John Kerry on Save the Internet: Stopping the Big Giveaway

As the battle for net neutrality heats up, John Kerry posted today on the SavetheInternet.com blog, about the vote on the issue Wednesday in the Senate Commerce Committee.

Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry

Editor’s Note: The following is a guest blog for SavetheInternet.com by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.):

On Wednesday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesn’t get the job done.

It looks like that’s the fight we’re going to have.

The Commerce Committee voted on net neutrality and it failed on an 11-11 tie. This vote was a gift to cable and telephone companies, and a slap in the face of every Internet user and consumer.

It will not stand.

I voted against this lousy bill for two reasons: because net neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society, and both were pushed aside by the Republicans.

Everyone says they don’t want the new world we’re living in to be marked by the digital divide — the term is so clichéd it’s turned to mush — but yesterday was a test of who is willing to ask corporate America to do anything to fix it, and the Commerce Committee failed miserably. Why are United States Senators afraid to say that companies should be expected to foster growth by building out their broadband networks to increase access?

Free and open access to the internet is something all Americans should enjoy, regardless of what financial means they’re born into or where they live. It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate is going let a handful of companies hold internet access hostage by legalizing the cherry-picking of cable service providers and new entrants. That is a dynamic that would leave some communities with inferior service, higher cable rates, and even the loss of service. Not to mention inadequate internet service — in the age of the information.

This bill was passed in committee over our objections. Now we need to fight to either fix it or kill it in the full Senate. Senator Wyden has already drawn a line in the sand — putting a “hold” on the bill, which prevents it from going forward for now. But there will be a day of reckoning on this legislation soon, make no mistake about it, and we need you to get engaged — pressure your Senators, follow the issue, demand net neutrality and build-out.

If you haven't signed the petition at SavetheInternet.com, it's time to do so now!

John Kerry on Bill O'Reilly's 'No Spin Zone'

John Kerry was on Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" last night. Considering the "spin" that O'Reilly is famous for, it was a good interview. Last month O"Reilly noted in the Boston Herald that he sees Kerry as a viable candidate in '08.

Fox News notes that the "partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," June 29, 2006, that has been edited for clarity"...

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has been serving on the Hill for 22 years. He came within a whisper, as you know, of becoming president. And I think he's going to run again.

During the last campaign, however, the senator would not talk with us. But now, things have changed. I spoke with him yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

O'REILLY: All right, before we start the interview, I wish we could have done this in the campaign. You know, we kept waiting for you to come and...

KERRY: We should have done it. We should have.

O'REILLY: You think so?

KERRY: I would love to have.

O'REILLY: In hindsight, you should have.

KERRY: No, I don't know why we didn't, but we should have.

O'REILLY: OK, because some people said well, he doesn't like you, he doesn't think you're going to get a fair shot on the program.

KERRY: I've always had a fair shot.

O'REILLY: The New York Times, we have some Republicans calling for action against them. Maybe the attorney general will start an investigation into the leaks. What do you think?

MORE

Audio of John Kerry's Speech at Faneuil Hall: Three New Bold Ideas for Energy Independence and Global Climate Change

John Kerry's speech today on energy independence is making it's way through the news this afternoon.

Audio of John Kerry's speech on Energy Independence is available here.

Environmental Leaders Praise Kerry Plan on Climate Change, Energy Independence

In a speech at Boston's Faneuil Hall today, John Kerry outlined a new Energy and Climate Change Plan. Glen Johnson, reports for AP News, that "Some of the themes reprised those the Massachusetts Democrat outlined" during his 2004 presidential campaign. "But the fresh ideas and pointed rhetoric" Johnson said, "highlighted how Kerry both believes they have come of age, and that he plans to pursue them as he considers another White House campaign in 2008."

He labeled the energy bill he will file this week as "the most far-reaching proposal in our history." In 43-minute speech before a cheering hometown crowd at historic Faneuil Hall, he added: "Nothing else will protect our security and our world, if you believe the science."

Leading environmentalists have weighed in on John Kerry’s Energy and Climate Change Plan introduced today. Here a look at what they are saying:

Continue reading here.

John Kerry: Three New Bold Ideas for Energy Independence and Global Climate Change

John Kerry introduced a bold new plan to achieve energy independence and combat global climate change, today, in a speech at Boston's Faneuil Hall. Kerry’s plan challenges America to accept three big ideas to win energy independence and meet the ten year challenge of combating global climate change.

A fact sheet on the Kerry Energy Plan is attached.



Below are Kerry’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

Our Energy Challenge
Senator John Kerry
June 26, 2006
Faneuil Hall, Boston, Massachusetts

Here in Faneuil Hall, America’s first great gathering ground of free speech and dissent, we came together two months ago and nearly two and a half centuries after the voices of patriots were first heard within these walls.

We came together to affirm that the patriotism of 2006, no less than the patriotism of 1776, demands that we speak truth to power – that for love of country, we must end a war in Iraq that kills too many of our sons and daughters, betraying both our national interests and our ideals.

Last week, in the Senate, we stood against appeals to politics and pride and demanded a date to bring our troops home. We did that because that’s the way you get Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and fight a more effective war on terror.

We defied the White House tactics of fear and smear. Presidents and Republican politicians may be concerned about losing votes or losing face or losing legacies. We told the truth because we are more concerned about young Americans and Iraqi civilians losing their lives. And I guarantee you, our success would bring less loss of life, less expenditure of dollars, and it would make America safer.

