Feingold thrashing Kerry in a Salon interview, among other things

[Mass]

I have long been abig fan of Feingold, but these are the type of interview that really makes him an unlikeable person. I will only post the part relevant to Kerry here, but all in this interview shows that he has decided to be the Dean of 2008, even if his propositions are nothing close to what he says (his proposal for Iraq is simply disingenious: saying withdrawal, but putting the withdrawal in 15 months, maybe, and not defining what he would do inbetween).

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/10/feingold/index.html

The conventional wisdom coming out of 2004 was that a big reason why John Kerry lost was because President Bush appeared to be a stronger leader on national security issues. The conventional wisdom now says that if a politician says we should leave Iraq before all of our goals are met that will be seen as a sign of weakness.

...


You were involved in the 2004 race, supporting John Kerry. Looking back, what were the mistakes that he made or his staff made? What do you think cost him that race?

I think the mistakes really began with the 2002 congressional election. We were doing very well in the Senate races. And we had a great chance to hold the Senate. I saw that many Democrats in the caucus understood that this Iraq war didn't make sense from the point of view of 9/11. It didn't really seem that persuasive on weapons of mass destruction. But what the party decided, it seemed, was, "OK, look we can't beat Bush on the national security stuff. We'll just cede foreign policy to the Bush administration, and we'll beat him on domestic issues, where clearly we had the upper hand." I felt at the time -- and I certainly voted against the war -- thinking, in part, that there is no way the American people are going to elect a party that only feels they are better on the domestic side.

That's the context that this 2004 election occurred in. And that's the context, that people like John Kerry and John Edwards were stuck with votes in favor of the Iraq war. They were in a box. Those of us that didn't think it was a good idea and didn't think it related to 9/11 were able to say, as Howard Dean said, we never thought this made sense. It put Kerry in this terrible position, even though I think he did as well as he could, of having voted for the war but being critical. And then, of course, the really devastating piece was having voted against the $87 billion , which I happened to have voted for. It just put him in a bind. I think it all related to the decisions that were made in 2002 for which we paid a price in 2004.

[ginnyinWI]

1. and that's all he's got, so he plays it up.

He's got the IWR vote, and he's got his Patriot Act vote. sigh. What else ya got, Russ, huh?
He comes from a state which has a long history of Progressivism. Ok, so what else?

Points against him: not a dynamic speaker, not striking to look at, not that tall, and he's single, just having split with his second wife.

I mean, I'm from WI and I still fail to see presidential material here. I agree, he could well become the "new Dean", and get the support of maybe 15-20% of the party, the far-left faction.

[TayTay]

2. I disagree. I don't think he thrashed Kerry at all

I thought he did a thoughtful examination of the issues surrounding the election in 2004. He said that the IWR vote was a trap for Dems. It was. He also said that Kerry did about as well as anyone could with the Rethugs and their scare tactics. The IWR and the Funding votes were very, very troublesome. They gave the Rethugs ammunition to make the 'waffling' charge.

I don't think Feingold is trashing Kerry. I think he is talkiing pure tactics. He has a lot of points in that article that are worth considering moving forward. The shoe may very well be on the other foot as we approach 2006 and some of these tactics can be effetively turned against the Rethugs. There is something to be learned here.

There is a real element of truth about the 2002 races. The Dems as a group were afraid to take * on about the build-up to war that was going on. Daschle figured that the Dems would be trashed as unpatriotic if they were too strident in opposing *. Feingold is right to see error in that.

It put Kerry in this terrible position, even though I think he did as well as he could, of having voted for the war but being critical
This was a big problem. It was also a media problem. Kerry could explain his position, which was actually pretty close to the opinion of the American people via polling. But it was deadly for the media. They never let Kerry out of the vote and never listened to a word he said. The nedia also had laid a trap and there was no way Kerry was getting out of it.

I think Kerry knows this and is taking better action to avoid the traps now. (Other people are also very good at politics and occasionally fashion very effective traps. That means that is is extremely difficult for the opponent to avoid the trap. It happens. That doesn't mean Kerry was bad or dumb, it means the Rethugs were very good in what they thought up. They can't govern, but they can strategize for elections.)

