Chasing Kerry in Texas

March 01, 2008

Chasing Kerry in Texas

A mistakenly forwarded internal Clinton campaign email exchange offers a glimpse behind the scenes at the scramble for every vote in Texas -- in this case, for veterans in the Rio Grande valley.

The email thread went out yesterday below a press release on veterans' issues that seems to have been sent to the campaign's veterans' list.

In the first email, Clinton adviser Burns Strider emailed Texas spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod, Howard Wolfson, and several other top Clinton aides.


Elrod responded:


The press release below which this exchange noted the launch of a new veterans' website.

And there's nothing really unusual about the exchange -- just a glimpse at how, below the frantic scramble on the surface of the campaigns, there's an even more frantic scramble behind the scenes, and dozens of different targets in each state. In this case, John Kerry's work on an obscure veterans' bill -- totally unnoticed in the mainstream media -- seems to have precipitated the mini-crisis.

Politico contributor Gebe Martinez, on a similar note, recently emailed that the Clinton campaign scrambled to put Bill Clinton out in Del Rio, TX, after the Obama campaign sent John Kerry there.

KERRY: Well, first of all, Wolf, the question applies to both of them. And the person asking the question really is culpable here of a fear tactic. I might add, you know, most of the time I think people are going to hear that phone ringing, and they're going to rush to answer the phone and not see the ad.

But leaving that aside, it strikes me that the ad is really deception and disingenuous. Hillary Clinton has never received a 3 a.m. in the morning telephone call as a senator or as a first lady. And secondly, when asked, when her campaign was asked, well, what crisis has she ever faced in which she's made a difference in foreign policy, they really couldn't answer.

They tried to say, well, she made a speech in China or something like that. The fact is that she had a red phone moment, as Barack Obama said. Her red phone moment was on the war in Iraq, and she chose the Bush course, the wrong course.

She had a red phone moment in Iran. When Senator Dodd, Senator Biden, Senator Obama, myself opposed the policy, she chose the Bush policy on Iran. She had a red phone moment. The fact is that Barack Obama comes to this race with more experience than George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton had in foreign policy at the national level. And the fact is that he has proven that it's his judgment that is correct. That's what the American people are voting for, and I believe they will see clearly that's a scare tactic. And in fact, it raises an issue which falls, in my judgment, in Barack Obama's favor.

link

PROVIDENCE -- U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on Monday urged supporters of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama in Rhode Island to turn out at the polls.

Rhode Island holds its presidential primary on Tuesday. The polls will be open until 9 p.m. Ohio, Texas and Vermont also hold presidential primaries.

Kerry described why he thinks Obama has the experience to be the next president.

"No matter who wins this, we're all going to band together and unite and support a Democratic nominee. Everybody has a right to have a different point of view about who they think may or may not be able to get the job done," Kerry said.

Kerry said it's up to the voters to decide whether the campaign continues past Tuesday.

"This is a bright moment in American politics. I like what's happening in the Democratic Party because more people are coming out to vote in the Democratic Party in our caucuses and primaries than all the people put together in the Republican Party," Kerry said.

A Brown University poll released Sunday showed Clinton with a 5 percentage point lead over Obama in Rhode Island, but about a fifth of those polled said they were undecided.

link

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

link

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

<...>

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.