I say “we” because even though our resolution only won 13 votes this time, I know every minute of the debate you were there with us -- there with Russ Feingold, there with Ted Kennedy and there with us as we voted our beliefs and yours – that a policy based on deception and filled with blunders is no excuse for its own perpetuation.

But while we lost that roll call, I guarantee we will win the judgment of history because Washington is wrong and Americans are right, and we must set a new course in Iraq.

Continue reading Kerry's speech here.

Republicans Playing Politics with Iraq

Bob Herbert writes about how the Republicans are Playing Politics with Iraq:

If hell didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it. We’d need a place to send the public officials who are playing politics with the lives of the men and women sent off to fight George W. Bush’s calamitous war in Iraq.

The administration and its allies have been mercilessly bashing Democrats who argued that the U.S. should begin developing a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. Republicans stood up on the Senate floor last week, one after another, to chant like cultists from the Karl Rove playbook: We’re tough. You’re not. Cut-and-run. Nyah-nyah-nyah!

“Withdrawal is not an option,” declared the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, who sounded like an actor trying on personas that ranged from Barry Goldwater to General Patton. “Surrender,” said the bellicose Mr. Frist, “is not a solution.”

Any talk about bringing home the troops, in the Senate majority leader’s view, was “dangerous, reckless and shameless.”

But then on Sunday we learned that the president’s own point man in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, had fashioned the very thing that ol’ blood-and-guts Frist and his C-Span brigade had ranted against: a withdrawal plan.

Are Karl Rove and his liege lord, the bait-and-switch king, trying to have it both ways? You bet. And that ought to be a crime, because there are real lives at stake.

The first significant cut under General Casey’s plan, according to an article by Michael Gordon in yesterday’s Times, would occur in September. That, of course, would be perfect timing for Republicans campaigning for re-election in November. How’s that for a coincidence?

It’s no surprise that the Republicans are playing politics with Iraq considering that playing politics is also the way they decided to respond to the 9/11 attacks. The Washington Post also reports on how Democrats are angry that “the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.”

Granholm Goes on the Attack

The Detroit Free Press reports that “Granholm goes on the attack.”

Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s re-election campaign is launching a more aggressive theme to rally worried supporters and subtly reinforce Democratic claims that Republican challenger Dick DeVos contributed to the loss of Michigan jobs.

A new slogan — “Fight Back — Put Michigan First” — is a grassroots organizing label that will promote the notion that DeVos sent his company’s jobs to China when he was president of Ada-based Amway Corp. in the 1990s, according to Granholm’s campaign leaders.

So far Dick DeVos has benefit from using his family fortune to buy television ads, but some ads for Granholm are expected to beginning:

Meanwhile, the Michigan Democratic Party has begun airing a new TV ad touting Granholm’s effort to keep jobs in the state, and blaming President George W. Bush’s trade policies for Michigan’s economy.

Edelson said the Granholm campaign, which is attracting donors from around the country, plans to ratchet up fund-raising over the Internet.

Last week, Granholm’s husband, Dan Mulhern, e-mailed a campaign fund-raising notice to supporters titled, “What’s Jennifer Waiting For?” It explained that the campaign must hold back its advertising money until closer to the Nov. 7 election.

“We are asking you to think of giving twice or three times as much as you have ever considered donating,” Mulhern’s e-mail implores.

The Granholm for Governor site is here.

Everyone’s Writing About the Blogs

I think it’s a combination of pack journalism and the lull before the 2006 election gets under way, but it seems everyone is writing about the bloggers. (Kevin Drum notices the same thing). I’ve already noted that David Brooks has a column on Kos, and TNR has been blogging about them the last few days (here and here). Of course the mainstream media stories on Armstrong and Kos first began in the New York Times.

We also have Newsweek writing on Hugh Hewitt on the right as well as Kos on the left. Can’t some writers break from the pack mentality for a moment and look at the liberal blogosphere beyond Daily Kos? Newsweek was somewhat negative on Kos, and David Broder was even more negative on the liberal blogosphere in the Washington Post. At least Broder does go beyond Kos and Armstrong, even having some favorable comments on Democracy: A Journal of Ideas and The Democratic Strategist. Even when discussion of the liberal blogosphere in the mainstream media is negative, such coverage does suggest that we are making an impact. A broader look at the liberal blogoshere, rather than stopping at Daily Kos, is also more likely to lead to a favorable impression as we saw with David Broder.

John Kerry on the Casey Plan for Iraq Redeployment, the Maliki Timetable -- "We Were Right"

The Iraqi Prime Minister unveiled a unity program today, which includes a timeline for American troops to withdraw from Iraq. Earlier I reported on the news that Gen. George W. Casey Jr. has "drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September>

John Kerry issued a statement a short time ago on both the Casey plan for troop withdrawal and the Maliki timetable, noting that the "news reminds us again that we were right":

"The Republican attack dogs have some explaining to do and our troops deserve answers. Last week Republicans on Capitol Hill blanketed the airwaves attacking proposals for deadlines and timetables in Iraq.

But as Republicans attacked with rhetoric rather than attack the Iraq quagmire itself, the new Iraqi government was considering timetables for most American combat troops to leave, and our top military commander in Iraq was outlining plans to do exactly that. The same general who told Congress last fall that the large American troop presence delays the Iraqis standing up for themselves has now put forward a plan for us to stand down, and Administration officials leaked it to the nation's newspapers.

These plans look an awful lot like what the Republicans spent the last week attacking. Will the partisan attack dogs now turn their venom and disinformation campaign on General Casey? What will the Republican Congress say to Prime Minister Maliki? Will they label them the 'cut and run' military and the 'cut and jog' Iraqi government? Enough is enough.

