Kerry's Face the Nation comments revisited

You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

I have not seen anything on DU or elsewhere that reflects my thinking on Kerry's comments on Face the Nation so i thought the issue was worth revisiting ... there are a number of issues that should be raised in reaction to Kerry's comments ...

First, let's look at what Kerry actually meant ... and let me start off by saying that the words he chose were very poorly chosen ... but the words have been badly twisted even by some on DU who are Kerry supporters ...

Kerry did not mean to say that the troops are "actively" terrorizing women and children ... he was not suggesting, although it actually might be the case, that the troops are going into civilian homes and intentionally doing things to traumatize civilians ... his clear intent was to suggest that the mere act of entering civilian homes resulted, in a passive sense, in civilians being traumatized ...

What Kerry clearly meant, and what Kerry clearly should have said, was not that what the troops were doing was wrong but rather that the policy that orders the troops to enter civilian houses is wrong ... "it's the policy, stupid!!" ...

and when Kerry said the US should not be doing that and that the "Iraqis should be doing 'that'", the "that" to which he was referring was NOT terrorizing civilians but rather implementing the policy of house to house searches ... again, Kerry clearly was not suggesting that either Iraqis or Americans should intentionally terrorize innocent civilians ...

the truth is, and this has not been adequately counter-punched by either Kerry or the Democratic Party, that it is bush, cheney and rumsfeld who have been terrorizing civilians in Iraq ... innocent Iraqi males are routinely rounded up and taken away ... the WH continues to condone torture to obtain information it seeks ... that is condoning terrorism; not what Kerry said ...

which leads to the next point ... many have criticized Kerry's speaking style and his inability to speak clearly and forcefully ... i am NOT going to enter that discussion here ... but whether Kerry screwed up or he didn't, the Democrats, including Kerry, failed to make an adequate response to the attacks that republicans made about his statements ... whether you like Kerry or you don't, whether you think he's verbally inept or you don't, there is no excuse for letting his words and meaning get twisted the way they have ...

many of us called for the formation of a "rapid response" team long ago ... Democrats still don't have their "media act" together and it's inexcusable ... heads should start rolling over this if changes are not made soon ... while some are so busy enjoying bush's plummeting poll numbers, we still have not put our own house in order ... this cannot continue ...

there's been plenty of talk, pro and con, about the diversity of views on Iraq within the Party ... without getting into a policy discussion on what we should do about Iraq, it is clear that we cannot continue to have an ad hoc approach if we want to be politically effective ... in the context of Kerry's remarks, the Democrats should develop a clear, consistent message on the issue of house to house searches by US personnel ... Kerry makes an out-of-the-blue poorly worded comment on the issue and is then hung out to dry by his own party ... his statement, piled on top of 20 other Democrats talking about why the policy was wrong, would have had the cover of a broader context ... instead, we send one troop with one bullet out to engage the enemy ...

Democrats need more than just a rapid response team ... Democrats need to craft, within some degree of individuality, a core message ... we cannot continue with an ineffective ad hoc approach to conveying our message ... the Democratic message, whatever it is, needs to be hammered and hammered and hammered in a clear, concise and consistent manner ... the idea here is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts ...

so Kerry's Face the Nation appearance should have been instructive for the Party's leadership ... it was NOT ... instead of the usual "Kerry's a jerk; Kerry's great" back and forth, we should have pushed for reforms in how we engage the enemy ... and we have NOT ... the Democratic Party and its leadership still do not understand that significant strategic reforms are needed ... we are failing to lead NOT because we lack ideas but because we are failing to develop more effective ways of communicating with the American people ... and i don't know how to change this; perhaps you can help ...

better at a local level. Many of us are not highly experienced with the concept of "sound bites" and how careful we need to be so that our statements become hard to "twist". As we become more active at a local level, we get quoted more. Kind of an interesting problem to have.

Anyway, there's a lot to learn with this kind of stuff and we all need to learn it.

