Kerry will be on 2 Sunday shows this week

• CBS, Face The Nation: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH).

• CNN, State Of The Union: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).





http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/the-sunday-show-line-ups-25.php

This was surprising to see as I think he is still in either Afghanistan or Pakistan and would still be there on Sunday. (I thought I read it was a 4 or 5 day trip). Maybe he will be there remotely. It will be good to see what he has to say.

I am so curious to hear what he will say!

what he is going to do in Afghanistan? I was just curious what role Kerry is going to play here. As someone who will defend the President or as someone who is going to put some pressure on him, and encourage him to go a certain way.

Thanks for the heads up.

over there.

Obama listened to the hawks over Biden and Kerry, now Biden and Kerry will have to try and help that decision succeed. They have no choice.

As karyn's post the other day noted - this will be Obama's war and Hillary's because she strengthened Gates' hand.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x159963#159977

or something smaller? It will be disappointing if Obama went with the hawks over Kerry and Biden. I wish I could make myself believe that there is a middle course that could work between the counter terrorism Biden strategy and the counterinsurgency McCrystal strategy - but I think MH's list is very clear and good. I think she also is 100% right in saying there is no good solution.

I think that if Obama chooses the counterinsurgency approach that Biden will have to toe the line (as we long ago assured ourselves that Hillary would), but, other than tying his best to try to make the diplomacy in Pakistan and Afghanistan itself, Kerry can't make a strategy work if the underlying assumptions are wrong. He has said repeatedly that he will do his job in providing oversight.

I have no idea what Senator Fullbright's relationship in the early 1960s was with Johnson, but he held hearings starting in 1966 that examined the US war policy. For Kerry, if he really feels the policy is wrong, it will be very tough to have hearings exposing the progress, when the President is someone that he more than any other person helped gain the Presidency. It also means that as soon as Kerry was not in the race, we really had no choice that would have taken most of us where we wanted on this.

I hope that is premature and Obama has not yet decided. I would assume that he had completely made up his mind, there would have been less urgency for Kerry to go to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

the cover he'll need. I have no doubt Obama asked him to HELP his decision succeed even though he disagrees with it.

I am prepared for the worst in that regard.

Kerry has spoken using terms and with a seriousness that approaches hat he said in 1971. Also, although he has made some statements that seem to mean that he thinks a full blown all Afghanistan approach backing a corrupt government is a bad idea as is a complete withdrawal, he has said that he is not completely fixed in his position and he has a lot of questions to ask. Now, if the decision is already made, it is not clear what the purpose of his trip is.

As to giving Obama cover, he really can't do that, nor can Biden. Neither have the ability to convince the left that that is a good idea. In addition, I think that he needs to be true to himself and to his own oath when he was sworn in as Senator. He is not in the administration and, if he disagrees he owes it to the soldiers to keep asking questions and do the oversight.

Kerry can't help a decision on what to do in Afghanistan succeed. If the strategy is flawed, nothing he can do as Senator can make it right. The generals are the right people to convert policy to tactics - not a Senator.

It may come down to Obama really being more hawkish than we thought. I think many of us suspected that when none of his security team were less hawkish than him - and many were considerably more hawkish. This might suggest that we incorrectly identified his position. The Clintons made this claim in the primaries, but at that point there, even if we believed it, there was nowhere to go - Edwards was not acceptable. Clinton lied on Obama's 2002 position, but it would have been hard to contest his charge that their 2008 positions were similar. We did have the clue when Obama spoke as he did on Kerry/Feingold.

then I pretty much expect that will happen, but, for Kerry (and Biden) with the ultimate goal of influencing an endgame.

I didn't exactly mean cover for the left - I meant more like cover in the senate and its wary contingent. Not to mention media which already noted both Biden and Kerry's caution.

he has too offer is his advise, which it is Obama's right to reject.

Kerry has said that he will disagree if he disagrees - he spoke of this at the health care town hall. In his response he mentioned that he would even with a President that he liked and who he helped elect. I think with the media he will describe what Obama selects in the most positive terms, but it would go against who he is if he stayed silent when he thought it was wrong. Especially if it is clear that he can not influence Obama.

the President decided because they were all participating in that decision.

