Bob Kerrey: Wrong Before Going Into Iraq And Still Wrong Today
Bob Kerrey: Wrong Before Going Into Iraq And Still Wrong Today
On September 13, 2002, just as Congress was debating whether to approve a resolution providing President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq, former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
The real choice is between sustaining a military effort designed to contain Saddam Hussein and a military effort designed to replace him. In my mind the case for the second choice is overwhelming. … Regime change is the only way we can safely reduce our military commitment to the region.
In calling for regime change, Kerrey displayed an inability to comprehend the predictable chaos that would ensue. The intelligence community warned the Bush administration in January 2003 that regime change “would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.”
In December 2003, an undeterred Kerrey claimed that he had been vindicated and Iraq war critics would ultimately be proven wrong. “Twenty years from now, we’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says it wasn’t worth the effort,” he wrote.
Today, Bob Kerrey (D-NE), unrepentant over his failed Iraq war predictions, returns to the Wall Street Journal op-ed page to blast “American liberals.” In making his argument that democracy can indeed be imposed by military force (apparently by overlooking the Iraq war), Kerrey writes:
American liberals need to face these truths … [A] unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.
Perhaps he should have thought about that before advocating regime change as “the only way” to “safely reduce our military commitment to the region.” By staying in Iraq as an occupying force, the U.S. is helping inflame the terrorist movement. But Bob Kerrey has never understood that from the beginning, so why would he understand that now?
UPDATE: The National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez heralds Kerrey as “my favorite Democrat.”
UPDATE II: Rush Limbaugh says “Bob Kerrey is right on Iraq.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
93 Responses to “Bob Kerrey: Wrong Before Going Into Iraq And Still Wrong Today”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
There’s more than one way to force regime change. It doesn’t have to happen at the working end of a gun.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmTraitor! You should renounce your membership to the Democratic Party and join ole Lieberman.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pmWhat is the point in listening to or even noticing politicians that were wrong at the start, wrong all along, and , on top of it all, still wrong ?
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm“American liberals need to face these truths … [A] unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.”
so would taking the u.s. troops out of saudi arabia, as per obl’s request, but bush did that anyway.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:57 pmKerry’s another of those neutered Reagan era dems.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 pmnuisance’s go away when everyone ignores them.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 pmThe fact that the United States isn’t even LOOKING for OBL should have handed him a substantial psychological victory, don’t you think??
And the fact that our soldiers are dying in droves certainly is a boost for the terrorist’s morale also.
INVADING IRAQ: WORST MISTAKE EVER!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmI’m pretty sure OBL has already enjoyed quite a “substantial pyschological victory” watching this crap go on and on and the U.S. treasury get more and more drained. Short-sighted idiots.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmIt definitely was wrong to go into Iraq - an aggressive war is something that was punished as a war crime at Nuremburg.
War expands the power of the state like nothing else. These criminal politicians violate our liberties, and take our wealth and give it to their buddies - the weapons manufacturers. It’s theft - pure and simple.
Oh, and that little thing they call “collateral damage” Millions of people since 1991 have been hurt or killed. It’s disgusting.
The time to leave Iraq is now. Not later. Now.
Some Reading:
“Top-Ten Reasons to Get out of Iraq. Now!”
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ top_ten_reasons_to_get_out_of_iraq_now
American Neo-cons need to realize you don’t fight international terrorist groups by invading putting the bulk of your force in one country, then go bankrupt while trying to make it work.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pmTraitor.
Idiot.
OBL won his psychological victory a long, long time ago.
Resign.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 pmBy sustaining a military presence in the Middle East and taking our resources and attention away from al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden already has his “substantial psychological victory”.
I don’t know why this is so difficult for people like Kerry to understand.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmhe’s also a war-criminal…fuck ‘im!
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 pmunilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory
Here’s the stupid truth.
By choosing the battlefield you did, OBL has already won. There’s nothing more you can give him by leaving that he doesn’t already have.
