The Unofficial John Kerry Blog

Human Rights Campaign Endorses John Kerry for Re-election

2008-04-29T11:18:00.000-07:00

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has announced it is endorsing John Kerry for re-election to the U.S. Senate.

Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, made the following statement: “Senator Kerry has been an outspoken leader for GLBT equality in the United States Senate. Most recently, Senator Kerry’s leadership was crucial to the advancement of legislation to lift the discriminatory HIV travel ban. We are pleased to endorse Senator Kerry for re-election and look forward to working with him on achieving equality for our community."

Senator Kerry responded, "I am honored to have the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the savviest, most respected and most influential political, civil rights and human rights organizations in our country. When you’re in a fight to change our country, you can always count on HRC to be there with you in the trenches, and there’s no better ally in the fight to advance the cause of freedom and equality for all Americans. I have been proud to work with the Human Rights Campaign for close to 25 years now in the U.S. Senate. We’ve fought together to combat AIDS, including our fight this year in the Foreign Relations Committee to lift the HIV Travel Ban, to pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to end discrimination in the workplace through ENDA, and to work toward the day when same-sex couples are granted the same rights other Americans take for granted. We’ve spent a lot of our energy these last years stopping bad things from happening with a Republican in the White House. We’ve been proud to fight those fights, but I can’t begin to tell you how much I look forward to serving in a bigger, stronger Democratic majority in Congress under a Democratic president so we can wage and win the progress we’ve been waiting for and which the community deserves."

Senator Kerry's office issued a press release which described the Senator's activities on behalf of GLBT rights:

Kerry has a long record of fighting for equal rights for all gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered (GLBT) Americans.

Twenty-four years ago, one of Kerry’s first acts as Senator was to introduce a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He supports passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and has adopted a nondiscrimination policy for his Congressional offices based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

He is an original co-sponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention bill, which would extend federal jurisdiction over serious, violent hate crimes. It would also finally include crimes motivated by sexual orientation and sexual identity to be considered hate crimes.

Kerry also introduced the HIV Nondiscrimination in Travel and Immigration Act that would repeal the outdated, misguided provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars HIV positive individuals from entering the United States, including HIV positive family members, doctors and experts, as well as refugees seeking asylum. This long standing ban against those with HIV only serves to stigmatize the disease and discriminate against those infected.

In 1990, Kerry cosponsored the first Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (CARE)—which represents the largest discretionary federal investment in treating individuals with HIV and AIDS. Kerry also sponsored the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act, aimed at boosting contributions to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, a non-profit group working to promote development of an HIV vaccine in 2000. Kerry also introduced the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act, which would increase the federal funding of international HIV/AIDS efforts from approximately $1.7 billion in 2003 to $1.9 billion in 2004. This effort led to the Act’s unanimous passage in May 2003. AIDS activists have characterized Kerry as one of Congress’s top leaders on HIV/AIDS policy.

During the Clinton Administration, Kerry opposed the White House’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy.” He was one of a few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the President to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members.

Kerry has repeatedly said that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections, that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees including the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In Massachusetts, just last spring, Kerry worked with Governor Deval Patrick and progressive legislators to help defeat a narrow and discriminatory constitutional amendment that would have banned same sex marriage in Massachusetts .

The HRC is America ’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. Altogether, HRC endorsed 14 Senators or candidates for Senate it says will continue advancing the issues the campaign cares about. In 2006, the HRC and its 700,000 members were involved in 200 House and Senate races. Their candidates won 94% of those races.

Kerry: No truth to rumor of Obama endorsement

2007-12-11T09:48:00.000-08:00

In response to a question from the Washington Times during a telephone press conference today, Senator Kerry said that he had not yet decided whether to endorse anyone for President. As for rumors that he planned to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, the Senator replied, "I've made no decision -- I don't know where this comes from. I heard this rumor when I landed today. It's a rumor. I have made no decisions whatsoever not only as to who I might endorse but as to whether or not I will."