I'm proud that Democrats insisted on a real Iraq debate last week, and this weekend’s news reminds us again that we were right. It's time to redeploy. It's time for realistic timetables rather than open-ended commitments. In fact, deadlines help get the job done in Iraq while Republican slogans are only designed to get the job done in November here at home.

No more slogans, no more hollow partisan attacks, no more questioning the patriotism of those who speak out. We owe our troops a policy, not a partisan slogan."

Kerry is right - "Enough is enough." From the Republican stand point, when the Democrats call for withdrawal of the troops it's "cut and run," let's see them stand up and have the audacity to "label them [Pentagon] the 'cut and run' military."

We can't say it enough... The Republican party is the party of the Hypocrites.

John Kerry to Address Energy Independence, Environment, Climate Change Solutions on Monday

John Kerry will deliver a major speech on energy independence, the environment, and global climate change at Faneuil Hall in Boston, MA on Monday, June 26, 2006 at 11:30 am.

Kerry will address the urgent need to break our dependence on foreign oil, address the growing threat of global climate change, and establish a real energy policy.

John Kerry on the Kerry-Feingold Proposal

Just hours ago, the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold proposal to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. Thirteen Senators voted for it.

It was an important step towards ending the administration’s aimless, open-ended course in Iraq and having Iraqis stand up for Iraq.

When Jack Murtha stepped up to the challenge of leadership in the House on Iraq, he was alone. Last week, 140 House members voted to support his leadership.

When we in the Senate began the fight to change course in Iraq, we too were almost alone. Today our numbers grew — and that is progress you made happen.

First and foremost, Russ and I thank you for your support. Over the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands of you have joined our effort to bring our combat troops home. Once again, the johnkerry.com community has shown its deep commitment to fighting for a better course for America.

We ask you to join us now in honoring the strength and leadership of the Senators who stood with you:

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Please call, write, or email these Senators and acknowledge their leadership on Iraq.

Let me be absolutely clear. Russ Feingold and I would have forced this vote even if the outcome were going to be 98 to 2. Ending the Bush administration’s disastrous approach to this war isn’t about counting votes. It isn’t about legislative strategy or electoral calculation. It’s about applying constant pressure to change a broken course.

It’s about utterly rejecting the desperate tactics of cowardly political operatives like Karl Rove who, as John Murtha pointed out, have no qualms about telling our soldiers to “stay the course” from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices at the White House.

It’s about doing what’s right.

Karl Rove may worry about losing votes. It’s our job to worry about young Americans losing their lives. It’s our job to provide a new vision that offers real security for America while giving the Iraqis their best chance for a stable Iraq.

I will keep doing what’s right on Iraq, and I won’t stop until our troops are home and the future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people.

I know you’ll keep working right alongside me.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

John Kerry and Russ Feingold to Offer Amendment with Deadline to Redeploy U.S. Combat Troops From Iraq

As various plans from Democrats are being reported in the news today, The Democratic Daily has received word that tomorrow, Senators John Kerry, Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer will offer an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that sets a deadline of July 1, 2007, for U.S. troops to be redeployed out of Iraq. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen U.S. national security and increase the Iraqis’ ability to establish stability throughout their country.

Below is a joint statement from John Kerry and Russ Feingold:

“For three years, Congress has played political games while the war in Iraq has gone on unchecked and unending. With the administration’s failure to offer a coherent or effective strategy in Iraq, it is long past time for Congress to offer a plan to redeploy our troops so we can give Iraq its best chance at stability, and refocus on al Qaeda and the terrorist networks that threaten the security of all Americans.

“We must redeploy to succeed – and we will put this national security imperative to a test in the United States Senate this week. We need a deadline for the redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. A deadline gives Iraqis the best chance for stability and self-government, and most importantly, it allows us to begin refocusing on the true threats that face our country.

“Our amendment recognizes the need to keep an over-the-horizon military presence in the Middle East to fight al Qaeda and its affiliates and protect regional security interests. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. facilities and personnel should remain inside Iraq. The president also must move immediately to work with the Iraqis to convene a summit of Iraq’s neighbors and the international community to forge a lasting political settlement to give all Iraqis a stake in the new Iraq.

“A strong national security policy begins with recognizing that our massive presence in Iraq weakens our security and gives Iraqi politicians a crutch to avoid creating stability in their country. As long as 130,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq indefinitely, that country will remain what a series of mistakes have made it -- a crucible for the recruitment and development of terrorists determined to fight Americans and an obstacle to an Iraqi government capable of governing and securing its country. Our troops have done their job in Iraq. It is time to redeploy – to help increase stability in Iraq, and more importantly, to strengthen the national security of the United States.”

The goal of the Kerry-Feingold plan is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing a political settlement and the redeployment of American forces. Their plan calls requires:

-- The redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007.

-- Only U.S. troops essential to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities would remain. President Bush has repeatedly said that when Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. However, that has not been happening. So far, the Iraqis have trained 265,600 security forces – just 7,000 shy of the Bush administration’s stated goal of 272,566. Yet just a few weeks ago, the Pentagon announced that they are sending 3,500 additional U.S. troops from Kuwait to Iraq.

-- The United States to maintain an over-the-horizon military presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

-- The President to work with the new Iraqi government to convene a summit that includes those leaders, the leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to reach a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance and border security.

