Wartime Dissent Is Part Of Patriotism, Kerry Says [Washington Post]

Wartime Dissent Is Part Of Patriotism, Kerry Says
Views on Vietnam, Iraq Wars Defended

By Chris Cillizza
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, April 23, 2006; Page A04

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042200873.html

Thirty-five years after Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (D) appeared before a Senate committee to call for an end to the war in Vietnam, he defended that decision yesterday in a speech in his home town and linked it to his current insistence on an early drawdown of troops from Iraq.

Kerry, in remarks delivered in Boston's Faneuil Hall Marketplace, cast dissent in wartime as a patriotic act -- a response to Republican critics who insist that questioning the conduct of the war in Iraq emboldens America's enemies.

"I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties," he said. "They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin."

Yesterday's address was the latest move in Kerry's shadow presidential campaign, launched in the aftermath of his 2004 defeat by President Bush. In a series of speeches, guest columns and television appearances, Kerry has sought to right what many Democrats regard as the defects of that race by outlining a clear exit strategy for Iraq and vowing to fight back against GOP attacks on his and other Democrats' patriotism. Kerry's aggressive attitude is also aimed at wooing liberal voters for a potential presidential bid in 2008.

-SNIP-

Who is this Tracy Schmidt person? I can't believe she claims the Republican Party never questioned his patriotism!!!!

Ill...she makes me physically ill!!!

WASHINGTON –RNC Press Secretary Tracey Schmitt issued the following statement on Senator John Kerry’s remarks at Brown University this afternoon. (ACTUALLY LAST FALL)

“John Kerry's attacks on President Bush's efforts to assist the victims and rebuild the Gulf Coast don't come as a surprise - armchair quarterbacking on tough issues has never been a problem for Senator Kerry. Such tactics haven’t served him well in the past and today is no exception. The American people have pulled together during a difficult time and Democrats’ efforts to politicize this tragedy are unsavory at best.”

dropped the ball completely and hired his thugs (ooops I meant cronys) to actually run the 'show'.

Anybody feel like swarming the media with a democratic response from ordinary citizens?

This statement was actually not from today, it was a response to Senator Kerry from last fall. But funny how close the statement is to what she said about Kerry's speech in the press today. She must have a statement taped next to her phone.

It's over 3 years too late. They should've NEVER been there in the first place.

Might be wise to consider the worst case scenarios and save the sniping for somebody who deserves it, like Joe Lieberman, and maybe Hillary and Joe Biden.

If you call what I posted 'sniping' then we apparently use a different dictionary, smartie. :shrug:

I'm hoping he meant that Tracy Schmitt was sniping Kerry

sniping with a spit ball, not sniping with an AK-47. Better?

Unless we get back some seats in November.

All we can do now is show people the difference between what they have now, and what they could have if they'd give the Dems a chance.

It could be argued that Kerry was late in 1972, considering how long the war had been going on, and going badly. But still, his testimony was a good thing. It could also be said that Kerry is late now, considering how long the war has been going on and going badly. But still, his speech is equally a good thing.

The argument that John Kerry was "late" in joining the "anti-war" sentiment is still based on the flip-flopper branding that the Republicans pulled in 2004. Anyone who has studied John Kerry's record on the war would understand that Kerry's current strategy didn't even make sense until Iraq had a government in place. He does not (and did not) advocate "cutting and running", but instead advocates diplomatic and politically based progress in the region. Implementing Kerry's strategy a year ago would not have made sense.

Saying such things seems to assume that everything he says is based on politics and not what he thinks is right. He said what he believed in 2004. He's saying what he believes now. The change was the situation in Iraq. Whatever window of opportunity that was there in Iraq is now closed to people like Kerry, and I would imagine Clark as well. I'd be surprised if he had a different opinion either.

But the public in general seems ready to listen to a leader who will offer a concrete strategy for progress in Iraq.

If someone was against the war at the very beginning, I guess I understand the frustration that Kerry voted to give Bush the power to go to war. But I hate that the original anti-war bunch still uses this vote against him, instead of looking honestly at his record and at what he believes in.

The only "viable" (I don't think it's viable) argument anyone ever makes against Kerry is that he's inconsistent. But, why is that a good thing? What was right in Iraq three years ago is not necessarily the right thing now. Particularly given that we know a lot more now then we did three years ago. Bush is consistent, but that does not make him right!

Given the RNC comments, Kerry has already moved the debate.

There is a saying that when you first speak truth

First, they ridicule you
Then, they oppose you
Finally, your views are accepted as inevitable

He's already moved from being ridiculed to being opposed. They first said "nobody cares what he has to say", but now they're trying to say it's all about '08 presidential politics. I'd say that's an improvement and tells you how far this debate has already gone. Offense sure feels better than defense! Go JK!!

The very fact that they have to comment on him means he made an impression.

They seem to seek to trivialize his words by making them part of some sort of continuous campaign. As Kerry said to Allard on the Senate floor, no one spins him in regard to the troops. Period.

He says it now because he feels it now. Slower than some here obviously. I see it more as a difference in opinion than some sort of calculation re:2008 on his part.

I do hate that spin, mainly because it can be attached to just about anything he does. And in this article it's editorializing to boot. Unless it was meant to be commentary and not news, the reporters personal opinion hardly belonged in a news story.

But the Washington press will ALWAYS turn a political move into a political strategy / process story. In some ways I think its a good thing for Kerry, because it begins to dispell the myth that Kerry is politically ineffective.

If a war is doing your country more good than ceasing it would, the patriotic thing to do is to argue for its continuation.

If it isn't, the patriotic thing to do is to argue for it to be ended.

Note, incidentally, that "patriotic" and "right" are at best tangentially related. The Kosovo conflict wasn't in America's national interest, as it was fought for altruistic reasons rather than those of personal benefit, but it was clearly the right thing to do. As such, the strictly patriotic choice was to oppose it, but the morally correct choice was to support it. Patriotism is greatly overrated as a virtue.

When it comes to "my country, right or wrong", one should only go half way.

Dissent is patriotic. It's something that helps us function as a democracy.

:)