Sigh. Something is going on with Kerry. He is not necessarily doing what his "gut" is telling him to do. The problem is he also highly values loyalty, which I think in time is going to be in direct conflict with his feelings on this war.

.

I think he might be saying that once the decision is made that they need to give it a chance. I really don't see him giving up his ability to question anything forever. The fact is that after Bush invaded Iraq, there was a Senate resolution that got 99 votes essentially supporting the troops in their efforts. (Byrd did not vote) Kennedy and Feingold voted for it.

There is a trade off between being a close adviser to the President and leading opposition. On foreign policy issues, if someone has any real influence on the President, the choosing the former could accomplish more. The real question will be if Kerry's influence is real. (Even that does not mean Obama will come down with Kerry in each case.) It is likely that you really can't do both.

and I won't forget it, it was Obama's Iraq vote, IMO. If they hold Kerry accountable for his vote then Obama should be held accountable for his, plain and simple.

Kerry accountable for the IWR. Getting into war is graver than getting out. And although the Rovian vote was extremely unfair, it is what it is.

I also was highly disappointed with Obama that day. Well, pretty much with everyone, save the 13 who voted for it.

Always has been, always will be. It is actually why he was elected (his reaction to the economic meltdown vs. McCain's). But there is a downside to caution. Sometimes you have to make a move. He probably is not willing to yet. Remember, he backed the K/F plan in Dec. '06 once the Iraq Study Group endorsed the approach. Suddenly, K/F was no longer radical.

I'm not defending Obama here. Just explaining what makes him tic.

And, let's face it: Kerry is more cautious than Feingold. Feingold is once again out front on this. But what he is calling for is fairly radical.

1. either didn't read it or,
2. more than likely, he was going to make what he thought was the politically correct vote and go along with the crowd who also called it a precipitous withdraw- when it was not.
I will alway hold this against him as well as his lying about never voting for the Iraq War, when in fact he never had the chance to.

my impression. And following 9/11, "muddling through" war has been the cautious approach. Following the military's lead, etc.

I guess I will wait for specifics as to what is going to happen.

Good discussion, though, guys.

when he has said he is leary of sending over additional troops. Senator Kerry is under no obligation to make the President look good. This make Kerry look foolish.

Like Iraq. Kerry came up with ways to withdraw that fit a strategy where there was still a military success for the US - he has to base his plans in the REALITY of the military layout that EXISTS.

Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He would have an independent voice and did not have to carry the President's water. Biden on the other hand seems obligated to support it as VP.

once Obama goes all in he will need Kerry and Biden even more, especially since they disagree.

It is possible to say be both honest in speaking of your concerns and giving the best advice he can on future issues that will come up here. I would imagine that this would be especially true of those that involve the diplomatic piece - which is very important if this is to succeed. It is also possible that the plan will be closer to something Kerry does agree with. It may be that his position is couterterrorism plus rather than Biden's counterterrorism (where Biden may want more too).

In addition, in addition to the troops, the UK seems to have committed to some reconstruction there. In the hearings, Kerry has seemed to indicate that something more than just the counterterrorism is needed - as more terrorists will continue to breed. In one hearing - and I need to look back to see which one - Kerry's questioned whether the rebuilding could be done in parallel by the allies. This might be a counterterrorism plus, that differentiates between AQ and the Taliban.

Any attempt of Senator Kerry to back Obama in this way will be seen as support for the move. The only way he could assist the president would be to go against his better judgment and what he believes is right. If this is what he will do, than he should have been SOS. I thought Congress was to be and independent voice- a checks and balances to executive authority. If no one is challenging the president, but only supports and cheers him on, than the Democratic Congress is no better than the Republican Congress was when they supported and cheered President Bush on as he lead us into the Iraq War.
If Senator Kerry does not support the President's policy ideas for Afghanistan than he should be an outspoken voice in opposition.

and the US Congress is not the White House. The Senator's job is to get legislation through the Congress. This means constructing a web of common interest with other Senators allowing bills to progress, with the knowledge that Sen. Kerry doesn't get everything he wants out of that process or that resulting legislation. (Kerry got the Pakistani money thru, now he has to deal with the headaches of *how* that money got through and convince the Pakistanis to take it, even with the strings. That is his job, like it or not.)