[Mass]

3. I may be unfair because I am tired of reading interviews concerning

his proposal for Iraq that make it appear what it is not.

I still have not figured out what he is proposing and what he expects to accomplish in the 15 + months he plans to keep the troops in Iraq.

But I did not think that Kerry was stuck on Iraq. He criticized it again and again, offered solutions that were more concrete than what Feingold is offering right now and I do not understand his criticism against the $ 87 billions (though Kerry should have been able to explain it better than he did, I thought).

[TayTay]

4. He did. It was a media trap.

It was the media who never let Kerry forget his votes. It was the media who never listened to the quite good explanation for the vote and the funding vote.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it fall.
If Kerry made a very good explanation of his vote and nobody reported on it, did it happen?

That was the trap. There is nothing wrong with admitting this. In fact, it's what you're supposed to learn from a past campaign. Traps happen. Figure how not to fall into them. That's good advice.

Salon:So there is a chance of correcting that going into 2008?

Feingold: We have a wonderful opportunity to say, "Look, however people voted in 2002 on the Iraq war, clearly the war has not been conducted in a way that any reasonable senator could have expected." That is the fault of the administration. That's not the fault of the Congress.

[sandnsea]

13. Feingold is doing it now

How can you say it was the media when Russ is saying it himself now?

What is wrong with our politicians that they don't know that the public sees them as all in the same boat. When he brings up the 2002 vote, it just makes it harder for all the candidates who run in 2006 and 2008. The Party has to generally believe in something and ours clearly doesn't. If we don't know what our foreign policy is, then what are people supposed to vote for.

He is using the IWR to position himself politically, just like Howard Dean did. It wasn't the Democrats that made that vote hard, it was Howard Dean. And now Feingold is rolling it out again. It's incredibly stupid and harmful to the party as a whole.

[Dr Ron]

17. Agree in disagreeing

I also didn't see the interview as being an attempt to trash Kerry.

He is right that the IWR vote and the funding vote caused political problems. Of course if I was asked the question, I would have done more to defend Kerry's position, but we can't expect Feingold to actually defend Kerry. He didn't attack Kerry on the vote in the way Dean did during the campaign.

Also agree that having gone through the traps, Kerry might be better prepared than other potential candidates.

[TayTay]

5. Mass: This is what Kerry needs to talk about

Marine from Canton, 19, killed in Iraq explosion
5 others also die in two separate attacks Thursday
By Chase Davis, Globe Correspondent | October 9, 2005
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/10/09/marine_from_canton_19_killed_in_iraq_explosion/

A 19-year-old Marine from Canton was killed in Iraq Thursday in a bombing attack that also left three other Marines dead, Pentagon officials said yesterday.

Lance Corporal Shayne M. Cabino was killed by a roadside bomb during combat operations near Al Karmah, a city near the embattled city of Fallujah and about 50 miles west of Baghdad, according to the Department of Defense. Cabino was a member of the Second Battalion, Second Regiment, Second Division of the Second Marine Expeditionary Force, based at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

He is the 31st serviceman from Massachusetts to be killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, according to Department of Defense records.

A man and a woman who answered phones at two family residences last night said family members did not want to speak about Cabino's death.

The other Marines who died Thursday included two from Pennsylvania and one from Michigan.

Last year was last year. It's over. Kerry has, I think, moved on. He has other things to think about, including the deaths of people like this kid. (I'm sorry, but 19 is a kid. I have shoes older than this.)

The next election will not turn on who had the best analysis of 2004, it will turn on who can now get the nation back into the land of sanity.

Sen. Kerry is writing a speech on Iraq. He should read this: http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2005/10/10/news/news01.txt It matters a whole lot more than what Feingold has to say.

[Mass]

6. I agree totally.

[TayTay]

7. This unhinges me, in a way no cold political analysis can

Analysis comes and goes, some favorable, some not. But Kerry knows what it's like to lose people in a war, he knows what it's like to write notes home to families and try to explain the unexplainable. He can read that nearly one third of the service men and women killed in Iraq are 21 and under (597 as of today.) He knows, far better than I do. He knows.