-- The Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on how U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

RELATED POSTS:
-- Feinstein and Dodd: Iraq — Time to Change the Mission
-- John Kerry has “Real Courage in Setting an Iraq Strategy”
-- Senate Democrats Want Vote on Iraq Withdrawal Plan

Veterans are Kerrys' Guests on Nantucket

A quip in the A&E section of the Boston Globe reports, that "Just days after Senator John Kerry made headlines by calling for a deadline for pulling US troops out of Iraq, he and his wife, Teresa, opened the guest house of their Nantucket compound to some antiwar veterans who are featured in the documentary "The Ground Truth," which was part of the Nantucket Film Festival."

Perry O'Brien and Kelly Dougherty, who are both in the movie, and O'Brien's friend Daniel Paulson, a vet who is not in the film but has also become an anti war activist, attended a sold-out screening early in the festival. "People had a lot of questions about what they could do to become involved," said Dougherty, a former medic and military police officer. The documentary, by Patricia Foulkrod, screened again last night before the festival's close. With the senator expected on the island to spend Father's Day with family, the vets said they hoped Kerry might attend. O'Brien, a medic who was discharged as a conscientious objector, said: "I'd really like to meet him."

Find out more about "The Ground Truth" here.

John Kerry has "Real Courage in Setting an Iraq Strategy"

As the Senate Democrats prepare to "call for phased pullout" on Iraq this week, comes a Letter to the Editor from former Senator Gary Hart, about John Kerry's "real courage in proposing a realistic plan to extricate our troops" from Iraq.

Real Courage in Setting an Iraq Strategy
Monday, June 19, 2006

The Post applauded President Bush's courage in continuing an open-ended commitment to an American military presence in Iraq and disparaged what it termed political expediency on the part of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in calling for a reasonable timetable for phased withdrawal of our forces ["A Boost From Mr. Bush," editorial, June 14].

Mr. Bush's political capital is waning because he misled Congress and the American people, because we have experienced 21,000 American casualties as a result, because a mere 23 percent of the world's people respect our nation, because he has no strategy worth the title, and because he is responsible for a military and foreign policy disaster. To "stay" an undefined and unlimited "course" may demonstrate many things but it does not demonstrate courage.

Having acknowledged the error in trusting Mr. Bush's arguments for war, Mr. Kerry has demonstrated the real courage in proposing a realistic plan to extricate our troops from a nation whose people no longer want us there and which is now capable of achieving democracy on its own.

GARY HART
Kittredge, Colo.
The writer, a Democrat, was a U.S. senator from Colorado from 1975 to 1986.

John Kerry, was a leader on the call for withdrawal from Iraq last fall when he first said at Georgetown University, on October 26, "To undermine the [Iraqi] insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks."

The Boston Globe reports that a "resolution, crafted by Democratic Senators Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Carl Levin of Michigan," will also be entered into the second week of debate in Congress "over the state of the war."

John Kerry, (as I have reported here and here) "will press ahead this week with his separate amendment to pull virtually all US troops out of Iraq by the end of the year," said his spokeswoman, April Boyd.

Kerry's binding amendment to a Department of Defense authorization bill garnered six votes when it came up last week, but Boyd said the senator hopes to put pressure on the administration to come up with an exit strategy.

"We're not getting into whip counts" of how many senators will vote for Kerry's amendment, she said. "This is about saying we need to set a date and we need to withdraw ."

Senate Democrats Want Vote on Iraq Withdrawal Plan

Reuters reports that Senate "Democrats plan to offer a resolution in the Senate on Tuesday seeking a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq."

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on Sunday in an interview on CNN, "Three years and three months into the war, with all of the losses, the insurgency, the burgeoning civil war that's taking place, an open-ended time commitment is no longer sustainable. We want to see an end to this thing. We want to transition the mission. That isn't cutting and running."

"I don't know why we are so afraid to stand up and say, 'look, we want to see an end to this thing'," she said.

Feinstein argued an open-ended deployment was unsustainable for the U.S. military, which needed to be free to deal with growing problems in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

There are approximately 129,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and the military death toll since the 2003 invasion reached 2,500 last week. Administration officials have said they would like to withdraw some troops before November's midterm if conditions on the ground permit it, which could ease pressure on Republicans in their battle to retain control of Congress.

Reuters also noted the Senate vote at the end of last week claiming that it was "offered by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. " The fact is, as reported by previous coverage in the MSM, that the vote was on a resolution that Senator Mitch McConnell put up, lifting the wording from Kerry's earlier resolution. As I reported here (and so too, did the MSM), it was decided on Thursday that there would be a debate on Kerry's plan this coming week.

Kerry spokeswoman, April Boyd said that Kerry "was angry that Republicans put to a vote his amendment, which was still being crafted and would work with colleagues this week on his amendment plans."

"John Kerry has been calling for a clear deadline for withdrawal and will not take the heat off the Iraqi leaders to do their job and stand up for their own country," she said.

MORE

The American Prospect debunks a couple of Republican talking points which the Washington Post repeated without correction. One involves John Kerry:

REPUBLICAN FALSEHOODS GO UNCORRECTED IN WASHINGTON POST. Today’s Washington Post piece on yesterday’s congressional debates about Iraq floated two key GOP falsehoods without debunking them. The first:

“I’m not surprised at John Kerry switching his position yet again,” [Dick] Cheney said on Sean Hannity’s radio talk show. Kerry is charging “that somehow he was misled,” the vice president said. “He wasn’t misled. He saw the same intelligence all the rest of us saw.” (Emphasis added.)

Lies, lies, lies. The falsehood that the President and Congress had access to the same intel in the runup to Iraq has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. Yet the administration has continued to peddle this line for years. And here it is again, quoted in the Post, with not a single word providing this crucial context or noting that it is simply false.

