MFSO Letters to Sen. John Kerry

MFSO = Military Families Speak Out. An organization for people with active duty troops in harm's way in this war.

Read these and tell me what you think. One is from a mother in my little town. This is powerful stuff and it is direct from the people without any media filter at all.

http://www.mfso.org/article.php?list=type&type=32

I agree with Mass' thoughts in another thread. I think Iraq is coming to some sort of turning point in people's minds and I would like to see something else come out from the Sen. as to his thoughts on this. (I guess I want to put my other hat on and ask this of my US Senator, as I am asking it of my other US Senator, as a constituent.)

These are incredibly moving letters. They are riveting because of the emotion involved and the expressed need (real emotional need) to hear back from Kerry. (There is a lot of complexity there.)

What do you think?

Independantly of the emotion due to the families' sorrow, these letters show this country is craving for leadership, and particularly leadership for the opposition.

It also shows the deep respect many of these families have for Kerry, and probably a respect that is leading to holding him to a higher standard.

This said, I understand that it is difficult for somebody who tries to be a team player to also make this move, but it is incredibly frustrating by moment, because I think all of us feel the need for a pondered, but strong opposition (I think that I am going to stop posting that, though - I dont want people to think that I am engaging in Kerry-bashing, this is not my goal).

Sometimes you appeal to a certain person not because you want to bash them but because you believe they have a unique perspective and understanding that illuminates a problem. These letters to Sen. Kerry are poignant and shattering because he is who he is. Similar letters to Judd Gregg in New Hampshire or Jeff Sessions in Alabama would not be as poignant and shattering. It's because Kerry is who he is and has the history that he does.

The letters are expectant and respectful and amazingly emotional. I can't discount that emotion. It isn't illogical, it adds to the debate. (As does the notion that they are appealing to someone who knows what they are talking about. Kerry saw active duty in a combat zone during wartime. He also had to face agonizing doubts about the purpose and morality of that war, as these people are agonizing over the morality and purpose of this one. It resonants with Kerry, as it does not with so many other politicians.)

They are holding Kerry to a higher standard. He has, throughout the years, sort of asked them to whenever he ran for office.

the point he has in the past alluded to in the past where our presence does no good. Like you said earlier a speech may be coming. If he is in Idaho, he may be using skiing as he spoke of using windsurfing to clear his head - to focus more clearly on this. It most be hard for an optimist (even a pragmatic one) to concede that we can't facilitate the diplomacy needed. (That was the most surprising thing Friday - there were no optimistic words on our involvement in diplomacy. It may be that he has given up on Bush being able (or willing) to do that or simply that the nature of Imus' show made his response less broad than usual.

I think you could go further and say the say that not only are these letters different than those to Gregg or Sessions - they are different than if they were to Clinton, Edwards, or even Feingold, who voted against it. Kerry is unique.

As well as the nearly complete absence of a real statement on Iraq at the Nashua dinner and at other recent events. (There was a brief sentence at the Nashua event. It wasn't much.)

I think your point about the Imus interview having little in the way of appeals to diplomacy was telling. Certainly the lack of optimism or suggestion for further things to try was telling. (What? No 'try this' from Sen. Kerry? Ahm, that is unusual.) I think this statement was telling:



Ahm, he said days. He also said, in both courses of action, get out.

said "get out of Iraq" without the words "a stable" before it.

The comment on Imus really is really out now or out after a finite, prefixed time. I was really surprised that although MSNBC put the comments on at least one news show, it got little attention which is pretty surprising. The media clearly doesn't think the comment was a "gotha" or we would be hearing it 24/7, with Cheney et all thrashing your Senator's character. It really seems to me the media fears Kerry as the spokesman more than Murtha.

I wonder though if Kerry will overtly ally himself with Murtha. That he mentioned Murtha's name on Imus was likely not unintentional or name dropping. One difference in the past between him and Murtha was that Kerry had a huge emphasis on a political solution and diplomacy. It may be Kerry sees that we have no standing on that and will recommend that the diplomacy be done by people in the area and the UN.

It is interesting that the administration says that Iran asked to help on stabalization a month ago. I don't understand why the administration hasn't commented on the similar stance of the Arab league. Both represent the neighbors with vested interests for the chaos to end - having both gives each side of the fight a mentor looking out for them, but wanting some stability. Maybe with the UN as a referee, these 2 groups could foster peace - pushing the diplomacy that the US may not be in a position to do.

it didn't talk about the plans for getting out or staying. Kerry talked about Murtha going to the hospital and seeing a kid who could only move his eyes and nothing else. There were no comments connecting them in terms of common ground on withdrawal. They connected on the wounded and their treatment.