Kerry Spokesman, David Wade Sets Limbaugh Straight on Swiftboat Smears

2007-11-10T21:49:00.000-08:00

Kerry spokesman David Wade issued the following slap down today in response to Rush Limbaugh, who said on his radio show that Kerry’s Swift Boat attackers in 2004, “were right on the money and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort.”

David Wade said:

“At first I thought, that’s not Rush, that’s just the OxyContin talking. Nonetheless, this is a despicable but unsurprising new lie from a man whose closest brush with combat came when customs officials tried to take away his Viagra.

This portly peddler of hate is once again wrong on the facts. John Kerry served his country with honor in Vietnam, and has fought for his fellow veterans ever since. The lies and smears of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush were disproved conclusively in 2004 by the men who fought by John Kerry’s side in Vietnam, by the military’s own records, by investigative journalists, and by the incredible contradictions that exposed these right wing smear artists. It is long past time that we end the politics of fear and smear that we have seen used against decorated veterans from John McCain to Max Cleland and John Kerry.

Rush Limbaugh’s ignorance and determination to divide Americans is just another reminder that you can’t spell ‘Rush Limbaugh’ without the letters L-I-A-R.”

Media Matters has an excellent fact check of the Limbaugh smear, proving once again that when it comes to slandering veterans, the right wing is wrong. The fact check can be found here.

Cross Posted from The Democratic Daily.

Clear Channel Sends Edict to Not Play Springsteen’s ‘Magic’

2007-10-30T23:29:00.000-07:00

Bruce Springsteen currently has the No 1 album in the charts, he'll probably be up for a Grammy for the Best Album of the Year, and his tour is sold out across the country, but even still Republican owned, censor machine Clear Channel is out to pull The Boss from the airwaves. Readers here know, I'm a big Springsteen fan and I have written about him here more than a few times over the years, so I gotta say, this really ticks me off. Big time.

Clearly Bruce Springsteen's latest, 'Magic' has got the Noise Machine in a huff. Could it be because of this cut of the album, Last To Die, inspired by John Kerry:

I long ago gave up listening to mainstream radio, but this is wrong, just wrong... Read on here: Clear Channel Sends Edict to Not Play Springsteen’s ‘Magic’.

John Kerry Offers Post-Kyoto Global Climate Change Approach

2007-10-30T00:16:00.000-07:00

Senator John Kerry spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations today. His address, “After Kyoto, Eyes on Bali: Global Climate Change and American Leadership,” focused on the security challenge of global climate change and the way forward as the U.S. approaches the next round of global climate change talks in Bali in December. Sen. Kerry and Sen. Boxer are leading the Senate delegation to this next round of international discussions in December.

The text of John Kerry’s speech is below:

I’d like to focus my introductory remarks on an issue which frankly not enough people are talking about in the context of our foreign policy – but which could have a greater long-term impact on our security than any other: and that is global climate change.

There will be critical meetings this year about our security --- Secretary Rice’s Mideast Summit in Annapolis, perhaps some meetings between US and Iranian officials. But potentially just as important is the meeting which will happen just over a month from now, when delegates from 154+ nations arrive in Bali to start work on a new international climate change treaty, and I’ll be leading a bipartisan delegation from the US Senate.

The road to our present predicament is littered with missed opportunities, but we still face the same, ever more acute, choice: either America finally leads the world in crafting a comprehensive new international agreement, or the countries of the world will pollute our way into a catastrophe of unknowable parameters but undeniable peril.

We’ve all heard the warnings. Drought. Famine. Floods. Refugees. Devastated crops. Lost GDP. Instability. Border tensions—and more of the failed states that shelter and breed terrorists. The plagues seem to stop just short of the Old Testament slaying of the firstborn in Egypt. But we can’t wait for divine intervention—we have to act. How’s this for a call to action? Here’s a recent headline from Time magazine: “How to prevent the next Darfur. Step One: Get serious about climate change.” I’m pleased but not surprised to hear that the Council is once again ahead of the curve, and I look forward to hearing from the Independent Task Force chaired by Tom Vilsack and George Pataki.