Free Press Reports on Dick DeVos’s Far Right Wing Views

The Detroit Free Press looks at the race between Jennifer Granholm and Dick DeVos for Governor of Michigan, noting DeVos’s history of contributing to far right wing organization, including the religious right. DeVos’s family made their fortune from multilevel marketing at Amway by means which amount to a legal pyramid scheme which enriches those at the top while the vast majority make minimal amounts–hardly the business model to revive Michigan’s economy. As DeVos has not divulged his financial information we are forced to go by estimates. According to the Free Press, “Estimates of his net worth start in the $500-million range, but no public figure is available. His father has an estimated net worth of more than $3 billion, according to Forbes Magazine’s latest list of America’s richest people.”

In reviewing DeVos’s record spending on television ads, the Free Press notes the contradictions between how DeVos portrays himself and reality. “DeVos’ TV image shows a nonpolitical successful businessman. In fact, he and his family have been among the nation’s biggest donors to Republican and religious-conservative causes — a partisan generosity that could both reap returns for Dick DeVos’ candidacy and make him a very large target for Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s reelection team.”

The Free Press looks further at the organizations DeVos has contributed to:

The DeVoses have supported such right-wing advocates as the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Council for National Policy and the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and Michigan Right to Life.

The organizations promote conservative economic and social agendas: free trade and less government regulation, school choice including vouchers, the infusion of Christian beliefs into public life and opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

Granholm spokesman Chris DeWitt commented on DeVos’s far right wing views:

“Dick DeVos is so far to the right it would make Rush Limbaugh blush,” DeWitt said. “He has supported groups that oppose all abortions, oppose stem cell research, oppose affirmative action, support outsourcing and unfair trade agreements, school vouchers, worked against the environment.

“The DeVos camp has gone out of its way to avoid answering any questions. What they can’t hide is the fact that DeVos’ actions in support of these groups speak very loudly.”

Conservatives Recycle Same Spin To Hide Lies on War

My, how CBS has fallen, but the right wing media stays the same. CBS’s web site includes an article from National Review which recycles the same old, and dishonest, right wing talking points on the war. They continue to try to hide the dishonesty of the Bush Administration behind false claims of flip flopping by their opponents.

In trying to deny the fact that Bush misled the country into war, they misrepresent Kerry’s position in writing, “Senator Kerry, at least if I remember correctly, voted for the joint congressional resolution of October 11, 2002, authorizing a war against Iraq, on the basis of all these and several other casus belli, well apart from fear of WMDs.” Once they misrepresent Kerry’s position it is easy to claim he flip flopped by simply showing that this does not match other statements from John Kerry. Of course there is no reason Kerry’s real statements on the war should match distorted statements presented by the right wing media.

If John Kerry’s opinion from October 2002 is suddenly the new gold standard as to what we should have done, let’s look at what Kerry really advocated in his Senate floor speech:

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days–to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent–and I emphasize “imminent”–threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

In this, and other portions of his statement (as well as in articles written by John Kerry at the time) Kerry made it clear that we should only go to war as part of an international force (unless we faced an imminent threat which required immediate response), and that we should only go to war as a last resort if proven to be threatened by WMD. He argued we should only go to war to disarm Saddam if proven to be threatened, and not for regime change or nation building. None of this is what has occurred.

Kerry also voted for the IWR under false pretenses. This included both the distortions of the intelligence regarding WMD and false statements by George Bush as to the meaning of the IWR. Kerry quoted George Bush in his floor statement in saying:

“As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”

Kerry warned in this speech that if Bush failed to keep his word he would “be among the first to speak out.” Walter Shapiro also reviewed Kerry’s position in his book, One Car Caravan, with this quote from Kerry from October 2002, showing that Kerry is doing exactly what he said he would do from the beginning when he now criticizes Bush’s handling of the war:

“My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I’m voting for you to do what you said you’re going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process. If you go unilaterally, without having exhausted these remedies, I’m not supporting you. And if you decide that this is just a matter of straight pre-emptive doctrine for regime-change purposes without regard to the imminence of the threat, I’m not going to support you.”

In opposing George Bush, John Kerry is doing exactly what he warned at the time of the IWR vote. John Kerry did not change positions as Republicans claim, but had a single coherent position on the war. His position was that we should go to war if we were proven to be threatened and the situation could not be resolved diplomatically, otherwise we should not go to war. Republicans call this flip flopping. I call this a sensible foreign policy.

John Kerry on the Week of Phony Iraq Debate

It's was Phony Iraq Debate Week in Congress this week. What a show the Republican's put on -- they had a quite a script to read from courtesy of the Pentagon. There were truly some Oscar nomination worthy performances, including Senator Mitch McConnell for "Best Borrowing of Resolution" and Senators Bill Frist and John Cornyn deserve nominations for "Best Supporting Phony Debaters" for recreating the role first played by Tom Delay, in the House last November. Below is a statement from Senator John Kerry on Phony Iraq Debate Week:

“While Senate and House Republicans played political games to avoid meaningful debate on Iraq, Americans who know war is not a game prayed for the 2,500 brave troops lost in Iraq. While Don Rumsfeld arms surrogates with 74 pages of hollow talking points, Karl Rove spells out a political strategy on Iraq, and Dick Cheney dissembles with Sean Hannity, Americans are caught in the crossfire of vicious sectarian strife in Iraq.

“This has been the duck and cover Congress. For three years, Congress has sat on its hands or played political games while the war in Iraq has gone on unchecked and unending. It’s time for a Congress that shares responsibility for getting us into Iraq to take responsibility for helping to get us out and get resources refocused on the war on terror.

