USAtoday interview playing on a loop at :

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/04/65817063/1

It is 30 minutes long and very in depth; scroll for spoilers:





















Kerry did NOT recommend Caroline Kennedy for the Vatican. He didn't think it a good idea.
Kerry speaks of it being good the torture memos are out, spoke of need for accountability
He proposes a non governmental examination of them - (I'm not sure I like this idea - but I do get his point that in the House or Senate it would fall victim to partisan politics.
Strong answer on why we should deal with Sudan leaders even though they committed genocide.

It covered a wide range of very relevant topics to what's going on in the world right now, to which the Senator gave some really good, thoughtful answers. I see they only used one reader question from the site, but I was still satisfied because quite a bit of what they asked him and what he answered was very much along the lines of what I was thinking when I came up with my question and they also covered ground very similar to a lot of the other reader questions as well (perhaps that was the intent?) :)

Anyway, I won't go into too much more detail (as I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't seen it yet), but it was great. I hope there's a transcript soon!

My questions were asked and answered indirectly so I did get them answered.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/kerry-says-us-pakistan-policy/story.aspx?guid={6B67EF0B-8523-4D04-8AB1-14418BA0BB24}&dist=msr_1

Kerry says U.S. Pakistan policy inadequate

(USA Today has a title that is identical). I know Kerry and Holbrooke do not necessarily see the same way on these issues, but I am surprised he would get that blunt.

The points he made before that was that Pakistan is at a point of peril. That this was really more battle than ours. He then spoke of leaders coming to DC in the next weeks - and they would spend time with Kerry in the Senate and the next day at the state department. Before then, they were suppose to have a military plan and an economic plan - which they today do not have.

It was reported on CNN and Newsweek has it.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/04/22/kerry-trashes-obama-s-pakistan-strategy.aspx

While I do not think thrashing and other terms like that are warranted, he was clearly speaking about Obama's policy in Pakistan, as his answer shows.

That is exactly what he said and I agree with you. I didn't realize that they interviewed him beyond the taped part. It is also annoying because he said that Obama is doing a "hell of a job"in Afghanistan - and explained that Bush et al did nothing to prepare for the election there that was scheduled for this month. (It was postponed as there was no time to set it up.)

I guess that he is not 100% in sync with Obama is the headline - but that is not what I get from listening to the whole thing.

"Later Tuesday evening, Kerry called a reporter to clarify his comments, saying he did not mean to criticize Obama. "I was not blasting the president," he said. "What I'm saying is that the details have not been fleshed out. We're working hand in hand on it."

Of course, there is no story if you use these comments.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-04-21-kerry_N.htm?POE=click-refer

And, I wonder how Kerry feels about Clinton's tough talk today against Pakistan. (I have my own opinion on this and I personally think she did more harm than good in using this tough talk. I wish I could say otherwise, but after listening to an interview with the Pakistan Ambassador, I think she just make relations a bit worse.]


And, on edit, he said on the Ed Shultz show that he agrees with the goals the administration wants to see happen in Pakistan. That however, IMO does not mean he necessarily is in total agreement on how to achieve them.

Actually, I think Kerry IS criticizing but in a constructive way. And I find there is nothing wrong with that. I do not appreciate the WH response. Why didn't they ask Kerry first before putting out that snide reaction.

I think Kerry needs to be his own man, and stop having to back track what he says to stay in line with the WH. If it is legitimate criticism then I think he should stand by what he said.

And, he mentioned meeting with Holbrooke the day before. The WH response is the usual sharp-we don't like criticism response. The WH certainly does not want to appear to not have this situation under control. However, Kerry has an obligation to speak up if he has a different point of view. I don't think however, he wants it to appear there are major disagreements between him and the WH. The media (and possibly Clinton people) will play that up as sour grapes on his part and I am sure he does not what that to happen. It would be counter productive.

I see the phone call not as Kerry backtracking or changing his remarks, but Kerry calling to correct her distortion. We have all listened to the comments. I saw no criticism of Obama there - just comments on the plans not being complete -- but with mention of a meeting in the near future by when plans will be complete.

The WH likely heard only the article - and responded immediately when asked. It would have been nice had they given Kerry the benefit of the doubt and answers that they hadn't seen the interview, and that they were progressing on their Pakistan plan, but it was the reporter who is to blame here.