We saw this with the historic partnership with Sen. Graham to get something through on climate change. Kerry "gave up" his misgivings on offshore drilling in order to get support on the overall goals of climate change. That is how the legislative process works.

This is what people were celebrating about Ted Kennedy's career, not too long ago. Teddy was a master of the craft of making legislative deals. Well, congrats to John Kerry -- the reward is doing all that very difficult work of making deals and getting things you want, but also having to give some things up. He is now, very definitely, one of the "grown-ups" of the Senate and someone who can make things happen.

Any deal to leave Afghanistan will involve, conversely, sending in troops to secure areas in order to be able to leave. Watch what is said on this and how it is said. Things are not as they appear on the surface. Afghanistan is also part of a much greater conflict. Russia is playing into this, there are side bets going on about energy and the natural gas pipeline and distribution, China wants their pound of flesh out of this and a lot of other things. It is about "loyalty" to Obama, but there are more "ends" than that simple statement implies. Look at the whole region, look at all the players, look at the money involved and the future projects and try and project what the players want out of this. John Kerry is a master of this type of assessment. He is playing a very complicated role here in a hugely complicated game. "Loyalty" is but a small piece of it.

(Remember, China and Russia have seen destabilizing fundamentalist groups in their territories. Russia has a huge region with predominantly Muslim residents and Al Qaeda plays there too. Same for China. What does this mean? How will it affects Afghanistan? The Middle East? Israel? Is it in the interests of those countries to get something done about the terrorist groups in their countries? etc. What is going on with India, post-Mumbai?)

So are we to assume that if Obama supports adding 40,000 + more troops that Kerry will back the president even though it might not be the right decision for our country? It seems you post alludes to everything being about politics. And, that the once independent voice of Senator Kerry will become one of compromise only. Of course, there are always times and places for compromise, but if I recall, Senator Kennedy never compromised on Iraq, he called that he proudest vote. There are times when compromise is not in order.

The vote was a straight up assessment of whether or not to go to war. Sen. Kennedy voted based on what he heard in Armed Services and his own assessment of Iraq and WMD and the Bush Admin.

Sen. Kerry is now charged with carrying out his duties as Chair of SFRC. That is an inherently political job. What he is doing right now is inherently and inseparately political in the sense that he is reconciling or seeking to reconcile opposing factions. Were this a vote, the good Senator could come out on a side and that would not involve compromise, but this is not a vote, it's diplomacy, which is a very, very political act. (Talking is the essence of politics.)

When former Pres Bush decided to go with the surge troops, Sen. Kerry expressed his displeasure with that decision, but, as a US Senator, he backed the policy of the US. He would do that for this President as well and he can continue to express displeasure with the policy. (He can do both.)

The compromises involved here are for diplomacy, politics in action, not just in deliberation. I fully expect a hybrid decision to come out of Sen. Kerry's trip. I also suspect that he is working with the Obama WH on whatever he says, as he should. I think that the way this is playing out, Sen. Kerry is saying things that Pres. Obama cannot, conveying indirect messages and furthering the goals that both Obama and Kerry share. I don't see this as a zero sum game where there is an Obama side and a Kerry side. I see some trial balloons being launched here, I see Sen. Kerry having the freedom to bring up ideas that Obama can't and the courage to take the heat for doing that and a lot of other things going on. It is all part of the diplomacy of getting a policy with Afghanistan that is in the interest of the US and, hopefully, Afghanistan.

...explanation of diplomacy and the bigger picture.

Especially when there is a news media that wants things to be antagonistic. The media tends to put things into a "fight" focus, which I don't think is the case now or the long-term case. Clearly both the President and the Chairman are trying very hard to understand what is going on in Afghanistan. The President's job is to make a decision on troop strength and to listen to his commanders on the ground and other sources to make that assessment. (Well, we know who some of the "other sources" are, right ;) )

Sen. Kerry has not had to compromise principle on Afghanistan. He is doing his job right now. He is bringing his skill, experience and insight to bear on problems under the legal purview of his SFR Committee. That includes a "field inspection" to gather oversight information. Part of that oversight information led him to say that he doesn't think that Afghanistan is ready for more troops because they are not being truthful and honest in providing a government, didn't run a fair election and so forth. So far, the verdict, from the point of view of the Senator, is that more troops are not warranted until (and if) Karzai gets his act together and starts to form a credible govt which has the safety of the Afghan people as it's principle concern. Americans can't be seen as supporting a regime that is corrupt. It has a negative effect on everything we are doing in that country and a negative impact on our troop presence.

