break a promise not to invade Social Security, break a promise to fund No Child Left Behind, break a promise to introduce the four-pollutant bill and move forward on the environment, break a promise to deal with the real health issues and prescription drugs, break a promise of humility in American foreign policy. I mean, you start running down the list – I’ve never seen a grander array of flip-flops. This is the biggest “say one thing, do another” administration in modern history.

Comments?

[Brutus]

I am shocked that Salon didn’t ask anything but softball questions that may as well been written by Kerry’s campaign manager. Shocked, I tell you.

[rjung]

Were you also shocked when Fox News lobbed softball questions at Bush last September?

[Brutus]

@rjung

Were you also shocked when Fox News lobbed softball questions at Bush last September?

Dude, did you even read the FNC interview? It helps to sort of ‘read between the lines’, to get to the real scoop:

@From the FNC interview

HUME: Tell me one thing. How often do you talk to your dad?

Don’t tell him two things. Nope, he wants information on this one thing, and will not stop until he is satisfied. Focusing like a laser, you might say.

BUSH: You know, probably once every two weeks.

Look how how confrontational this has already turned. You know, Brit. Why they fuck are you asking him when you already know?

HUME: Really? Because I think a lot of people would imagine that you guys would be in touch constantly

ZING! Game, set, and match. Really, Georgy-boy? Imagination dictates that you are in contact with him way more than ‘every two weeks’. Now sit on his lap and call him Daddy, W. You’ve been p0wn3d.

Et cetera!

[treis]

You gave a major national security speech in Seattle this morning, but you didn’t talk a lot about your specific plan for Iraq. Your staff suggested that you’d done that before and maybe didn’t feel the need to do that again today. Do you need to do more to get your plan in front of the public, or is this an issue where you’ve decided to stay away and let Bush suffer on his own?

I think he needs to add a little detail to his plan and show exactly how he is going to differ from Bush. His page is a bit light with only 4 paragraphs:

I. Make Iraq a Part of NATO?s Global Mission

NATO is now a global security organization and creating a stable and secure environment in Iraq must be one of its global missions. Every member of NATO has a huge stake in Iraq?s future. NATO agreement to take on this mission should be reached no later than the NATO summit in late June. NATO can take on this mission in phases, beginning with taking control of Iraq?s border security, and taking over responsibility for northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and the training of Iraqi security forces. This would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, open the door to participation by non-NATO countries like India and Pakistan, and send an important message to the American people that we are not bearing the security burden in Iraq virtually alone.

A couple things, by my count there are currently troops from 17 out of the 26 member nations of NATO. Out of the other 9 Germany has stated that they will not send troops, France is in the same boat and Spain recently pulled out their troops and they aren’t going back. The other 6 countries are Belgium, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Turkey hardly a group that could free 20,000 American troops. As much as I want more international support and those extra troops will help the reality is that we invaded against their will. They have no responsibility in helping us rebuild Iraq and we should not expect any help from them.

An international High Commissioner should be authorized by the UN Security Council to organize the political transition to Iraqi sovereignty and the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction with the new Iraqi government. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, the High Commissioner will organize elections and the drafting of a constitution, and coordinate reconstruction. The High Commissioner should be an individual who is highly regarded by the international community and who has the credibility and capacity to talk to all the Iraqi people. The High Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq?s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqi people. While the process of establishing the High Commissioner is underway, we must fully support the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi to set-up an Iraqi interim entity.

I am all for the U.N. helping orgazine Iraqi elections and government but how does this High Commissioner differ from what Brahimi is doing now?

We need a massive training effort to build an Iraqi security force that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed and must be rethought and reformed. Training must be done in the field, on the job as well as in the classroom. This key task should be part of the NATO mission, and units should be put on the street with backup from international security forces. The creation of viable Iraqi security forces ? military and police ? is crucial to a successful exit for us and other international forces.

I agree with everything in this paragraph (minus the NATO mission which I don’t think will happen) but my major complaint is that Kerry gives us little on the way of numbers or details. Also if you take out the sentence about this failing to date the paragraph reads almost identical to what Bush would say about the matter.

My problem with Kerry is that his main campaign seems to be Bush sucks and I’m not Bush. I am well aware of how much Bush sucks and I can also tell that you aren’t him. If you want my vote you need to convince me that you are currently the best man for the job. I know in reality that it is a two person race but I have the option and probably will vote for a third party canidate unless Kerry can convince me that he is better than all of the third party canidates, in my opinion he hasn’t done so.

[rjung]

Yes, Brutus, we all know that “How often do you talk to your dad?” is the epitome of two-fisted journalism. :rolleyes:

@treis

I agree with everything in this paragraph (minus the NATO mission which I don’t think will happen) but my major complaint is that Kerry gives us little on the way of numbers or details. Also if you take out the sentence about this failing to date the paragraph reads almost identical to what Bush would say about the matter.

Sure, but is that because Kerry is aping Bush, or because Bush – in light of the growing disaster that Iraq is becoming – has been changing his tactics to ape Kerry?

@treis

My problem with Kerry is that his main campaign seems to be Bush sucks and I’m not Bush. I am well aware of how much Bush sucks and I can also tell that you aren’t him. If you want my vote you need to convince me that you are currently the best man for the job. I know in reality that it is a two person race but I have the option and probably will vote for a third party canidate unless Kerry can convince me that he is better than all of the third party canidates, in my opinion he hasn’t done so.

Unless there’s a major groundswell of third-party support in this election, I don’t think Kerry really needs to do so. If nothing else, third-party candidates drawing votes away from Bush will still benefit Kerry overall.

[Plan_B]

Humorous take on Salon’s interview

[Jackmannii]

*"As you know, the Republican line on you is that you’re a “flip-flopper.” Do you think the White House really views you that way, or is this just an intellectually dishonest political exercise? "*Interesting.

Kerry has reversed direction on some key issues, Bush is as bad or worse so his campaign’s charges are intellectually dishonest, and this question does sound like it was phrased by the Kerry campaign.

rjung is now proudly ranking his sources as equivalent to Fox News? Eeesh.

[Shodan]

I made it very clear that they’ve had a bad foreign policy, that they’ve broken our alliances, that we shouldn’t go to war just because they want to go to war and that they haven’t done what they need to for the troops. And I will. It’s pretty clear.

What’s clear?

That Kerry has no ideas? And is banking on that to win the election?

I think we are about to test the idea that “you can’t beat something with nothing”.

Regards,
Shodan