I want to hear from that heart that knows. This means more to me than what Feingold says (or what I say. I know from books.) He knows.

[blm]

8. Feingold should be blaming Bush for not implementing IWR honestly instead

of blaming the IWR. He knows better.

And what's he trying to say - That he voted against the IWR but voted FOR additional funding for it that had no accountability?

Kerry voted for funding WITH accountability. Feingold's bragging that he voted for funding WITHOUT accountability.

I swear, some Dems help the media spin for the RNC every chance they can if they think it glorifies their own selves.

[TayTay]

9. That is the problem.

The media doesn't do 'think pieces' anymore that are worth anything. The moral equivalency argument that because Kerry voted to allow the inspectors (who just won the Nobel Prize, if I am not mistaken, btw) in to finish their jobs, he is morally as culpable as * for the war.

Thhis is, as it has always bee, idiotic. This is *'s war, not Kerry's or anyone else. His people planned it, screwed it up and can't get out now. Kerry didn't do that and is not responsible for it. It was Rove's genius that he got the media to equate that vote as being the same as planning and screwing up Iraq. It was not.

I still don't think Feingold has a knife in his hand when he answered those questions. It seems pretty much of a vanilla argument to me, I have heard this repeatedly since last Nov.

[blm]

10. Yes, but a thinking man would not be parroting the media spin because it

was accepted to do so.

I just am quite sure that Feingold KNOWS the IWR was not what pushed us into war and it bugs me when any Dem pretends that is.

[fedupinBushcountry]

11. I agree

You know I am so tired of that lets blame it on the IWR vote. Who remembers how many people were against that vote back in 2002 ? Answer less than 30% Who remembers how many people were for the Inspections back in 2002 ? Many, I wish I knew the percentage, I know I was one, I thought it was a good way to stop Bush in his tracks.

Then the damn $87 billion, I wish Kerry had explained it better, but I didn't need his explanation because I watched him on the Senate floor, and then I know many watched him in the early primary debate explaining why he would vote no.It took me the messenger to tell many people through a Kerry supporter list e-mail in our area to set the record straight, I also put an explanation on why Kerry voted for the RESOLUTION not the WAR, and noted his speech and asked how many thought that Inspections were a good idea. People got it. That is not why Kerry lost the election, I wish politicians would have the guts to say we got cheated and not be afraid of those words.

As for Feingold good for him for not voting on the IWR and the Patriot Act. But why did he vote for the $87 billion that we the taxpayers and our children and grandchildren have to pay back, when we know it has not gone to our troops but into the pockets of Bush's cronies. Also why did he vote for Roberts?

One more thing WHAT IF, the resolution did not pass, do you think we would not be in Iraq ? I think we would of been there even sooner if it wasn't for that resolution. Bush wanted this war and nothing was going to stop him, NOTHING.

Just my 2 cents.

[blm]

12. True. British memos said Bush was prepared to go in with the original UN

resolution from 1991, which would have given him the greater legal leg to stand on, but his concern was to use this vote to divide the Dem party for 2002 and 2004 elections.

Funny how the media worked hand and hand with Rove to accomplish that goal.

[ginnyinWI]

18. what makes my blood boil more than any other question

is when all those on the right strike up a chorus of, "But the Dems have no plan! What is their plan for succeeding in Iraq?" waa, waa, waa!

They had a plan, you idiots: it was to not go into Iraq in such a half-assed way and alienate our allies while doing so! It was to listen to the military brass! It was to look at reality instead of consulting their guts. You idiots did this, now you idiots better step up and admit it! Then maybe we can talk about what the Dems propose to do next--and I suggest you listen to them this time!
:nuke:

[whometense]

20. Well said.

And I agree completely.

[sandnsea]

14. I agree completely

I was prepared to support Feingold as a #2, but not if he's going to play IWR games. I can't believe he thinks this is politically smart, maybe he is as naive as Hillary said he is.