The President will take this information into account when he does his job. (Chair of SFRC and POTUS are not the same job.) It is decidedly not John Kerry's job to sugarcoat what he sees in foreign policy. It would be bad in a pandering unhealthy political sense if the Senator hid what he saw and didn't express his views. I have confidence in both the Senator and in the President that their separate Constitutional interests will reconcile and work together for our good and the good of our policy in Afghanistan and other countries. This is as the process should be, and should have been under Bush, but was not. We should not be afraid of healthy debate or dissent. Contrary to the idiocy in the media presentation, this is a very, very, very good thing for our democracy.

...and more confident that our government (the Obama Administration) will competently handle foreign policy:

"It would be bad in a pandering unhealthy political sense if the Senator hid what he saw and didn't express his views."

We've just endured eight years of that under GWB. They shut down debate...expected everyone to follow talking points instead of telling their truth. It WAS pandering, and unhealthy for our country and democracy. I think we are lucky to have survived it. And I VERY MUCH appreciate what Kerry, Obama and Biden are working to accomplish.

If this could happen, it would improve things in Afghanistan. (It appears many NATO countries are pushing this.)

"France's prime minister, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad (ZAHL'-may kah-LEEL'-zahd) and U.S. Sen. John Kerry are in Kabul today. A U.S. Embassy official says Kerry has been urging both candidates to reach a "legitimate" end to the crisis."
http://www.9and10news.com/category/story/?id=177591

Here is what he is reportedly going to do in Pakistan:

"Senator John Kerry, the lawmaker of Kerry-Lugar Bill will arrive in Pakistan on a two-day visit on Sunday.

According to sources at foreign ministry, congressman Kerry will discuss matters about Kerry Lugar bill with the top leadership of the country.

The sources also said that Senator John Kerry will be accompanied by senior US officials who will analyze the proposed schemes to be funded with the US aid coming to Pakistan under Kerry–Lugar bill."


http://www.asianews.com.pk/11855/senator-kerry-to-arrive-in-pakistan-on-sunday.html

1. Resolve the problems with the crooked election in Afghanistan. Get something legitimate out of that mess and move forward on stabilizing the govt. We get a "good enough" govt, we get one step closer to being able to get conditions under which we can begin a drawdown in Afghanistan.

2. Warn the crap out of Karzai, behind the scenes of course, that the US has lost trust and patience with him. His Administration looks like a collection of shake-down artists, thieves and cruel hoodlums. Get it together or else. The US is "shoveling sand against the wind" to continue to expend blood, treasure and resources to prop up a thug regime that has lost the faith of it's people and that impedes progress. Get your act together or prepare to go it alone, Karzai.

3. The mission for the US is to prevent terrorist groups from being able to forment plans to incite violence and destabilize other govts through intimidation. We are not there to prop up Karzai, or his pals. We will "cut the fat" soon from our involvement in that region. Karzai and his drug-warlord govt better get their act together because we are tired of propping him up and getting nothing in return.

4. Pakistan: Get over it. Or do without the money. Pakistan has been doing a better job. They did largely evict the Taliban from the Swat Valley. Great. Take this money we are offering, use it to stabilizing your economy and create education jobs and so forth. Stop bitching about it. And, btw, the restrictions on the use of the money are there because some of the money we have sent you eventually went to Taliban friendly forces in the Pak govt. Reign in the ISI more. We know that you are playing both sides here. India knows as well. You can't cry about the US treating you like children while you act like children. Deal with the ISI and their desire to use the Taliban as a hedge against India. Or else.