“Every month we are in Iraq, we lose more American lives and over $8 billion dollars. It’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq.

“Since October, I have been pushing for a clear deadline in Iraq. We cannot take the heat off the Iraqi leaders to do their job and stand up for their own country, and we can’t take the heat off Washington to do the job of applying pressure in Iraq. There will be a real Iraq debate next week, and it will address the real needs of our troops, not the political needs of the Republican Party.”

John Kerry: Bring U.S. Troops Home by End of '06

In an OP/ED in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, John Kerry writes about his plan to bring the troops home from Iraq by the end of '06. The right wing has been making distortions through their Pentagon "play book" about Kerry's plan and the rightwing blogosphere even floated the notion that the forced Senate vote yesterday on Mitch McConnell's resolution, lifted from Kerry's resolution, was the actual vote on Kerry's resolution. NOT -- see related posts below John Kerry's OP/ED:

Bring U.S. troops home by end of '06
By Sen. John Kerry

Half of those whose names are inscribed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial were lost after America's leaders knew our strategy would not succeed. It was immoral then, and it is immoral now, to be quiet or equivocal in the face of such delusion.

Our soldiers, no matter how brave, can't bring democracy to Iraq simply with a gun barrel; the Iraqis themselves must build their democracy. And it will never be done if Iraq's leaders are unwilling to make the compromises that democracy requires.

The confirmation of Iraq's vital cabinet ministers to run the police force and army, coupled with the killing of the brutal terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are an opportunity to change the course in Iraq - if we seize it.

We know the verdict of our generals: the war cannot be won militarily; the only way forward is a political settlement. We need to listen to Gen. George Casey, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, who argued that our large military presence "feeds the notion of occupation" and "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant." To make Iraqis self-reliant, we need hard and fast deadlines, not an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces.

Iraqi politicians have proved that they respond only to deadlines - a deadline to transfer authority, and deadlines to hold three elections. It was only the most intense eleventh-hour pressure that pushed aside Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and brought forward a consensus prime minister. It was only the most intense eleventh-hour pressure that forced the Iraqis to complete their government. That is why we need a deadline now for Iraqis to stand up and fight for their own country.

It is time to announce that our combat troops are coming home in 2006. It is time to set a schedule with the new Iraqi government for the phased withdrawal of U.S. combat forces by the end of the year. Doing so will empower the Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country, and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain. This will put Iraqis in charge - and it will undermine support for the insurgency.

Key to this transition is a long overdue engagement in serious and sustained diplomacy. To give Iraq its best hope for a peaceful future, the administration should convene a summit that includes the leaders of that country, its neighbors, and representatives from the Arab League, NATO, the United Nations and the European Union to forge the comprehensive political solution that is necessary to bring stability to Iraq. Making it clear that America will not stay in Iraq forever pressures the regional players to step up and assume their fair share of the burden.

We will not leave Iraq vulnerable. Under my plan, the United States will maintain an over-the-horizon military presence in the Middle East to fight the war on terror and protect regional security interests. We will finish training Iraqi security forces - and hold the president firm to his word that when Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. So far, the Iraqis have trained 265,600 security forces - just 7,000 shy of the Bush administration's stated goal of 272,566. Where's the standing down?

The time has come for a Congress that shares responsibility for getting us into Iraq to take responsibility for helping to get us out. Sure, we were misled. But we know it now - and we know the truth. We must demand a change in policy, a change in course. Our soldiers have done their job. It is time for Iraqis to do their job: to stand up for Iraq. It's time for Iraqis to want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them.

This is a moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of stubborn pride from those in power. It is not enough to argue with details or logistics, with the manner of the conflict's execution, or the failures of competence, as great as they are.

It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake - to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride: I was misled. I was wrong to vote for the Iraq resolution. I will fight to set a deadline to redeploy American forces. We cannot change the future unless we are honest about the past. We cannot have it both ways on the Iraq war. It is time at last to make the policy right - for our troops, and for Iraq.

Rightwing blog Riehl World claims John Kerry wants to have it both ways and throws in a mention of Swifty smear in his post about John Kerry's OP/ED. What Riehl World misses is that Bush has been having it both ways for sometime now. And in doing this, he's failed this country miserably and failed his glorious mission in Iraq based on lies. Bush, cut and ran when it was time to get Osama bin Lost in Tora Bora, just like he cut and ran from his National Guard duty during Vietnam. To quote Riehl World, Bush's failures "need not be America's, as well."

RELATED POSTS:
-- Hotline’s Blogometer and Right Wing Blogs Get it Wrong on Iraq Vote
-- John Kerry Re: Troop Withdrawal–It’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq
-- John Kerry Slams Republican’s for Pentagon Talking Points in Forced Iraq Debate

Hotline's Blogometer and Right Wing Blogs Get it Wrong on Iraq Vote

Hotline's Blogometer is making much ado about nothing today, with their claim that "Righty bloggers celebrated the defeat of Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) Iraq-withdrawal resolution." Not only is Blogometer wrong on the Iraq vote that went down yesterday, so are the "Righty bloggers" who claim it was "John Kerry's (D-MA) Iraq-withdrawal resolution."

The spin from the rightwing nutjobs is laughable on this one, as the much of the MSM made note of the fact that Mitch McConnell lifted Kerry's resolution and put his own name on it.

