Gary Hart: John Kerry’s October Speech on Iraq, Was a Turning Point

Gary Hart: John Kerry’s October Speech on Iraq, Was a Turning Point
November 30th, 2005
In an email this morning from JohnKerry.com, Gary Hart spoke out about John Kerry’s plan for Iraq and asked supporters to continue to speak out. Here’s the text:

“The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin.”

I wrote those words in August in The Washington Post to call on Democratic Party leaders to step forward on Iraq. My years in the Senate and as co-chair of the Bipartisan Commission on National Security had convinced me that, unless Democrats provided real leadership, Americans would never receive the honest and open debate about Iraq that our country deserves.

When I first read John Kerry’s October speech on Iraq, I knew it was a turning point. He spoke with the same unwavering voice - truth speaking to power - as he did when I first heard him speak out about the war in Vietnam in 1971. John Kerry got it right last month when he said, “Asking tough questions isn’t pessimism; it’s patriotism” and then answered those questions by offering a detailed plan to get the troops home.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1271

so will post it all.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Slowly, the wheel is turning in Iraq
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:27:48 -0500
From: Gary Hart <info@johnkerry.com>
To: xxxxx






Dear xxxx,

"The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin."

I wrote those words in August in The Washington Post to call on Democratic Party leaders to step forward on Iraq. My years in the Senate and as co-chair of the Bipartisan Commission on National Security had convinced me that, unless Democrats provided real leadership, Americans would never receive the honest and open debate about Iraq that our country deserves.

When I first read John Kerry's October speech on Iraq, I knew it was a turning point. He spoke with the same unwavering voice - truth speaking to power - as he did when I first heard him speak out about the war in Vietnam in 1971. John Kerry got it right last month when he said, "Asking tough questions isn't pessimism; it's patriotism" and then answered those questions by offering a detailed plan to get the troops home.

In recent weeks, Democratic leaders across America - Jack Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, John Edwards and Barack Obama - have questioned the Bush Administration's unfocused "stay as long as it takes" approach. Democrats have joined together to offer substantive alternatives to get it right in Iraq and made it clear that our conscience and conviction lie with taking care of our troops.

The grassroots community at johnkerry.com has played a critical role making sure these ideas are heard and that brave Democrats are protected against the inevitable Republican attacks.

When John Kerry called for the withdrawal of 20,000 troops over the holidays, and the majority of remaining combat troops by the end of 2006, linking bringing troops home to clear benchmarks, you added energy and passion to that initiative.

When John Kerry called for accelerated training of Iraqi troops, greater international involvement, and improved reconstruction efforts, you amplified his voice.

Now, because of your efforts and those of all these Democratic leaders, make no mistake: the wheel has turned in the national debate over the war in Iraq. The American people have responded to the tough questions we've been asking because they had the same ones. The result is that the Bush Administration is being forced to engage in something they've gone to great lengths to avoid: an open debate about the war in Iraq.

We should all be proud of what has been accomplished, but never complacent. Asking questions and debating the issues alone will not rectify this disastrous situation exacerbated by the endless stream of Administration failures. You have to demand answers. You have to demand results for our troops.

That means making sure the intensity of your grassroots effort doesn't fade over the holidays. Our troops don't have the luxury of taking it easy over the holidays, and neither do we.

We have to continue to speak out - on talk radio, in letters to the editor, and to our neighbors - to demand an Administration strategy to get our troops home.

This fight isn't just about the future of the Democratic Party - whether we're going to have a strong Democratic Party that speaks its mind or settles for being a second Republican Party. This fight, at its core, is about restoring the strength and honor of America.

America needs your continued leadership, courage and passion on the grassroots level. I can't thank you enough for everything you have already done, and I am confident about what the johnkerry.com community is sure to accomplish in the future.

Sincerely,

Gary Hart

Kerry and Reed Respond to Bush’s Speech on Iraq
November 30th, 2005

Senators John Kerry and Jack Reed held a press conference this morning after Bush’s speech on Iraq. During the press conference, Kerry and Reed both “said they were disappointed by Bush’s plan, which they said fell short on specifics and ignored basic realities in Iraq.”

Incase you missed it, a complete audio of the Kerry/Reed Press Conference is available here.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1273

Also in the post on the Dem Daily notes from the WaPo on the press conference...

As always, you're doing great things, kg.

Thanks for posting this, kg!!