It's

This has been debunked here and around the blogosphere - the fact that other Dems have not gotten on board with this is a sad statement. Around the blogosphere, many liberal bloggers have been most helpful in backing up the right wingers idiotic twisting of Kerry's words. And yes, you are right our Democratic Leaders should have gotten on this too!

I laid out a series of quotes from factual articles and reports that outline exactly what Kerry was saying. What he said was NOT poorly worded, it was AS USUAL taken out of context.

Debunking the Right Wings Attacks on John Kerry’s Face the Nation Interview - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1325. The thread of this is here on DU - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2295666&mesg_id=2295666

Max Cleland defended JK's statement with facts on Tuesday - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1328

David Sirota also provided factual evidence Tuesday to back Kerry up - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1329

Thanks WT2 for posting this. Personally I think we need to let bloggers and our Dem leadership know that we expect ALL our Dems to be backed up, not just the flavor of the day Dems.

here's what Kerry said (not what he meant): "there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

here's what he should have said (what he meant): "there is no reason, Bob, that the WH should send young American soldiers into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, which frightens the hell out of kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

again, the objection is NOT to Kerry's clear intent; it's to the words he used ... of course his words are being twisted for political advantage ... and again, what Kerry said is the least important point in the OP ...

I have the entire transcript posted on my blog, as well as various other posts about it. Frighten = terrorized.

You want to bitch about semantics knock yourself out. You're only exasberating this idiosyncry pushed by the right wing by doing this.

If you want to Dems to be on message and back each other up then don't nitpick over a word. If soldiers burst into your home in the middle of the night you would be beyond frightened - you'd be friggin terrorized!

backtrack on their statements. In fact, I'd go further...what the US troops are doing in IRAQ is a form of terrorism. Let's get them out of there...NOW!

said in several other interviews. The fact is that NO ONE echoed Kerry's earlier comments that this practice is counter productive. (Murtha excluded because if you're not there, you aren't continuing these things.)

The question now is whether Kerry's gaffe - politically, though not linguisticly - will help by shining more light on the issue. That's why, if they agree, Democrats need to push the issue - even if they don't mention Kerry. The bad thing would be to cede the issue because the Republicans have framed it as bad for the troops.

Kerry, of all people shouldn't fall for that, because he lived through being a soldier operating under even more atrocious policies (typing that I realize atrocious may be related to atrocities) and spent a year arguing that the people who made the policies were to blame. The question is who he can get to support him in this argument.

and it's not primarily even a matter of "defending" Kerry; it's more a matter of "attacking" bush's lies and his screwed up policies in Iraq ...

first, of course, the American people probably are not even aware that we are sending our troops into the homes of civilians ... how can we hope to gain the support of the Iraqi people when our troops are ordered to kick in their doors in the dead of night?? if we're going to be there, isn't it important to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population??? if we're seen as the enemy, won't that destroy any hope of succeeding in Iraq??? as Murtha pointed out, 45% of the Iraqi people said it's OK to injure and kill American troops ... could bush's misguided policy be the cause of these horrible numbers???

and second, Democrats need to go on the offensive, relative to this policy, about bush's claims about the number of Iraqi troops that have been trained ... Kerry alluded to it but he, and all Democrats, need to go further ... if so many Iraqi troops are now trained, why is it necessary to use American troops to carry out these search missions inside civilian homes? Kerry's point that Iraqis should be carrying out this policy (not that they should be terrorizing civilians) is correct; the argument, however, should be tied directly to bush's lies about the competence of Iraqi troops ... if bush insists on using US troops for these activities, it rightly would call into question his veracity about Iraqi's "level of readiness" ...

there's been a lot of talk on DU over the last few weeks arguing that diversity on Iraq is good for the Democratic Party ... imo, it's fine to initially solicit a wide range of views ... but, if these views are not woven into a cohesive message, communication from the Party to the American people will ultimately be ineffective ... our campaign slogan for next year cannot be "Democrats have lots of good ideas but we just don't agree on them" ...

frankly, speaking strictly politically, the Party is a mess ... it doesn't need to be this way ... i keep hearing the slogan "we can do better"; i couldn't agree more ... unfortunately, those who adopted the slogan mean "better than the republicans" ... what i mean by it is "better than we're doing" ...

our military. Just look at some of the videos. They are terrorized. Just as some Katrina victims were terrorized by some of our military. We know it's true. The first thing that Honeree had to do was to tell the NG and military to stop pointing those damn guns at innocent people.