Let that sink in a little. You managed a conflict so badly that a skinny goatherder on dialysis kicked our @$$. Now shut up and end the war you freak.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pmThe Neocon “Wrong” Meme:
I was wrong in the past and I’m wrong now so you must trust me about the future or you are wrong!
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmIf you go the FBLie’s Website : under Osama Bin Bush — 9/11 isn’t even mentioned.
What does this mean?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmit’s as though the Soviet invasion/occupation of Afghanistan happened in an alternate universe for all the lessons some of our so-called leaders have managed to learn from that disaster. We seem completely determined to repeat that entire scenario, except in English this time.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmOh gee, Bob “Thanh Phong” Kerrey wants more killing? What a surprise.
Give that man a gun, see if there are some innocent women and children he can kill. Again.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 pmha ha
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pmTell me again why anyone is listening to someone who committed atrocities in Vietnam?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pmKerrey was on the 9/11 Commission : we all know what a joke that organization was.
Didn’t the report make the top 10 NYT FICTION list?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmthe only reason kerrey is attracting attention is because of he denunciations of liberal democrats. pls ignore him. the new school knows how to treat him.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmThank the gods that this cretin is an ex-Senator.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmThe damage that his words carried will follow him to his grave.
Saw him on the sidewalk in NYC last week, looking sheepish…
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 pmUnfortunately, this is all about “ego”. Rather than admit that he made a mistake, he would rather continue with the lie.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 pmKerrey, what have you been smoking in that old corn-cob Nebraska pipe? And stop picking your feet.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 pmThe New School University should fire their president!
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pmWow…TP going after one of their own….Looks like Mr. Podesta is still holding a grudge against Kerrey about the 1992 primary. The Clintons and their acolytes (like John Podesta) never forgive or forget….
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pmisn’t bob kerrey a war criminal?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pmMr Kerrey, your DLC is showing.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pmCongress Must Do Its Duty
by Rep. Ron Paul
Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged†the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,†they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.
More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq .
According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.â€
I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat†to the United States.
As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.
With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?
This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .
Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq, and we need to do it sooner rather than later.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 pmCongress is just as culpable for the war in Iraq as the Bush administration. Bush demanded the war, and congress were only too happy to give him the money and approval for it, with some of them like this boob actively promoting it. Sad times.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm“By staying in Iraq as an occupying force, the U.S. is helping inflame the terrorist movement. But Bob Kerrey has never understood that from the beginning, so why would he understand that now?”
Ahhhhh, Faiz? Maybe you should read Kerrey’s op-ed again. He is calling for a new strategy in Iraq that does not entail occupation.
“Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn’t exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 pmThere are many Vietnam veterans [myself included] who recognize that it was a mistake to have illegally invaded Vietnam, thereby committing atrocities against the Vietnamese people. There are others, like Kerrey and McClain, who apparently believe that the way for the U.S. to make up for having lost in Vietnam is to somehow “win” in Iraq, despite the fact that the U.S. has again illegally invaded another country and has again committed atrocities against those indigenous people, making the U.S. liable for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. Support the troops and help the Iraqi people by bringing home those troops-now.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pmA BETTER APPROACH TO THE WAR BY A REPUBLICAN
This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .
Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq, and we need to do it sooner rather than later.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm“[A] unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.”
Bob, you’re absolutely right.
Since we have been totally defeated by a country one tenth our size, that is what is inevitably is going to happen.
Thanks a lot George, Dick and all the other idiots, including Bob Kerrey, who went along with this idiotic and malicious war of aggression.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 pmokay — this is not really
off-topic, but if i say more,
now, it will give away too
much. . . so — can any of you
thinkprogress history-buffs
out there identify the man in this
pen-and-ink portrait?
bonus — explain his relevance.
i will offer a suitable reward,
to the first correct answer, either
here — or in my comment-
section. . .
that is all. . .
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:33 pmI have always liked (and still do like) Bob Kerry and always voted for him.
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pmFU Bob Kerrey!