I too received the Gary Hart email, but I was called away and missed the Kerry-Reed presentation this morning. Thank you for the link to the audio!

He would have made a great president himself. I wish Bush would have read the report on terrorism that Hart and Rudman wrote. Kerry's plan - the 3rd or 4th - as things have worsen in Iraq seems so inovative and well thought out. If only he were President.

.

I was surprised that Edwards barely held his own with Cheney.

The other thing with Hart was that Hart could have addressed the terror issue more directly than anyone - as the co-author of the ignored report on terrorism. He actually would have been a great fit with Kerry as one of the first to address the tech type issues. He could probably have even addressed Kerry's early knowledge of the problem.

I would assume that Monkey business was insignificant enough and long ago, so that wouldn't hurt him. He did very very early send out some signals that he would run for President again in 2004.

He and Kerry were in the Senate together, did they ever work together? It looks like there is mutual respect here.

He was in NH during the Primaries. Came out very early for JK. I met him when I was there.

Hart does have a lot of intelligence.... uh, most of the time!

Hey, so who cares... just how many people cheat anyway?? Now, I'm not advocating, but those who pontificate so much are BONKERS from where I sit!

Oh, well.

Wasn't that 1984 or something like that. (This was when he was young and semi-irresponsible.)

Also, 911 changed that Hart had an affair, Bush ignored the PDB that said Bin Laden was going to attack. Which was worse?

But he will never be taken seriously by some folks because of this youthful indiscretion. Wish bush had paid such a steep price!

and you know you are. Why else would you dig up those pictures?

This is 2005, get with it, quit acting like a Drudgey.

It's not fair for me to point out that some Dems have baggage. Only republicans are fair game?

you think you are so smart. How the hell did Clinton go as far as he did with his baggage?

Sorry but Repubs have criminal baggage very big difference.

"You think you are so smart."

I happened to have been pretty damned disappointed when the "Monkey Business" photo(s?) appeared. I thought Gary Hart had great promise as a national candidate. Too bad that sunk his presidential aspirations.

I don't really have anything against him, but as I said earlier, he lost credibility with many people when the Donna Rice "thing" (whatever the extent of it was) became public. Think he was savaged then? What would it have been like in the Internet age?

Part of the point of my original contribution to this thread (if you can call my post a real contribution; I think it was silly) was to illustrate that some people will never give credence to what he says. Sorry if that struck a raw nerve for you.

Someone posted something like "there ought to be a statute of limitations" -- I suppose on dragging up pictures like this. Heh. Right. I suppose if there were twenty year-old pictures of bush snorting coke, nobody would post them to groups like this.

Whatever. It's part of the Gary Hartpence story. Heck, even Donna Rice has used her celebrity to do good things. But imagine what might have been different if they hadn't met?

YES, republi-CON baggage IS more serious, FAR more criminal, FAR more egregious than a paltry little blow job and stains on a blue dress. And that's ALL they got him on. Pretty pathetic, isn't it? All the "-Gates" they threw at Clinton and NOTHING stuck. EVERYTHING was thoroughly investigated, wasting what? SEVENTY MILLION of our tax dollars on the persecution of Clinton, and the best they had to show for it was a stained blue dress. Mind you, the pathological Clinton-haters will NEVER let go of this. As insignificant as the charges against him PROVED to be, they'll NEVER let go of it. They still think he and Hillary had people killed and stole all kinds of money and committed all kinds of crimes even though there's no proof whatsoever after a thorough vetting that cost us SEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS and came up with nothing but a stained blue dress.

There will ALWAYS be baggage for Clinton to haul around, in these people's eyes. But then again, these same people who hate him worship bush and think he's a latter-day Jesus junior, so go figure. Consider the source - which, along with a dime will get you five minutes on a parking meter. That's about what their assessment of Clinton or ANYTHING else is worth. I'll take Clinton's supposed "sins" over bush's ANY DAY and the world will still respect me in the morning.

As for Gary Hart, YDogg is correct, too. I share that opinion - Gary Hart was WONDERFUL. Except (funny, just like Clinton) he didn't know enough to keep his pants zipped. I would have voted for him, too. I liked a LOT of what he was about, what he said, what he advocated, and what he promised to do as president when he was first in the running. He torpedoed himself, and then had the brainlessness to bait the press corp - daring them to get something on him. And they did. Anybody blind, deaf and mute could have gotten something on him because he was so careless about his dalliances. Even back then, I wondered what the HELL he was thinking. It was just plain stupid. And as a matter of fact, it was sufficiently poor judgment that I was frankly glad when it yanked him out of the running. I loved what Gary Hart stood for politically, but he behaved like a complete ass over the Donna Rice thing.