EDIT: Just saw that part of the interview is being excerpted already: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8705716

JK is telling Afghanistan to get it together or else. We cannot be seen as propping up a fake corrupt govt. Shape up or face the consequences. (And this is loyalty, and a game of "good cop, bad cop" with JK as bad cop and so much more. There is much more involved in this than just the USA.)

If this is what Kerry is saying - and saying it in person - this is great. We can't let Karzai and Pakistan "run" us. Pakistan has a right to say that they are a sovereign country, but so do we. As you said, reports show that only a small portion of the money given this decade went to the purposes intended. We have a right to dictate what our aid does and they have the option to decide to take it or not.

My guess is that controversy was really just a refection of internal politics. The military is concerned that they are losing power and it is clear they are stirring up anger. The intent seems primarily to hurt their government by tying it to the US and saying we want to interfere. It will be interesting to see the reception that Kerry actually gets. I can't wait till he is back in the Senate - even with Inhofe.

It does sound like he is more convinced about Afghanistan's goverance missing the mark on being "good".

I think sometimes that we get drenched in a right-wing interpretation of what the metaphors "hawk" and "dove" mean. Sen. Kerry is categorized as a "dove," yet that doesn't mean he wants to lay down all arms and back away. That is not his style or his history.

I can't find the reference right now, but I remember reading about what the Senator said he would have done had he been elected Pres. He would have gone into 2005 with a very strong position on Iraq that would have signalled his intent to begin troop withdrawals quickly. This was intended to make our allies wake up and realize that the US had no intention of shouldering all burdens alone. Sometimes you have to engage in tough negotiations and use all the vast power of the US diplomatic and military effort in order to make a point with other nations. (And we are still a vast power. We need people around who understand all of what that means and all the implications. A true master diplomat knows when to apply the carrot as well as the stick, hawk or dove.)

President Obama does need negotiating room, the type of room a Senior Senator does not need. I do believe that the good Senator is very free to be a very good and forceful "dove" who can make the kind of implied actions that would get parties to negotiate. (Smart people know the players, know what they want, know who they like and dislike and what their needs are and play on that. That is how it is done.) Hamid Karzai is trying to pretend that he holds all the cards and has the US in a sort of chokehold right now of him or the Taliban. Not so. There are other forces and players that can be brought to bear, other actions, including withdrawal, that can be used. We are not tied to Karzai, we are tied to the concept of an improved govt in Afghanistan. There is a difference. And the forces that have something to fear from a collapsed state in Afghanistan are greater than just the US and some people remember that. (God, "doves" are not weak, and some "doves" are pretty damn smart and understand what leveraging our power and diplomacy mean.)

I think this is what our esteemed Sen. is doing. It is his history, after all.

ran ahead of the decision thinking they controlled the debate. Maybe they did in the media and in the situation room, but, it appears Obama, Biden and Kerry are still working on another level.

...to do. :7 Thank God for Kerry, Obama and Biden. :patriot:

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4107957

Sourced to McClatchy: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/77351.html And here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6879515.ece

I also heard in the news last night that his main opponent is open to some form of power sharing or an important place in the government.

US Senator John Kerry (left) talking with US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry at the US Embassy in Kabul on October 17. Kerry says it is "irresponsible" to send more US troops to Afghanistan at this time, amid a deepening election crisis that has placed the Kabul government's legitimacy at stake.

How disprectful. And, this also left this question and another on domestic issues unanswered.

But JK OWNED that interview. The interviewer looked like a graceless ass, especially with his snide question at the end and then cutting off the answer in the middle. JK was thorough and clear in his answers on Afghanistan.

He had two more questions to answer and he cut him right off. They knew going into the interview-because it was taped- how long it was going to be. King came off as an ass.

Obviously, they did not have time to show the entire interview. They omitted the two additional questions in the second showing and added the thank you. These changes came off a lot better.

Hope they have a video on the web of this later portion.

On my schedule, it says there may be repeats starting here around 1 am.

I guess they just ran out of time.

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-sen-kerry-on-state-of-the-union/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/18/794630/-Rahm:-No-Imminent-Escalation-In-Afghanistan!#c134

A Clintonista is arguing in the thread that there is no difference between Clinton & Kerry. Hmmm. Kind of wishful thinking.