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:35 pmWasn’t Senator Kerrey on the left’s beloved 9/11 Commission? Ouch. Wonder what conclusions he would come to if Sandy Burglar hadn’t stolen and destroyed those documents?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pmoff topic and very serious:
Bush Anoints Himself as the Ensurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
Can find this in :
truthout.com
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmKerrey is asking questions the moonbats can’t or don’t want to answer. What are the consequences of surrender?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmSomeone please tell Bob Kerrey (and Dick and Dubya, for that matter) that there are two ways to keep Bin Laden from gloating about an American withdrawal from the Iraqi Civil War:
1) Stay in Iraq indefinitely; or
2) Hunt down and kill Bin Laden.
I kinda like the latter option, myself.
– TP
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 pmComment by Patrick1
Kerry’s sellout performance on the commission was disgraceful.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pmWhat are the consequences of surrender?
Comment by Patrick1
Osama got what he wanted. You surrendered your rights long ago.
Happy now?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pmWhat are the consequences of surrender?
Comment by Patrick1
Saving $2 billion a week, to spend on things truly useful to America.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pmMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM…sounds like “Beltway” Joe Liberman to me. So Kerry lost a leg in a war and now he’s a know it all hey?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 pmPerhaps Al-Qaida will win a psychological victory. Perhaps even Bin Laden, wherever he is, will win one too. Al-Qaida is a heavily decentralised, organic entity, so these aren’t exactly the same thing.
Point is though, that the problems of Iraq can’t be expressed purely in terms of the US versus Al-Qaida. American troops are not being killed solely by AL-Qaida activity, and Al-Qaida is not the reason that the Iraqis feel that their representative bodies lack any legitimacy. The problems with Iraq are far deeper than this idiotic piece of analysis allows. Read Riverbend or Juan Cole for some detail.
American troops need to be removed from Iraq as they are hated and despised by the Iraqi population. They are not part of the resolution of Iraqi problems, at least if that resolution is to have any legitimacy. Withdrawal would not create a power vacuum; American troops have little power beyond a few areas of Baghdad anyway. Colin Powell might want us to clear up the mess we have made, but IMO this would happen productively only by withdrawing the troops and providing funds for the Iraqi government.
Of course, we should never have gone to war in the first place, then we wouldn’t be stuck in this mess. Or alternatively, we shouldn’t have decapitated the Ba’ath party upon arrival.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pmLet’s see–why was it that Bob Kerry didn’t run for president? Oh yeah, the children, and the women that he murdered that night in the Mekong Delta village of Thanh Phong. Why is the Wall Street journal giving space to a War Criminal again? Why does anyone care what a war criminal thinks, anyway. Didn’t he like–check out of the human race a while back?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:50 pmBob Kerrey’s new political affiliation - (I-CT)
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm“Kerrey is asking questions the moonbats can’t or don’t want to answer. What are the consequences of surrender?”
Nobody on our side advocates surrender, i.e., turning over a sword on a battleship or something. We advocate leaving. The consequences of leaving? Unlike your team I won’t pretend to know exactly what will happen, but I can guess there will be an extension of the violence caused by your ill-conceived invasion. So, more of the mess that your policies created, but without Americans dying, without Americans paying 2 billion a week, and without Americans being hated throughout the world. Thanks for asking.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 pmHey, troll, leaving Iraq isn’t surrendering, although it will entail not fighting any more people we have no reason to fight except they want us out of Iraq. If that doesn’t make sense to you, break it into smaller pieces, like your mom does with your graham crackers.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:13 pmKerrey is absolutely right about regime change being needed.
He simply specifies the wrong regime.
Regime change begins at home.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:13 pmNice how Kerry carries the wingnut water conflating Hussein removal into victories for al-qeada if we leave: invade for one reason, stay for another.
If the reason for invasion was to remove Hussein - that has occurred so there is no more rational to stay.