Clinton could have learned a lesson from him. You NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER give the enemy an opening like that. EVER. Especially if you risk tripping over your own dick because of it (so to speak). Gary Hart was wonderful politically, but if he was gonna be that reckless, he deserved what he got personally. It was a damned shame, too, because I thought he otherwise had the makings of a good president. At his worst, he'd be lightyears better than the schmuck squatting in OUR White House now.

and submitted urgent proposals to the White House - Bush refused to read the HartRudman Report on Glaobal Terror.

Think what he could have done with the terror issue. Especially if he felt comfortable bringing up that Senator Kerry was in the fore front of the effort to deal with non state terror. Without Edwards and if the Kerry/Hart combination's prescient work on terror gave them enough strength, Kerry might have been able to re-focus the Iraq question to getting out successfully and the March decision to invade.

The election wasn't really on economic issues, but Hart was a really big picture, technology person like Kerry.

I know both Kerry and Teresa were friends with the Wirths (the other Co Senator, but were Hart and Kerry friends) I don't remember when Hart let the Senate.

If it was possible for him to become president, don't you think perhaps such things don't matter much unless we let them matter?

Cool.

:kick:

vote for him if he didn't.

Hart?

on the ground there, consulted with many in Iraq's Parliament who wanted a withdrawal plan from the US, came home and drew up a plan that could work legislatively as well as militarily.

Because that is how John Kerry works. He's never been a one-dimesional cartoon character as GOP operatives and their mediawhores have portrayed him to be for the last three decades.

an enormous amount of thought into. He says he talked to the Iraqis and to the military and it shows. Whether you agree with his plan, someone else's plan or your very own plan, this statement is just nasty nonsense.

or the extent of his consultations in Iraq, because the media won't discuss that type of information.

The media prefers to make it sound like Dems just take potshots at Bush for frivolous partisanship.

i credit two events for changing the national dialog ...

the first was Reid's forcing the Senate into a closed session ... while this has long since passed from the national radar, it put the nation on notice that the Dems were mad as hell and they weren't going to take it anymore ... it was made especially effective because of bush's plummeting poll numbers ...

and the second turning point had to be Murtha's bold announcement to withdraw from Iraq ... to quote a well known Democrat on the subject: "U.S. Rep. John Murtha completely changed the public debate in our country by calling for an immediate redeployment of our troops in Iraq."

regardless of what i think about Kerry's plan, i just don't accept the idea that it gained much attention from the public ...

and insiders and made it easier for them to think in terms of withdrawal.

I am quite certain that Kerry and Murtha coordinated their efforts with Gen. Casey who also submitted a withdrawal plan to the Pentagon.

Why else would Kerry wait a few weeks after his speech to submit his plan in a senate bill and schedule himself for the news shows the day before Murtha's announcement? Kerry was set to appear on the shows the very day Murtha made his announcement KNOWING that Murtha would be swiftboated by the WH - a WH that denied involvement with swiftboating during the election. Murtha and Kerry prepared for it to expose the tactic and STOP its usefulness even while shifting the debate in this country to one of WITHDRAWAL.

These men aren't as one-dimensional as people prefer to believe.

you attempt to make it so.

Evidently Tom Hayden thinks Kerry's plan is most doable and practical.

And earliest practicable date could also be within 12 months of steady withdrawal, and not the best case scenario of 6months with troops still nearby and ready to jump in again.

media has been doing - interesting. She certainly struck me as saying it COULD be done in 6months as a bestcase scenario, not a FIRM 6months and out.

And please show me where Murtha claims his is a FIRM 6month exit plan.

I really don't understand why you attach so much vehemence towards Kerry's 12 month plan when Murtha's plan could easily take 12 months, too.

And both Kerry and Murtha have emphasized that Iraq cannot be dealt with militarily, it can ONLY be done politically.

But YOU make it Kerry VERSUS Murtha more than you do Dem WITHDRAWAL plans VERSUS Bush's war.

Interesting tactic.