I don’t intend to use this forum to dwell on or re-litigate the science, but let me say briefly, since the start of the industrial age, atmospheric CO2 levels are up 35%, to 380 parts per million. Scientists say that anything above 450 —which means a total warming of 2 degrees centigrade—passes a tipping point into catastrophic climate change. And guess what? Unless we slam the brakes—now—we’ll hit 600-700 ppm by 2100.

Mobilizing to solve climate change is especially tough because of the delayed onset of its impact—emissions stay in the atmosphere for 100 years, so the window for preventing climate change may close before we even begin to feel its full force. But the first signs are there: Recently we learned that Arctic sea ice is down 39% from its long-term average—and maybe as much as 50% since the 1950s. Two weeks ago, Nature warned that oceans—which historically absorb about a quarter of our CO2—are losing their capacity to serve as a “sink” for our emissions. As a result, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has outpaced even our own dire predictions by 35% over the last 7 years. That’s the evidence: clear, growing, and urgent.

I don’t have to emphasize just how much we’ve been set back by 8 years outside the international system. It is crucial that our delegation to Bali send a clear message to the world that America is finally serious about fixing climate change. We’re ready to end the era of obstruction and start leading by example.

We, as a nation, are indispensable to this process. Our inaction is a green light to all the world’s polluters. But it’s humbling to remember that even when we had leadership that recognized the problem, a White House that signed a treaty, we still couldn’t put a system in place that reduced CO2 emissions. Kyoto failed. And it failed because we weren’t able to bridge the gap between developed and developing nations.

Our primary goal in Bali must be to arrive at a mandate for future negotiations to finally reach a truly global agreement on a truly global effort-- not one that leaves the world’s largest emitter of the past and the largest emitters of the future outside the system. That’s why we failed last time.

Ten years ago, the issue simply wasn’t ripe for solution—it wasn’t possible to craft a treaty that China would sign and the US Senate would ratify. I can’t emphasize enough how much—and how quickly—things have changed in both countries. You’ve witnessed the sea change here over the past few years. What is less well known is that today, a country like China finally grasps that they have an immediate and vital interest in getting this right. China has 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities. Chinese villagers in Yunnan have watched their sacred Mingyong Glacier disappear before their very eyes. China put forth a climate change plan this year. They’ve already begun setting ambitious goals, such as a 20% cut in energy intensity by 2010. Next year, China’s fleet-wide fuel efficiency will be 36.7 mpg—higher than the Senate’s proposed target for 2020. There’s a cartoon out there that China won’t listen—but the reality is that a diplomatic breakthrough may be within reach.

That’s the best thing that could come out of Bali—an agreement on a serious mandate for moving forward. Ultimately, it boils down to this: the only fair, realistic solution is shared but differentiated responsibility. The US and other industrialized nations must accept mandatory caps and acknowledge that poorer nations won’t forego economic growth or bear the cost of other’s past emissions. China and other developing countries will have to take on their own binding commitments—not the same form as ours— but perhaps a commitment per unit of GDP growth instead of population or a single-industry cap. Down the road, China, India, Brazil, Mexico and other developing nations will have to lower absolute emissions. But today we must share the challenge of putting China on a path to doing so without infringing on its right to economic development. The consequences of China’s failure will be ours too.

That is why, in Bali and beyond, we must also commit ourselves to a massive new campaign aimed at fostering green development. And at the heart of that effort must be coal. We have to spread carbon capture and sequestration techniques—which can capture up to 100% of coal’s emissions—to China and the rest of the developing world. We must be realistic about the fact that a developing county like China—rich in coal, growing at 11%, and in need of a cheap source of energy—won’t adopt clean coal technology unless we help them. And their decisions may be irreversible: Today the Chinese are building one coal-fired power plant per week—most are not even designed so that they might be retrofitted later with clean technology. That’s the real cost of inaction in real time. Coal accounts for 80% of China’s CO2 emissions, and the EPA tells us that Chinese pollution accounts for ¼ of the smog over Los Angeles. That too is a cost of inaction. We should create an internationally-funded research consortium devoted to developing green technologies and spreading them to developing countries—we need to do everything we can—not just to develop green technologies, but to see them actually adopted by billions of people.