Kerry should think about joining the LIEberman psycho party of detached reality and wingnut boosterism. Like LIEberman, Kerry is giving democrats a bad name.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm.
If Bob Kerrey wasn’t located in NYC, he would be ignored by the MCM. Seriously. Location, location, location.
And he abuses his access.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pmKerrey is asking questions the moonbats can’t or don’t want to answer. What are the consequences of surrender? Patrick1, master of the strawman
1. Surrender requires an actual war. We are not at war with Iraq. Surrender-talk is a strawman.
2. If you mean “war on terror”, which is not really war in any conventional sense, ending the occupation of Iraq is not in any way, shape, or form a surrender to terrorism. Strawman.
3. Since you are such a genius at answering questions about “moonbat” ideas, where were you with answering the tough questions when the moonbat neocons and the Chimp were beating their war drums to invade Iraq in the first place? Where were you when the intelligent and thoughtful people were projecting that the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam would result in an unstable quagmire with years of unintended consequences? Where were you when intelligent and thoughtful people were pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, was an enemy of bin Laden, and that an invasion would only serve to defocus the fight against Al Queda in Afghanistan and Islamic terrorism in general?
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:17 pmA unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.†So What!
We are unable to affect change in Iraq with the conventional military forces available to deploy there. We need to redeploy them and concentrate our efforts on an effective strategy to defeat al Qaeda by:
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:21 pm- Stop hemorrhaging our resources in an unwinnable civil war in Iraq
- Attacking its leadership and headquarters in the frontier area of Pakistan and Taliban supporters there and in Afghanistan
- Using good intelligence and police work to track down and apprehend terrorist cells throughout the world
- Strengthening our homeland defense against terrorist attack
A psychological victory? Isn’t the flip side of this argument that we must stay in Iraq for the sake of our own ‘psychological’ victory? We’re not really fighting for anything, other than Bush’s credibility.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pmBob Kerrey is a murderous war criminal. The fact he claims to be a Democrat is a disgrace.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pmat least he is consistent… so wrong, so often.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm“A unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.”
Staying the course, providing a continued daily bloodletting of American soldiers, increasing the recruitment pool for bin Laden, and creating America-hate that fuels Islamic radicalism provides a much bigger psychological, and TACTICAL, victory for OBL.
Faced with two poor solutions (a fact which, by the way, simply validates the incompetence of Bush and the intellectually corrupt policies of neocon hacks), staying the course (or it’s current incarnation - the “surge”) is the worst possible option.
What’s the mission? What’s the end game? What’s the “strategery”?
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pmA unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would let the Iraqis kill off any supporters of Osama bin Laden that the Iraqis are conveniently using to force us into quitting the occupation of their country. They aren’t the same people, they don’t have the same vision of their future. No Bush supporter has enough credibility left to say anything on this topic beyond, “I have been wrong so often I should just keep my trap shut.’
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 pmi approve of think progress’s new tactic of using a k-lo quote of approval to futher drive home the point of how wrong and stupid someone is.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 pmChanneling Kim Philby:
My time will come. When Soviet Communism has brought paradise on earth to the masses, my treasonous spying against Great Britain and the United States will be vindicated. [fill in the blank] years from now, we’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says it wasn’t worth the effort.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 pmCalling Kerrey YOU just signed the
D E A T H C E R T I F I C A T E
of 100’s of US Soldiers. Where do we send the forms to your office?
If YOU believe we should stay that let us educate your citizens in your state as to what this “occupation” is costing them on a weekly basis.
Let us start with gasoline. War will SURGE all
commodities in price and time. Commodities are equal to FOOD, ENERGY and METALS.
More and more citizens will FALL into POVERTY, by staying the course in Iraq.
I suggest everyone here head to the NE Newspapers and start educating his state citizens ASAP. Tell each and everyone to call his office and demand he vote YES on the Feingold and Reid Measure to leave Iraq.
If this buffoon wishes to hand over his Democrat Senator seat next election so be it. We shall SEND him home.