Murtha: "I think that you get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it -- you have to do it in a very consistent way, but I think six months would be a REASONABLE time to get them out of there."

Murtha: "none of the other plans makes any sense to me"

(from The Daily Show, November 30)
Stewart: "what does 'practicable date' mean?"
Pelosi: "it means whenever practicable within six months" (no mention of best case scenario)

Pelosi: "we keep an over-the-horizon force but most of the troops would come home"

Saying it CAN be done in 6months is not the same as saying it WILL be done in 6months.

Why do you think they use PROVISIONAL LANGUAGE like "practicable" instead of a more certain term?

Geez, welsh....the media's bad enough trying to make provisional language sound like cut and run, but why should the left join them?

I guess you'll GUARANTEE that Murtha's plan will be done in 6months time and will feel cheated if it takes, say, 12 months or so, won't you?

Murtha is no fool. You can take all he says out of context to make a post, but when you put all he says together he is way more provisional than you claim.

Sure, he's always so firm! LOL Anyway, by your logic then it will be 2 years to implement Kerry's "timetable". Or more.

Kerry's Georgetown speech was all over the MSM in late October (October 26th to be exact), early November. It was also Kerry who called for the pre-war Intell investigation regarding the Downing Street Memo in the summer.

The day after Kerry's speech Feinstein spoke out - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=969

Reid shut down the Senate on November 1st - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1020

That was 7 days after Kerry's Georgetown speech where he laid out the first actual plan to get out of Iraq and he called for bringing 20,000 troops home by the holidays.

Kerry introduced his Iraq plan in the Senate on November 10th - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1117

That started the round of assaults on Kerry from McCain (http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1119), Bush (http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1127) and Cheney (http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1171)

Tom Hayden spoke out about Kerry's Georgetown speech - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=970, and the day after he introduced his Iraq plan in the Senate he spoke about that McCain and Kerry going at it - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1124

Murtha spoke out 7 days after Kerry introduced his plan in the Senate - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1183, and that was 6 days after Bush assaulted Kerry on Veteran's day.

Murtha spoke out on a day that Kerry had 2 prescheduled interviews in the MSM and had been on a role for a full 3 weeks of continually firing back at Bush, et all since his speech on October 26th.

Murtha's call is far from immediate withdrawal and Nancy Pelosi may have changed her tune yesterday on it, but the day Murtha first brought it out she wouldn't go there.

Personally I'm thrilled to have Murtha speaking out with a bold voice as Dem Vet in the House, but Kerry led the way on this and he will continue to.

Ed Schultz gave Kerry the credit he is due today on air (http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1289), saying that he has continually been on top of firing back at BushCo. Kerry even spoke out continually in defense of Murtha, yet Murtha has not been so gracious as to suggest to BushCo who apologized to him, that he should also apologize to Kerry.

I disagree - Gary hart is right. Kerry led the way on this.

I know. I know. In my heat of hearts I also know Kerry won Ohio in '04. The point here is the movement among moderates and (IMHO) that bodes well for '06 which is what JK has been one of JK's main areas of focus.

Enjoy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2285277

From where I sit......she was the catalyst during Bush's summer vacation!


http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0549,news,70568,2.html

so he refers to lawmakers now.

I also believe that Cindy was a significant part of Kerry's overall decision to come up with a withdrawal plan. I know he spoke to her in DC, consulted with commanders on the ground in Iraq, and consulted with many members of Iraq's Parliament who wanted a withdrawal plan from the US.

Kerry is known for consulting all sides to hear as much as he can, good and bad, before he acts.

Hence there have been more than one.

when they are obviously together on so many aspects of withdrawal.

Along with Barney Franks and Boxer?

I thought that was interesting.

I don't doubt they are copacetic here.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/cnna.kerry

BLITZER: John Murtha, who's very involved in the Armed Services Committee, ... says there should be an immediate withdrawal over the next six months of all U.S. troops from Iraq. Good idea?

KERRY: I respectfully disagree with John Murtha. And I laid out a plan which is, I think, a good plan, a solid plan -- that builds consistently on everything I said throughout the campaign last year -- of what you need to do to be successful. And I believe my plan supports the troops in the right way.

Kerry did not correct Blitzers lying characterization of Murthas take on the Iraq as "immediate withdrawal" and went on to use it to say he disagreed. What a jerk.

Murtha has said we are through and that we have failed there: he's not talking about success here:

"Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism."

said that there is no miltary solution for Iraq, ONLY political ones.