[TayTay]

23. Hillary said he was naive?

I missed that. What was the context pray tell?

[sandnsea]

25. soft money, PAC money

527's. One of those, all of those. It was reported in a meeting about how Democrats were going to raise money, back in 2002 I think. Hillary supposedly yelled at him to stop being naive and grow up. I obviously wasn't there. :) I tend to be on Russ' side in that sort of thing; but criminy, if he really doesn't understand a simple concept like all in the same boat, then he is politically naive. Unless he believes he's going to push the Clinton faction out of the party altogether, and that would be stunningly naive. I don't know what he's doing, but the IWR is my line in the sand. Good luck to him is all I've got to say now.

See my sig line. Why do our own Democrats so assiduously scrutinize the words of our Presidential candidate and ignore the words of a lying President.

[Mass]

15. Which is worse, there is no point in going back to a vote that took place

three years ago and for which people had different motivations.

What is important and I agree with Feingold on that (though I have my own reservations on the fact that he proposed something that novel) is to be vocal on what should happen NOW.

If we have to look back on votes from the 107 th Congress, why not his vote for Ashcroft?

[karynnj]

16. He seems to be positioning himself for 2008

which is also what his fundraising letter last month was using. I don't think he is trashing Kerry, as much as deferrentiating himself. It's actually more honest than Dean was, because Dean counted on the fact that people would not call him on pro-war comments in 2002 (when the vote was taken).

If Feingold runs, it will be an issue that he voted no. He can't (nor does he want to) change that. It may help him in the primary as he can look purer in terms of the war than Kerry. The question is whether he will look like a better looking Kucinich next to Kerry. In the general election, it opens up a question if he would be strong enough.

Even the primaries are still 3 years away, a lot will happen in that time frame. The war would likely have occurred either way, the bigger issue will be how to get out (if we're not already out). It's hard to know what issues will resonate then - but I would bet it won't be over those two 6 year old votes.

The world is unlikely to be in great shape. My guess: Who ever runs will need to convey several things; that they have serious sensible ideas for how to restart the US economy, has serious credendials as a diplomat to re-establish ties in a troubled world, and there will still be the issue of keeping the country safe. I think the latter is why Clinton is pushing Hillary to the right. I think that may be too 2004. Hillary maybe seen as this person - by people who credit Bill with having the credentials.

I think as world problems will still be drastic, the current spiel about picking a governor will fissle. (Bush, Clinton and Carter were elected in periods of relative calmness. Reagan is an exception.)

In terms of keeping the country safe, what we do now about Iraq comes into play. Feingold's strategy at this point has no content - it's more just an idea, set a target date (Dec 2006) and get out (if things that need to be done were done). This is not a bold, clever, strategic plan, it's an attempt to set an expectation that will hopefully push things along. Kerry's solutions seemed sensible, but weren't implemented. I am curious as to what he would do.

From history, in 1968 McCarthy who was antiwar first was eclipsed by RFK who turned against the war later. RFK was far more inspirational and had a much broader set of issues than US out of Asia. Feingold might be 2008's McCarthy. The question is do we have a potential RFK?

[Mass]

19. I guess I should not have given my post this title because ...

what irritated me here was more the blind acceptance the media have that Feingold is proposing something different and new.

For the rest, I do think that Feingold is wrong in the fact that it is people like Dean in the primary that posed problem to Kerry and his IWR vote a lot more that Bush could ever have done, but he is doing what is fashionable these days in the anti-war public: criticize Kerry for this war rather than focus on Bush.

[LittleClarkie]

21. I think it's a reasoned opinion. But it bugs me that he brings up Howard

as someone who didn't think the war made sense. Do we have to cough up what Howard was saying as the war started?

Russ can legitimately say he didn't vote for the war. Good for him. But Howard didn't have to vote. And Howard was far from critical at the start of the war.