Michael Crowley on the Plank claims "...that there's a specific reason why Mitch McConnell forced a premature Senate vote on Kerry's Iraq-withdrawal resolution: Senate Democratic leaders, I'm reliably told, had been working on a middle-course alternative allowing their party members to oppose Kerry's plan without implicitly seeming to support Bush's policy (and thus without further enraging hard-core anti-war activists)."

Whoever "reliably told" Crowley that "Senate Democratic leaders,"... "had been working on a middle-course alternative" -- weren't so reliable. Obviously, Crowley missed the interchange on the Senate Floor yesterday when Harry Reid "accused Republicans of political gamesmanship and sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal." The vote was forced and per discuss on the floor with John Kerry and Senator Warner, a vote on Kerry's Iraq resolution was promised for next week.

Here's what John Kerry had to say on the Senate floor following the forced vote: MORE

Suburbs Grow in Significance

In 2004 John Kerry met his goals in the battleground states but George Bush still won a narrow victory largely due to bringing in more votes in the exburbs–votes that were missed by the pollsters. While apparently only the GOP understood the significance of the exburbs in 2004, this will not be missed by either party, or the media, in upcoming election. The New York Times reppports that the ‘06 Race Focuses on the Suburbs, Inner and Outer. This time both Democrats and Republicans see prospects for votes:

After years in which Republicans capitalized on rapid growth in outlying areas, Democrats now see an opportunity to make gains in close-in suburbs where changes in the composition of the population are working in their favor. In a dozen or so Congressional districts that are leading battlegrounds in the midterm elections, older, more densely packed suburbs are trending Democratic, helping to offset Republican dominance on the sprawling exurban frontier.

To really be competitive in the suburbs means that Democrats also must new constituencies to replace the collapsed New Deal coalition. This includes groups which we’ve discussed before such as the Starbucks Republicans. While the name might not be totally appropriate, many suburbanites may be more receptive to the message of more libertarian Democrats.

John Kerry Re:Troop Withdrawal–It’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq

By John Kerry posting at The Congress Blog:

Want to win the war on terror? Want to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat? Want to stop the Taliban from retaking Afghanistan? Want to stop Al Qaeda’s new beachhead in Somalia? I sure as hell do. I’m tired of a national security game of half measures where the same people who took their boots off Osama bin Laden’s neck at Tora Bora when he was cornered, now think we have to stay bogged down in Iraq forever and leave these growing threats unaddressed.

Our enemies are thrilled we’re bogged down in Iraq. But we have a choice. It’s time to redeploy for victory in the war on terror. It’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. We know the verdict of our generals: the war cannot be won militarily; the only way forward is a political settlement. We need to listen to Gen. George Casey, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, who argued that our large military presence “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” To make Iraq self-reliant, we need hard and fast deadlines, not an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces. Our troops have done their job in Iraq. It’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq.

Joan Vennochi’s Ignorance of Kerry’s Positon on Iraq

Some people are just determined to display their ignorance in public. Joan Vennochi does a particularly shocking case of this in her editorial in today’s Boston Globe. You would think from her editorial that she just started covering Kerry this week, but obviously we know this is untrue as she has had plenty of other absurd comments on him in the past.

Writing on Kerry’s anti-war speech this week, Vennochi writes “The Massachusetts senator is finally taking the antiwar position that people who know him well expected him to embrace long ago.” From her comments on Kerry’s admission that his vote for the IWR was a mistake–an admission he has been making for several months. Vennochi even acknowledges that Kerry had stated he changed his mind on the vote in his 2005 Georgetown speech, failing to realize how this contradicts her earlier statements in the same column.

Vennochi is also clearly unaware of Kerry’s pre-war position. She has no idea that Kerry’s explanation for his IWR vote in his Senate floor statement made it clear that his vote was not one in support of war except as a last resort. She is unaware of Kerry’s advice against going to war such as in his op-ed in the New York Times, his article in Foreign Affairs, or his pre-war Georgetown speech. Then there’s Kerry’s call for regime change in the United States in protest at the onset of the war.

Of course Vennochi isn’t the only person who has made this mistake. Even if we forgive her for this, she seems oblivious to Kerry’s many statements opposed to the war during the campaign. She writes “Had he taken such a clear stand in 2004, he might be in the White House.” Kerry’s statement of “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” sound pretty clear. She also appears unaware of Kerry’s many statements on the war following the campaign and prior to this week.

Vennochi expresses skepticism over what she sees as Kerry’s change in position. Her problem is that she fails to understand what Kerry’s position has been.Those of us who have actually paid attention to what Kerry has had to say about the war, and his vote, understand that Kerry has been consistent in his views, understand why Kerry voted for the IWR, and understand why Kerry realized his vote was a mistake when more information on George Bush’s motives became clear. Kerry never changed his position on the war as he always opposed going to war with the conditions that actually existed. The only change is that Kerry changed his mind on whether to give Bush authorization to go to war as a last resort, and whether to believe Bush’s promises that he would first seek a diplomatic settlement. The Downing Street Memos proved that Bush was lying, and Kerry realized he should have never have trusted George Bush to keep his word. Kerry’s speech this week just reflects the same position he has been expressing for quite some time.

Kerry Ignites Progressives at Take Back America Conference

Thanks to the speed of the blogosphere, first reactions to John Kerry’s speech at the Take Back America Conference are starting to come in. John Kerry has taken a lot of criticism for his vote for the Iraq War Resolution. This included mild criticism from those of us who supported him due to understanding his vote was not a vote in support of going to war, and much harsher criticism from those who misunderstood his position. By taking a leadership role in opposing the war, and by acknowledging his error on the IWR vote, Kerry is getting a second look from some progressives. TomPaine.com reports favorably on Kerry’s speech at the Take Back America conference:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts ignited us at the Take Back America conference by admitting that his 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq was wrong. “It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake,” Kerry said, adding, “I was wrong to vote for that war resolution.” He received sustained applause and some cheers.