Sincerely,
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pmDick and Jane Military
Bob Kerrey needs to face some hard truths. What an asshole. Typical 90’s, “centrist”, lick the GOP boots and praise them Democrat.
Is Kerrey really in NYC? I should go there and protest his Bush/Lieberman/war loving ass.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pmKerrey is part of the official 9/11 conspiracy story cover-up. A traitor indeed.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmgorn: Surrender requires an actual war. We are not at war with Iraq. Surrender-talk is a strawman.
The deadender neocons know that the term “surrender” is not accurate. But it sounds more respectable than saying they don’t want the U.S. to have to “back down” from its rhetoric. Bush repeated endlessly that the U.S. would “stay the course,” that we would not leave before the “job”–spreading democracy in Iraq–was done. When Bush has to admit that we are leaving without getting the “job” done, he will be partaking of boiled, fried, steamed, roasted and sauteed crow on a global stage. It will taste nasty to the wing nuts who identify with him.
Too bad Bush signed us up to perform a job that by definition only the Iraqis could perform. Probably he promised Laura that he’d have their next child too. He may still be wondering why they didn’t have another child after the birth of the twins.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pmWow. I used to have a lot of respect for Kerrey. He was the senior Senator for Nebraska while I attended UNL. I was also in his old Naval ROTC unit. He did a lot of good things while Governor and Senator and always conducted himself with rationality and reasonableness. Despite Nebraska’s label as a “red state”, they had always elected Representatives and Senators that did not always float the party line for purely partisan purposes (see Senator Hagel and former Representative Osbourne).
This comment, however, does not acknowledge the facts of the situation in the Middle East. I’m quite disappointed in him and his statements.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pmthank god he is a past senator …..still educate NE state residents.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pmBob Kerrey is a war criminal who led an attack and execution-style killing of an entire village in Vietnam. Look it up. And that same great Bob Kerrey judgment is at work here on Iraq. Basically, this guy belongs in prison for war crimes, and his opinions should be given the same weight as those of other mass murders.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:51 pmKerrey’s vision is so thoroughly deranged, the Democratic party is about to spend another $70 billion funding it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pmWhen you’re that incredibly wrong about national affairs, you should lose your turn in the public spotlight. Of course the Wall Street Journal loves to trot out a Democrat who supports Bush’s policy, in an attempt to portray ‘bipartisan support’ for the president.
I had a higher opinion of Kerrey before… I guess that was just my ignorance of his positions.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 pmRemember this?
The jeers, boos and insults flew, as caustic as any that angry New Yorkers have hurled inside Madison Square Garden. The objects of derision yesterday, however, were not the hapless New York Knicks, but Senator John McCain, the keynote speaker at the New School graduation, and his host, Bob Kerrey, the university president.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 05/ 20/ nyregion/ 20mccain.html?ex=1305777600&en=b47c3b86582ece58&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 pmToday, Bob Kerrey (D-NE), unrepentant over his failed Iraq war predictions, returns to the Wall Street Journal op-ed page to blast “American liberals.†In making his argument that democracy can indeed be imposed by military force (apparently by overlooking the Iraq war), Kerrey writes:
“American liberals need to face these truths … [A] unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.”
-Wrong.
Osama Bin Laden was handed a substantial psychological victory on September 11, 2001.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:19 pmIt takes courage to speak the truth. It also takes courage to hear it without filtering it through your own political prisim. Who do you want to win, the Democrat party or the United States? Choose one.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 pmUh oh! Uh oh! Get that thar bus ready, it’s time to roll another one underneath! Yeeeeehaw! I’m sure you’ll also throw the guy who said this under the bus with Mr. Kerrey:
Stay the course. Now where have I heard that before…. Who said this? Why, Think Progress’ patron deity: AL GORE.
More genius words from Al Gore 1.0:
But, but, but… Al Gore 2.0 says to leave right away! Which one do we believe? Al Gore 1.0 or 2.0? I’m so confused…
What are you saying Al Gore 1.0? We need to remove Saddam Hussein from power??