But I think Russ, unlike some folks, was very civil in his criticisms. Not a bash, to be sure. I don't have to agree, but I can respect an articulately expressed opinion.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. I guess I agree with Mass, in that

It's more the idea that the media is trumpeting Russ as being so different on Iraq that pisses me off. Russ' view of what should happen in Iraq is not very discernable from Kerry's, and the media is making him out to be the only candidate with a real plan, even though his plan is no more or less substantive than Kerry's or Clark's or anyone else's. And it is odd to me that Russ would brag about voting for the first 87 billion contract, which included a huge giveaway to Halliburton, which is why Kerry voted no. Kerry stated several times that he didn't want an invasion UNLESS inspectors were convinced that Saddam was hiding things from them and unless the UN decided that Iraq was in the wrong and authorized a multilateral strike force. When will Democrats like Feingold and Dean learn that the IWR was always designed to be a red herring to detract from Bush and his administration's 100% culpability in sending us to war?

[TayTay]

24. I really thought Kerry hit it out of the park in the debates on the 87 bil

BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."

As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.

Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

[TayTay]

26. The thing that does bug me about Dem critiques of Iraq War

is the continuing failure to mention the Downing Street Memos. (Or minutes.) I can't remember if Feingold signed Sen. Kerry's letter asking for an investigation by the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence. (Which, under Chairman Roberts of KS is an oxymoron to be sure.)

The DSM goes right to the heart of the matter. The voting Senators had information withheld from them by Senate leadership and by the Administration. They were, in a sense, voting blind. (Plus the Admin has unilaterally restricted the Senate from getting classified info because they said there was a leak of something. Tyranny.)

What has Feingold said about the DSM. This is no little matter. I think the Admin knew there were no WMDs in advance, but drummed up the charges because it was the best way to get the public to approve the war. Kerry knows this, but why don't other elected Dems in Congress ever speak up about it. It's way more important and goes to the heart of that vote.

[Mass]

27. To my knowledge, he said nothing and was not one of those signing

Kerry's letter.

Here is the list.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0506/S00452.htm

The letter, obtained by RawStory.com, is also signed by Senators Johnson, Corzine, Reed, Lautenberg, Boxer, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, and Durbin. The text of the letter is below.

[TayTay]

28. This is just sad. It is half the story.

There was political strategizing to get the vote the way it was in 2002. Feingold duly notes it and the damage it caused the Dems last year. But Feingold should also mention that the Bushies put cause above country by fudging the facts. This is unconscionable. It is fraud, and quite possibly, treason.

Kerry has the more complete grasp of this, if the DSM letter he composed and sent around is any guide:

The memo indicates that in the summer of 2002, at a time the White House was promising Congress and the American people that war would be their last resort, that they believed military action against Iraq was "inevitable."

The minutes reveal that President "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The American people took the warnings that the administration sounded seriously-warnings that were echoed at the United Nations and here in Congress as we voted to give the president the authority to go to war. For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation.

DSM was all the rage on DU and the other LibBlogs just 4 months ago or so. People have short memories. This is critical stuff. The Senators who voted, in full conscience, for the IWR did so because of the info they had at the time. (And Kerry said, in the William Pitt article we have posted several times that he called people he trusted in the Admin and they swore the info he had was true and that the Admin wouldn't go to war without checking back in.)

Feingold needs to sign this letter. He is only dealing from half a deck here. The orchestrated effort to box up Dems with a troublesome vote was more insidious and full of lies than he admits to.

[karynnj]

29. He didn't sign which I thought was weird at the time

as others who voted no did.

[TayTay]

30. I don't understand this.

Feingold is being wobbly on this. You can't critique honestly without mentioning all the story. And the DSM goes right to the heart of how the Bush Admin took the country to war. They did so, in part, by treating the Congress as an obstacle to be overcome, not a co-equal body of government to be informed. It is an incomplete picture.

The DSM is important. People should go back and review the debate on this in the Congressional Record. The info given to Congress at the time was indeed fixed.

[JI7]

31. i saw a post saying he had attacked Clark's plan on Iraq before

does anyone know what that is all about ?

as for his criticisms of Kerry, it's kind of pathetic.