Contrast that with the comments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has become famous for her assiduous courtship of the center — and at times, even the right — as well as her coy courtship with a 2008 presidential bid. While she criticized the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war and its “open-ended commitment,” she added that she believed it was wrong to “set a date certain” for withdrawal. She received a scattering of applause and a number of boos.

Kerry told the morning plenary session that he is going to sponsor an amendment to the defense spending bill demanding a withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year. It is measure that will apparently put Kerry at odds with the more cautious Clinton. It will force her to make a choice between those who are urging caution in Iraq and Kerry’s now full-throated denunciation of the war and the way it is being executed.

“A war on Iraq founded on a lie can never be true to the American character,” Kerry said early in his speech, which was almost totally devoted to the war, in contrast to Clinton’s, which was mainly focused on domestic policy. Kerry drew parallels between the Iraq war and the Vietnam War that he was a soldier in, noting that in both wars, thousands of soldiers were killed or injured long after policymakers realized they had headed in the wrong direction but stubbornly refused to reverse themselves. “I was morally wrong then and it is morally wrong now,” he said.

In direct contrast to Clinton’s refusal to back a firm deadline for troop withdrawal, Kerry said, “We need a hard and fast deadline” and a policy that demands that Iraqis take responsibility for their own security. He said that every movement in Iraq toward the establishment of a permament consensus government has been prompted by deadlines set by the Bush administration and coalition partners.

Kerry also offered a set of principles he said progressives should stand for:

• Tell the truth to the American people.

• “Fire the incompetents” and hold government accountable.

• Make America secure by making America energy independent.

• “Value work, not wealth.”

• Export products, not jobs.

• Provide affordable health care for all Americans.

• Address global warming and the pollution of our air and water.

John Kerry at the Take Back America 2006 Conference

John Kerry spoke today at the Take Back America 2006 conference. The text of Kerry's speech is available here.

John Kerry to Offer Amendment to Redeploy U.S. Combat Troops from Iraq by End of Year

As I noted here late last night, this week, John Kerry will be introducing an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that will "redeploy U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006." Kerry believes that "It’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq."

John Kerry is calling for the withdrawal of United States forces under a schedule agreed upon with the new government of Iraq. This will legitimize the new Iraqi government, enable the Iraqis to become more self-reliant, and undermine support for the insurgency.

In fact, Senior American commanders have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, testified to Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.”

The goal of John Kerry’s plan is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing a political settlement and the military draw down of American forces. Kerry’s plan calls for:

** The redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006.

** Only U.S. troops essential to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces would remain.

President Bush has repeatedly said that when Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. However, that has not been happening. So far, the Iraqis have trained 265,600 security forces. The Bush administration’s stated goal is 272,566 Iraqi security forces. Yet just two weeks ago, the Pentagon announced that they are sending 3,500 additional U.S. troops from Kuwait to Iraq.

MORE

Kerry Endorses Webb

John Kerry has posted in support of Jim Webb at the Huffington Post:

I’m for Jim Webb. He’s a Marine, and I say “is’ because when you’re a Marine you’re a Marine for life. And I say that as a Navy man.

The people calling the shots in Washington have a habit of treating veterans and members of the military as terrific backdrops for their speeches, but they don’t listen to them about what they’re seeing on the ground as they serve (witness the body armor ordeal,) they ignore the lessons military men and women learned in uniform (just ask General Shinseki,) and, judging by Bush policies they certainly don’t pay any attention to their needs when they come home (they tolerate billion dollar shortfalls in veterans funding.)Ke

Lipscomb Continues Smears on Kerry

Thomas Lipscomb continues to smear Kerry at Real Clear Politics. Pamela has shown why his writing is not trustworthy here and here. An early clue that this article isn’t going anywhere comes in the second paragraph as he makes reference to “a Kerry-sponsored (and Kerry-censored) documentary campaign film by respected producer Steve Rosenbaum, Inside the Bubble.” Inside the Bubble was an independent film which was not sponsored by Kerry. While Kerry supporters had negative comments on the film, largely due to its lack of meaningful information on the campaign as it was not sponsored by the campaign, this is hardly censorship.

Rather than trusting such biased and inaccurate accounts from Lipscomb, we have recently reposted many accurate accounts which refute the claims of the Swift Boat Liars. Most of these posts can be found by clicking here. A more detailed account of Kerry’s first purple heart is here. Fact Check’s review of the attacks is here and Snope’s finding that these are untrue urban legends is here.

Battlestar Gallitica Beats O’Reilly

One of the many controversies surrounding Bill O’Reilly is his false claim that he won a Peabody Award. Although totally unrelated, I did think back to that when reading that Battlestar Gallactica has won a Peabody this year. It was a much deserved honor for the show–an honor Bill O’Reilly is not deserving of.

War on Science Suffers Set Back

Check out this story at National Geographic: Global Warming Is Spurring Evolution, Study Says. Both global warming and evolution accepted as established science. The conservative war on science is failing.

Dayton Daily News Debunks 2004 Election Myths

Myths of fraud in the 2004 Ohio election have been repeated so frequently by portions (and fortuantely a minority) of the left wing blogosphere so frequently that some accept them as truth without evaluation. The controversy increased with Robert Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone (discussed here and here). The