Oh sweet merciful jesus! Al Gore 1.0, you are banishéd! Banishéd!!!
Whatever Think Progress dupes. Lieberman and Kerrey are the only honest Democrats left. The rest are a bunch of lying demagogues that sent us to war because they wanted to, then lied about if afterwards to get all your precious little votes. Now they’re keeping us in Iraq, just like Al Gore 1.0 was talking about, while fooling all you morons to believe the opposite.
Ahaahahahaha. You’re all fools and you don’t even see it!
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:21 pmThe same Bob kerrey who voted against the Gulf War, but supported this calamity. The man who totally bombed in his presidential bid and lost to a draft dodger. WEll it least he got to sleep with Debra Winger
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pmNo surprise here. This is the same guy who told America, “Bill Clinton can’t win.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 pmOf course it’s debatable whether the loaded term surrender properly characterizes a unilateral withdrawal. Certainly unilatral withdrawal would be a national humilation and a propaganda coup for our enemies. It’s a bad result for the United States.
Problem is, we’ve got ourselves in such a fix (thanks to GWB and his allies like Kerrey) that it is the best result reasonably possible under the circumstances. Staying will only make things worse. The war is a bankrupt policy–liquidate it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm“American liberals need to face these truths…If we were to stop trying (& failing) to grow mangoes/blueberries/rice/cotton/etc. on them thar’ parched alkali flats, we would be handing the Sonoran Desert an important climatological victory!”
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 pmBob kerrey, is he that jackass that lost the 1992 demo primary to bill clinton, what a looser.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pmLook. Kerry is trying to guard the Democrats right flank. Democrats are making the same twenty year bet they made in 1972: it’s okay to advocate defeat; it’s okay to advocate surrender.
Whether or not you whiners think the terms are loaded or not is immaterial to the fact that Americans do not want the United States Army and Marine Corps to be seen to lose to Al Qaeda and Iranian Fascists. You people don’t care about this because you are extremists who are too angry at Bush and the Republicans (who you consider to be the Main Enemy, not the Islamic fascists…) to think of the larger National Interest of the United States.
Even now, in the Guardian of all places, there is a report by Simon Tisdall, no neocon stooge he (and an antiwar reporter to his very bones), that the Iranian leadership has directed the Revolutionary Guards Corps to coordinate with Al Qaeda and the Ba’ath to accelerate the bombing campaign this summer to shatter the already broken will of the Democrats to resist. The Ayatollahs and the young Persian Fuhrer are counting on the Democrats to run like scalded dogs from Iraq.
It’s a very good bet.
You Democrats are the weak link. The fascists know this. The jihadists know this. When the American people find this out, you won’t be trusted with power for the next twenty years. And you won’t deserve to be. Your party has a glass jaw; bin Laden always understood this-his people were keen observers of the American political scene. Most of the heavy bombings in Baghdad right now are conducted for theatrical effect-to get on TV.
Your polls look good right now. Nixon’s looked bad in 1971, too. But Americans do not vote for defeat, or those who advocate it, and that’s what the Democrats are doing. When the Republican Party finds its voice, your party will be in terrible trouble, for the worm always turns. Bob Kerry understands this. You lot refuse to- not because you love your country less, but because you hate George Bush more.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pmLet me understand this:
Invading Iraq in 2003 was the only way to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East…
Now that the US invaded Iraq
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 pmLet me understand this:
Invading Iraq in 2003 was the only way the US could reduce its military presence in the Middle East…
Now that the US has invaded Iraq, it cannot leave, and it cannot reduce its military presence in the Middle East…
Alright - I’m clear now. Bob Kerrey is a buffoon.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:25 pmOops…try again.
Let me understand this:
Invading Iraq in 2003 was the only way to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East…
Now that the US invaded Iraq, it cannot leave, and it cannot reduce its military presence in the Middle East…
Alright, I’m clear now. Bob Kerrey is a buffoon.