Your problem is that you never really listen to what Kerry says or WHEN he said it. Both Kerry and Murtha stressed the point about NO MILITARY SUCCESS POSSIBLE. Kerry happened to say it 3 weeks before Murtha, but they are both basically on the same page, with different steps.


Why are you not promoting Dem withdrawal plans versus Bush's stay policy?

from Kerrys speech if one can stand to read it again,

Kerry wants to "undermine" the insurgency.

Kerry says "In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory" WTF, what military victory? Murtha says essentially there is no victory

Reconcile these baffling passages:
just when he 's implying what most would conclude would be the insurgency taking off if the US withdrew he says the latter thing below:

"A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security." Based on what, if not the insurgency?

then
"the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable."

But he already said they are incompetent and now bases this latter thought on them doing their work correctly. Again, WTF?

I wouldn't want your task of parsing this guys inneffective parsing and hedging. Most people see them as different as night and day, mostly Murtha saying it's over and Keryy is saying we can have SUCCESS.

Kerry said MILITARY SUCCESS IS NOT POSSIBLE. ONLY POLITICAL SUCCESS. NO MILITARY, NO GUNS will work in Iraq.

Why are you having difficulty grasping that? He said it on every show he appeared on. He and Murtha used the same language even.

Kerry disagreed with Murtha's plan to pull out to over the horizon in about 6months or when practicable - Kerry believes a steady drawdown over 12 months is more doable.

People are allowed to disagree on the details even as they are on the same page as to the goals.

Tom Hayden prefers Kerry's plan as the DOABLE one, too.

goes on in this episode.

You have a link to Bush's speech, but neither a link nor any excerpts from Hart's.

Dear xxxx,

"The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin."

I wrote those words in August in The Washington Post to call on Democratic Party leaders to step forward on Iraq. My years in the Senate and as co-chair of the Bipartisan Commission on National Security had convinced me that, unless Democrats provided real leadership, Americans would never receive the honest and open debate about Iraq that our country deserves.

When I first read John Kerry's October speech on Iraq, I knew it was a turning point. He spoke with the same unwavering voice - truth speaking to power - as he did when I first heard him speak out about the war in Vietnam in 1971. John Kerry got it right last month when he said, "Asking tough questions isn't pessimism; it's patriotism" and then answered those questions by offering a detailed plan to get the troops home.

In recent weeks, Democratic leaders across America - Jack Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, John Edwards and Barack Obama - have questioned the Bush Administration's unfocused "stay as long as it takes" approach. Democrats have joined together to offer substantive alternatives to get it right in Iraq and made it clear that our conscience and conviction lie with taking care of our troops.

The grassroots community at johnkerry.com has played a critical role making sure these ideas are heard and that brave Democrats are protected against the inevitable Republican attacks.

When John Kerry called for the withdrawal of 20,000 troops over the holidays, and the majority of remaining combat troops by the end of 2006, linking bringing troops home to clear benchmarks, you added energy and passion to that initiative.

When John Kerry called for accelerated training of Iraqi troops, greater international involvement, and improved reconstruction efforts, you amplified his voice.

Now, because of your efforts and those of all these Democratic leaders, make no mistake: the wheel has turned in the national debate over the war in Iraq. The American people have responded to the tough questions we've been asking because they had the same ones. The result is that the Bush Administration is being forced to engage in something they've gone to great lengths to avoid: an open debate about the war in Iraq.

We should all be proud of what has been accomplished, but never complacent. Asking questions and debating the issues alone will not rectify this disastrous situation exacerbated by the endless stream of Administration failures. You have to demand answers. You have to demand results for our troops.

That means making sure the intensity of your grassroots effort doesn't fade over the holidays. Our troops don't have the luxury of taking it easy over the holidays, and neither do we.

We have to continue to speak out - on talk radio, in letters to the editor, and to our neighbors - to demand an Administration strategy to get our troops home.

This fight isn't just about the future of the Democratic Party - whether we're going to have a strong Democratic Party that speaks its mind or settles for being a second Republican Party. This fight, at its core, is about restoring the strength and honor of America.

America needs your continued leadership, courage and passion on the grassroots level. I can't thank you enough for everything you have already done, and I am confident about what the johnkerry.com community is sure to accomplish in the future.

Sincerely,

Gary Hart