KERRY: I think you have to put it to the Iraqis and put it tough. This is ridiculous that we've taken three months since the election. There's no government. Young Americans -- you know, I was talking to Jack Murtha the other day. He was up at Bethesda Hospital, and said he saw a kid who could move his eyes. That's it. Can't move any other part of his body. His mother has been sitting by that bed for a year, and you got a lot of other kids over there who are giving their lives, and their limbs and shedding blood while the Iraqis are playing around, trying to figure out who's up, who's down.

-- 3/17/06

Funny, I was thinking about this and the other day when I watched the video from the Harvard Film meeting on the Hidden Wounds showing. I saw when Del Sandusky was speaking that Sen. Kerry was at the furthest point from him that he could be. He was edging back and away from the spot. (The camera had to pan to pick him up.) I think the connection is with the vets who come home and have to deal with what they have to deal with. I think that's what he talked about with Cong. Murtha.

Maybe he wants Murtha to have the parallel bill in the House on PTSD. I noticed Kerry moving from view. He also seemed at various times when Clealand was speaking to stay as inconspicuous as possible - which is pretty hard when he was placed right behind him and he's pretty tall.

There is no basis for my jump from his name being mentioned to them being in a similar place. (Both their comments have pulled in the time line though.)

But I think they are.

Where he is saying that Iraq is not fixable - at least not by us. I think he held out hope that we might be able to right the wrong we did because he has that sense of responsibility. It cannot be easy for him to come to this realization now.

ce.

Biden is now calling for a quicker withdrawal of the US troops (all but 30k before the end of 06) if the Iraqi cannot form a government.

Not yet in a civil war (militia not in the war).

(CFR = Council of foreign relations).

Government and advocacy groups are a real mish-mash of acronyms. Can't tell the players without a program sometimes. ;)

Hmm, interesting. I saw the Sen. Biden said Iraq is worse off now than it was at this point in 2005. Hmmmmmm. Interesting stuff. I wonder if the Dems will use this week to really put forward their differences with Bush and the Repub Congress on Iraq.

Quoting people who called for Bush to look for a unified front:

Kissinger, Schultz, and Biden.

I really could think of people I would prefer to put my name with if I was a politician. Biden is weird.

Everybody is criticizing the war for different reasons. Increase military strength, stay the course but define a strategy, and varying versions of withdrawal. Together this is incoherent. Kerry has a great plan, it will work and he can reiterate that, but people will continue to react to what is going on now.

Iraq is a mess, and Bush is still pulling the strings. The danger of constantly redefine one's position with a dangerously fluid situation is people will hold you to your word. Which is what the MFSO is doing to Kerry right now. That's fine, but anything any one person says about Iraq right now, other than we need to get out and not try to solve this militarily, will amount to predicting what will happen next, which depends largely on what Bush does next, as in the air strikes.

This is not an excuse. Bush is screwing up an already catastrophic situation. Congress needs to get it's shit together and do something because Bush isn't going to.

You can sense the growing anger of the Congressional Dems on this subject. (Not just Sen. Kerry, but all of them.)

What was interesting in MFSO letters was that they didn't have a section for any other Senators, just Kerry. They had one letter to a Mass Congressman and then that's it. It was curious to see why the were targeting him., (Okay and some of that is obvious, but still curious.)

The background stuff that Sen. Kerry has mentioned is the same, the Iraqis and the greater middle East do have to come in and 'solve' this problem and deal with their own militants and disrupting factions. What's interesting now is how little the US did after the blowing up of the Mosque in Samarra. Why are we still there? We can't go out, we can't interact with the population, we can't protect the locals and we can't act in any positive way. Our role has changed after this and, ahm, why are we still there? What actions do we take that we can't take from afar, given that we are afraid to let the US troops out of the safe zones anyway?

Most of the letters are more appeals that Kerry step up to fix this - which he really can't do as he's not President. Was he the only Senator who met with them? In a way, it does show they expect him to be a leader. Most really give him credit for both understanding and caring - the tone of some Bush letters is very different.

The only think I can think of is that they want him firmly on the side of getting out. It's interesting that they are not pushing Feingold. (The IWR vote is irrelevant to current policy.)

Maybe MFSO is local to Mass. )That would explain it.) Maybe they see Sen. Kerry as a basically good and caring guy and are just trying to prod him into coming out on their side. (Which is also puzzling, as he is one of the best advocates for Veteran's issues and for funding for health care for Vets in the Congress.)

I think it also wiggs me out because one of the letter writers lives down the street from me. (I looked her up in the phone book. She lives about a mile and a half from me. That street she refers to, the one she dreads looking at lest she see uniformed Army people there that might be giving her the ultimate awful news, is a street I pass every damn day. It got personalized for me, I guess.)