S
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pmOops…try again.
Let me understand this:
Invading Iraq in 2003 was the only way to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East…
Now that the US invaded Iraq, it cannot leave, and it cannot reduce its military presence in the Middle East…
Alright, I’m clear now. Bob Kerrey is a buffoon.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 pmWho do you want to win, the Democrat party or the United States?
DeadEnder
You’ve had four years and half a trillion dollars — and yet not a one of you can tell us what “win” means, except that it’s the opposite of leaving.
IOW, you want an endless supply of blank checks for your colonial occupation, plus unlimited do-overs. And yet you have the mega-cojones to accuse anyone who points out this simple fact of playing partisan games.
Project much?
Evidently, no amount of blood or treasure is too much, no debt too onerous to lay on our children and grandchildren, so long as your precious Party of Personal Responsibility never, ever has to take the rap for stampeding the country into Quagmire 2: Electric Boogaloo.
You’re not fooling anyone but yourself, you know. The rest of us see you’re trying to run out the clock, so your petulant boy-king can toddle away unscathed from the crowning achievement in a lifetime of profiting from the disasters he creates. How else are you going to rehabilitate him as Profound Thinker and Great (but misunderstood) Leader a few years down the road, when the real adults are still struggling to cope with the results of his and your cosmic stupidity?
DreamCrusher:
Judging from the amount of time and effort you guys are expending lately trying to tear Al Gore down, he must really have your panties in a wad. Believe it or not, though, many people make up their minds using more sophisticated criteria than Al Gore’s opinion.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pmIn this case, ‘Tis better a man sit in silence and be perceived a fool than to open his mouth and remove any doubt. ‘Tis only worse he should speak and then attempt to blame his failure on those who encouraged his silence to begin with. A man lost up in such a victim stance is oblivious to himself, can lead no one, and has not a chance at a hopeful outcome, given 20 years or 20 decades. He only hopes to hide his deceit behind the doors of time. Look to this particular one not for wisdom, but rather a dollar on the cheat! Only then do you understand why he speaks to begin with.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm“Whether or not you whiners think the terms are loaded or not is immaterial to the fact that Americans do not want the United States Army and Marine Corps to be seen to lose to Al Qaeda and Iranian Fascists”
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:47 amThe polls pretty consistently show that by a margin of about 2-1 Americans want us out of Iraq. Assuming you live here, when you walk around do you think 2 out of every 3 people you see aren’t Americans?
What a know-nothing douchebag Kerrey is.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:02 amIn other words, since the idiot son has bet the farm, the rest of the family has to keep gambling!
Sandra Mack
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:21 pmSection9 is hilarious…dumb, misguided, deluded, but hilarious. The Administration, at the very LEAST, allowed 9/11 to happen, not that it had anything to do with Iraq, and probably not even OBL. They needed an excuse for a war of aggression, and they got it. Every life lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, be it American or Iraqi or Afghani, is wasted. The US was wrong, not to mention criminal, to invade either Iraq or Afghanistan. We are getting our comeuppance for 70 years of interfering with the legitimate aspirations of the people of Southwest Asia, starting with carving up the area after WWI. Then we brought down the legitimate government of Iran in 1953, and installed the Shah. You remember the Shah, another torturing, murdering SOB, like Saddam. Yes, he was our SOB. And we’ve been supporting repressive governments in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and other nations for decades. The people in these countries have massive legitimate gripes against us, and yet it is we who act as though we are the ones put upon, the poor innocents. It would be laughable, if it wasn’t so murderously destructive. Get over yourself, Section9 and Bob Kerrey! We have no business there, and the sooner we leave (I don’t care what you call it, surrender, retreat, whatever) the better off this world will actually be. Then we can get on with the business of impeaching the lying murderers in Washington, who are, by the way, the only “fuehrer” running around loose in the world presently. Then, just maybe, we can get our heads out of our behinds and off the TV screen and try to reclaim our democracy!
May 30th, 2007 at 7:58 pm