Why is it ok for the US government officials to throw the words "terrorize" "terrorism" and "terrorists" around at will and as soon as the word is applied aptly when the US does it, it's criticized by folks even on DU? I just don't get it!

first of all, this issue of Kerry's words is NOT the main point of the OP and you haven't addressed that at all ... that's unfortunate ...

but since you seem focussed on Kerry's words, you have not reflected my intent in what you wrote ... there is no question in my mind, none whatsoever, that US troops breaking into civilians homes "terrorizes" the people who live there ... there is NO DISAGREEMENT on this point ... but that is NOT the point i was making about Kerry's statement ...

the point was that Kerry should not have SAID the troops were doing the terrorizing but rather the policy issued by the WH that the troops were forced to carry out was doing the terrorizing ... Kerry's words, not his intent, put the blame on the troops ... His intent, quite clearly, was to object to the policy being directed from the WH ...

who claimed that he called our troops terrorists and he should file a law suit against Rush. Rush is not only lying but he has endangered Kerry's life at the hands of hot-headed returning soldiers who might believe this shit coming from Rush.

Kerry needs to keep getting exposure for the idea of turning this over to the Iraqis. I'm sure that he will be very careful in his wording on this - given the flack he got. If anything there are likely more people questioning why the 100,000 Iraqis aren't doing this, than before this blew up. The subject itself is dynamite because Kerry needs to point out why we shouldn't do it, but he's had to tiptoe around the subject. There are many graphic articles that described in detail what these raids are like - Kerry's comment is very mild.

On this issue and on the prisons, Kerry is obviously doing things that he knows are right. At the moment, I see Kerry and Murtha as the people who are acting because they have to, not because it's politically expedient.

I think even Kerry realized he misspoke, and while he did offer a rebuttal to Limpballs via his spokeman David Wade, I too wish he would clarify for the record what he meant, which is basically what you paraphrased.

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking how SHAMEFUL it is for the Democratic party to just sit back and let the Republicans have a field day twisting his words into something that was obviously not his intent. Some on the left are even joining in; DailyKos is like a subsidiary of Limbaugh and Hannity when it comes to Kerry, so effective are they at parroting the RW smears. The left may be right on issues, but it has NO concept of loyalty or teamwork and basically is willing to backstab anyone who doesn't suit someone's personal political agenda.

take a hint, the OP post was made from someone on "the left" ... this thread is NOT about bashing "the left" which you seem so eager to focus on ... is that what you call "teamwork" ???

the OP is not about blaming the left; it's an effort to get all of us to speak to Party leaders about improving their communications strategy ... if you keep pushing your anti-left agenda, what teamwork and loyalty do you really hope to achieve ???

I was AGREEING with you that the party was doing a shameful job in reinforcing Kerry's (correct) observation. Where the hell do you get an anti-left agenda? Don't you agree that there are elements within the left that are better at dividing us than uniting us? At any rate, I certainly was not accusing you of being among them, because I AGREED ESSENTIALLY WITH YOUR OP. God, calm down.

"The left may be right on issues, but it has NO concept of loyalty or teamwork and basically is willing to backstab anyone who doesn't suit someone's personal political agenda."

There ARE elements in the left like that, and to a lesser extent, the Democratic party's unwillingness to set aside individual differences and stand by our own when he or she is being slandered by the right is indicative of that phenomenon.

BTW, when I said "some on the left" I was referring to threads on DailyKos which are doing the exact same thing -twisting Kerry's words out of context to further their anti-Kerry agenda - as Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Those people are not to be trusted any more than the RW spinners because they are doing the exact same thing, which is why I agreed with your OP.

The pieces by Max Cleland and David Sirota on Tuesday, had factual evidence provided by "trusted sources" as did the piece I wrote on Tuesday.

