John Kerry's Cynical "Endgame" Betrays the American People

Submitted by Bob Fertik on April 19, 2007 - 2:02pm.

If John Kerry is thinking about getting into the 2008 race - or ever having a shred of credibility with the American people - he'd better move quickly to "clarify" his shockingly cynical answer to Josh Marshall's question:

Q. What's the Democrats' endgame on Iraq with this confrontation with the President over the funding bill?

A. Our purpose is obviously to change the policy, to get us to a position where we can be successful. We don't believe the current policy can be successful, in fact we think it creates more terrorists, puts our troops at greater risk, worsens our position in the Middle and we want to change that.

We'll keep the pressure on. He's the President, the Executive has enormous power be able to just to plow ahead, administer the way they want. But our job is to create accountability and that's what we're fighting to do.

Fighting? How, exactly?

Q. If he vetoes this bill, what comes next?

A. I think we'll come back and try to create a series of benchmarks and a series of measurements that are very specific about what ought to happen and put that to him and see if he'll change the policy to meet the benchmarks.

Benchmarks? You mean words on paper that Bush will happily ignore (or claim mean the exact opposite of what they say)?

Congress has exactly one form of meaningful power: spending. Senator Kerry, if you're not willing to cut the funds that keep Bush's war going, then you're not fighting - you're betraying the majority of Americans who elected a Democratic majority in 2006 to end the war, and want all of our troops home in 2007.

Q. Where do you see that standoff ending...

A. The President is going to have to decide what is really best for America.

I think we have a better plan for how you protect the troops and how you protect America's interests and it's our job to keep fighting for it. And in the end, if he has a different point of view, that's what the 2008 campaign will be about.

So that's your endgame? You'll just fold up your tent and give Bush blank checks until after the 2008 election? And what if Democrats lose in 2008? Will you then keep writing blank checks until 2012, or 2016?

Senator Kerry, your answer is completely unacceptable to the American people. If that's your endgame, then you can forget about running for President because everyone in America will call you a fraud - someone who thinks we're too stupid to see through your cynical game of kick-the-Iraq-War-can-down-the-road-so-we-have-a-good-issue-for-the-next-election.

And while you play that cynical game, the blood of every American soldier who dies or is maimed between now and the end of the Iraq War - if it ever ends - will be on your hands.

Your response, Senator Kerry? Will you, or will you not, use the power of the purse to end the Iraq War in 2007?

Update 1: A source close to Kerry says Kerry demonstrated his genuine desire to end the war by becoming the third co-sponsor of the Feingold-Reid bill. The source is also optimistic that Kerry will put his full weight behind the bill, including enlisting his 3 million strong e-mail list in a lobbying campaign to get all Senate Democrats on board.

Kerry is only parroting the

Submitted by Bill Harding on April 19, 2007 - 4:02pm.

Kerry is only parroting the "framing" already established by the BA: cutting off funding will harm the troops. Does anyone really suppose that the Defense Department would leave the troops wandering around in the desert with no pay, no bullets, and no gasoline for their vehicles? What a bunch of transparent bullshit.

The real question to ask is: who will be most hurt by de-funding this so-called "war on terror?" By following the money, the answer becomes obvious -- Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, and the rest of the private military contractors who have made unprecedented blood-soaked profits from this neoconservative PNAC-inspired fiasco. What Kerry is really saying is, "we will not stop funding the war-machine corporatists, we just want to spend the funds differently to make it look like we are actually doing something."

Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Bayh, and the rest of the faux-Democrat DLC contingent will protect their corporate sponsors at all costs, and continue to tie Pelosi's and Reid's hands. Why? Because these New Democrat self-appointed "leaders" place the funding of their political careers ahead of the People's needs, the lives of our troops, and the Iraqis who are dying needlessly on a daily basis. They are no different than the neocons who back Dubya in his madness.

Howard Dean: Got Machiavelli? I'm getting sick.

Submitted by jerrykrinock on April 19, 2007 - 8:58pm.

I agree with you, Bill. But unfortunately, more dropped into my email box today. I hope the rest of you registered Democrats read the Machiavellian cynicism between the lines of the email you just got from Howard Dean, stating "If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place a strategy that neither our troops nor the American people can afford any longer."

Of course. Anybody who got better than a C- grade in history knows that it's only a matter of time before our occupation of Iraq is ended by by the last helicopter lifting off the roof of that 5-billion dollar embassy, just like the last helicopter that left of embassy in Saigon in 1975. Bush and the Republicans are in an electric frying pan and we all know it. Dean and the Democratic leadership are standing outside the pan. They throw Bush some money with strings attached. Bush is too stubborn to take the money or the strings, even though the latter would do him more good. "Oh, that's too bad", the Democratic leaders say. "You see, we tried, but we just can't end this thing. Tisk, Tisk." Then they wink to themselves, knowing that there won't be much left of the Republican Party by 2008.

Well, certainly Bush and the Republican elites who got the world into this mess deserve to fry. But they've all got golden parachutes of on type or another that will eventually lift them out with all but their pride intact. There's more, though. Also in that frying pan, Mr. Dean, are 25 million Iraqis and 150,000 of our troops. By January 2009, a few hundred thousand or more of the former, and a couple thousand more of the latter are likely to die, with tens of thousands more of our troops joining the 50,000 already permanently disabled by this mistake.

Howard, yes you are looking much better than George, and by 2008 you'll look so much better than those Republicans that you'll be able to take it all. But I don't want a party that LOOKS BETTER than the competition. Yes, a smart football coach keeps the ball on the ground and runs out the clock when he's ahead. But this is life and death, not a football game. Stop pretending there's "nothing we can do". Do the moral thing, for God's sake. Close the purse, and pull the plug on that frying pan!

This is making me sick.

Sincerely,

Jerry Krinock

Stating the obvious

Submitted by rhamiltonbolton on April 23, 2007 - 2:12am.

What me Worry? *

While wandering throughout Walmart, I begin wondering
What else with his life George W. could have done,
Had not he had the famous father,
George Herbert Bush, President #41?
Then I saw the thoughtless greeter, oblivious
But smiling at everyone.
Now surely this could be the perfect type-cast,
For George Sr.'s pathetically slow son.

Let's consider alternative professions that he could apply:
A Consultant, a Lecturer, or even a Professor by and by.
But each or those require that you know the what or the why.
So what could he advise about?
What is there that he can teach?
I already know how to drink;
Maybe, he could tell people to wear sunscreen at the beach?
If you think this is all really a stretch,
Would you pay to hear him give a speech?

But then again, every good company but Walmart,
In order to pick the very best
Gives the applicants a cup to pee in,
And, of course, that dreaded IQ test!

R. Hamilton Bolton 4/22/07

* From Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine

User login

Navigation