We all know the MSM won't write a factual pice to back up JK. Other's have. It's up to us - bloggers and actists to make sure this stuff gets around when it is provided.

Anyone with a brain can see what he meant. And it made me glad to see Cleland and Sirota defending him. But the fact remains that the Democratic party needs to be better at loudly and consensually refuting the RW spin.

I have seen partisans of one Democrat or another at DU using the exact same technique of twisting sound bites and blips of text out of context to blast a different Democrat, smearing without blinking with the most outrageous possible interpretations of incomplete and poorly worded comments. It is one way I know that freepers trol DU, though I also regrettably believe fierce partisanship lures many an otherwise good Democrat to dabble in cut and paste character assassination right up there with the worst of them. We can't let the media get away with it, we can't let Republican get away with it, and we shouldn't let some Greens or Democrats get away with it either if it comes to that.

you might even speculate that "flavor of the day" is "candidate supporter speak" for criticizing those who support Murtha's plan for Iraq ... the criticism isn't of Murtha (or even his plan) but of those who are so enthusiastic to finally have a strong representative of their "end the war" viewpoints ...

How's that for a almost full endorsement, lol. No, you are right. It is a related sin, in my mind not quite as bad as the original one though, which is to twist someone's own words to be used as an ugly club against them. Those "factoid quotes" then get picked up and transmitted across cyber space as a vicious lie. Code word put downs aren't quite as dangerously infectious, but they too are bad, and are used to belittle with little discussion of real issues involved.

really, there is no particular merit in weighting one sin against another ...

my goal was only to point out the hypocrisy involved with criticizing Murtha's supporters because of their enthusiasm and his somewhat recent arrival to the debate (i.e. "flavor of the day") while simultaneously calling for Party unity ...

That is what I was trying to say upthread. I have seen the same spin and smear perpetuated among "leftists" both here at at other lefty blogs.

It's an Equal Opportunity smeer tactic.

And it starts by people not nitpicking on a word as some seem to relish here. You know that, I know that - why don't others?

nitpicking, that is what the right does they nitpick. Funny isn't it that that was the only thing they came up with from that interview.

John Kerry didn't misspeak IMO, he used a word that describes scaring the crap out of innocents. This is America supposedly land of free speech, unless of course you can twist and nitpick every damn word that someone says.

Instead of this whole thread on supposedly what Kerry meant, or he said it wrong, or he should have never used that word, because that what this topic is about, I'm sorry but I don't agree with WT2, for you do not know what Kerry meant to say, he knew what he said and he won't back down from it. You see he knows what it looks like and how other people from other countries when stuff like this happens.

KG is right this has all been debunked, and as far as last year, every single thing was debunked, KG knows this too, to bad our media wasn't paying attention, and to bad many looked at the media for all the answers, because they sured-ly did not get them. To bad so many took more time with what the right said instead of finding out for themselves the real story and the truth.

PS. KG here is another debunking of the lying scumbags on the right from Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080001

so you want to take Kerry's words literally ... you're going to go along with those Kerry attack dogs who will say anything to defend Mr. Perfect ... he never, never ever does or says anything wrong ... some of Kerry's DU supporters are Kerry's worst enemies ...

but that's what you said you wanted to do, right? you don't want people to defend Kerry's intent, as i did ... you just want to label it "nitpicking" and you want to allege that Kerry said exactly what he meant to say ... do i have that about right? have i stated your position fairly?

well then, lets look at Kerry's exact words ... what EXACTLY did Kerry say the Iraqis should be doing? let's not try to parse his words ... let's not try to put the best possible spin on them ... let's just quote the man ... fair enough?

Kerry said, and I quote, "Iraqis should be doing that" ... now what was it that Kerry said Iraqis should be doing ... he said Iraqis should be doing what "young American soldiers" are currently doing ... that's what he was saying, wasn't it? and what did he say "young American soldiers" are currently doing? he said, and i quote: "young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

so, if we take Kerry's words literally, as you seem to want to do, than Kerry is saying we should transfer the function of "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women ..." to the Iraqis ... taken literally, Kerry is condoning the policy of breaking into homes to terrorize civilians ... his only objection, taken literally, is that the action should be taken by the Iraqis rather than the Americans ...

now i argued that was clearly NOT what he meant ... but you don't want my nitpicking interpretations ...

you also made a huge mistake when you said "Instead of this whole thread on supposedly what Kerry meant" ... that is NOT the primary intent of this "whole thread" at all ... but you, and one or two others, are so blinded by your naive "kerry love" that you can't even address the key issues raised in the OP ... be appreciative that i don't stoop to your level tempting though it often is ... were i to do so, your beloved candidate would be subject to much harsher attacks ... i prefer to keep the focus on the issues instead of the usual arsenal of insults like "lefty freepers", "fuckwads", "flavor of the day" supporters and people who "twist and nitpick every damned word" ...

i have no problem with those who disagree with me ... i have a huge problem with those paranoid kerrycrats who think their job is to attack no matter what ... some of the responses from Kerry supporters in this thread have been thoughtful and respectful; others are the total bullshit i've come to expect from those who offer no real discourse beyond blind obedience ...

I disagree with you. So, I don't have a right to my opinion because you say I'm a paranoid Kerrycrat. I say BULLSHIT to you. Call me whatever you want, I'll always have the right to have my own opinion, you have yours I have mine, it has nothing to do with who I do or do not support.

I think Kerry actually realized even as he spoke that he had used a politically charged word that he likely wished he hadn't. He was actually stuttering near the end of the sentence - rare for Kerry. I think he realized there was no easy correction that wouldn't make things worse.

He had said the same thing very well on Hardball, Blitzer, Ed Sholtz and a few other interviews. The difficulty is that he is walking a very thin line here. He has said the policing and the search and destroy lead many soldiers to their deaths and he has said that US soldiers doing this is troublesome because of the language and customs problems. The newspaper articles that have described these raids over the last 2 years are far more graphic than Kerry's statements - and I'ld bet he wishes he chose a different word.

But WT2 is right it's the policy that is the issue. It's also because Kerry has been challanging this policy for the last month and a half becoming louder each time, that even if Kerry hadn't slipped on this word - he was going to be challanged on this.

Changing this policy is in some ways the heart of Kerry's plan. It should calm the insurgency and it will allow US soldiers to leave. Other than his comments that the Iraqis need a political solution and his recommendation that the Sunni neighbors (the Arab League, anyone?)should get involved.

The real question may be whether the other Democrats are in agreement with Kerry on this. I heard Kerrey on Imus this morning who said Kerry shouldn't have used the word, but did explain what he was talking about - but he disagrees and warned the Iraqis would be more brutal (which as a blanket statement is pretty racist - esp as you would have Sunnis policing Sunnis, etc) Kerrey is actually still for the war.

I fully agree with you. We had a minor family emergency (now under control) that kept me from following this media flare up closely enough. All your points are right on the money, and I appreciate your perspective on this all the more knowing where you are coming from in general regarding Iraq.

we all were screaming about a "rapid reaction" squad last year ... we all saw the need for a unified, consistent, clear message repeated over and over and over and over and over by EVERY SINGLE elected Democrat ...

and it seems like nothing has changed ... i'm not talking about rigidly marching in lockstep with no differences or variations on a theme ... and if one or two of the stallions want to break out of the pen, there should be room to allow for differences ... but the Party needs to get its "talking points" out to any Democrat who is going to make public media appearances ...

Dean needs to lead the way; Reid needs to lead the way; Pelosi needs to lead the way ... i just don't see any positive changes in the Party's media style ... each Democrat seems so filled with themselves that they can't seem to sit down with each other to find a set of core talking points ...

stand alone "flapping in the wind". It sometimes appears we have a party of egos and scaredy cats rather then a real opposition party.Oh, and Dean, some Dem's actually disassociated themselves from him instead of saying he was not quoted properly. You didn't have to agree with him to say that,jeez.
Thank you!
I think I will now contact leadership and register a complaint.