We should be reducing tariffs on green producers overseas, rewarding countries that meet emissions standards, and helping US companies to sell green products overseas. We should be financing low-carbon energy sources and vehicles through institutions like the World Bank, and building capacity for energy and environmental data collection.

Finally, we must address deforestation—which accounts for 20% of emissions, Because they pull CO2 out of the air, forests are the planet’s natural defense. This needs to be a major part of our next agreement, and in the meantime we need to make sure these countries have tools to measure the problem and capacity to start addressing it.

We must begin thinking of climate change as a major issue in our foreign policy and national security. We should recognize that the solutions to many of our greatest challenges-- energy security, terrorism, democracy promotion, and climate change—all intersect when it comes to our use of energy. Over the next 25 years, oil consumption in developing Asian nations will double to 32 million barrels per day—accounting for 80% of increased global demand for oil, much of it housed in unstable, authoritarian regimes. All of our most pressing geopolitical concerns point us in the same direction: a massive investment in alternative energy and green technology.

This is a test of America as a world leader in the 21st century. We need a new environmental diplomacy—a commitment to make the fight against global warming an integral part of our foreign relations and our national security strategy. Just ask the 11 high-ranking retired soldiers from every branch of the military who called it “a serious national security threat”—a “threat multiplier” that sparks and exacerbates conflict.

In the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world’s two superpowers walked back from the brink of mutual assured destruction. Kennedy and Khrushchev set up a hotline between Washington and Moscow because they understood that, at the end of the day, the buck stopped with them. That’s where America, China, and the developing world stand today— we’ve taken brinksmanship as far as it goes. Now it’s time to reach for the phone and give diplomacy a try. Our security depends more than ever before on our ability to influence others— we must get back into the business of good old fashioned persuasion.

Ultimately, the threat of climate change demands a new approach from America that looks an awful lot like the America we remember, the place Lincoln called “the last best hope of earth”. We should recommit to the hard but vital work of diplomacy and reengage with the rest of the planet. We must return to an understanding of the world where real strength means not just the absence of restraints but also the moral leadership that comes from leading by example.

The Council on Foreign Relations has made an audio of Kerry's speech available here.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry’s Time Is Coming

2007-10-18T00:41:00.000-07:00

Politico had a piece on the value of John Kerry's endorsement of an '08 presidential candidate on Tuesday, that made a few points that I have made here in the past and added some snark, that we could have done without. Here's a few quips:

Whither John F. Kerry?

He is his party’s most recent presidential nominee. He came tantalizingly close to winning. And yet no one is looking for him to put his stamp on the 2008 Democratic primary or wondering aloud who he’ll endorse — even though Al Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile says that in the early-state contests, “most of the voters would be thrilled to know who Kerry would back and why.”

But the lack of an audible clamor for an endorsement by Kerry is more than a bit deceiving, as is the perception that he’s still wandering around in that wilderness to which all losing Democratic nominees are cast. The two top candidates who aren’t married to Elizabeth Edwards are quietly seeking his advice and support. An associate suggests that Kerry may hold off on endorsing until closer to the primaries, but when he does make his choice, that candidate will get access to a 3-million-name e-mail list, possibly the largest in the party.

When a Defense Department official accused Hillary Rodham Clinton of “reinforcing enemy propaganda” after she asked the Pentagon to start preparing for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, the Kerry associate says it was the Clinton team’s idea to have Kerry out front denouncing that accusation.

Kerry’s road back from the ashes of 2004 has been studded with self-inflicted setbacks. Ultimately, it won’t be as triumphant as Gore’s.

But nor will it take as long — and there are growing signs that the events of the post-2004 period have granted Kerry at least the right to say, “I told you so.”

[...]

Kerry’s vindication is coming quicker, if more quietly. His party already has embraced his position on Iraq. His argument that no military solution exists for the situation there is now the de facto Democratic stance. In June 2006, when Kerry helped force a vote on a phased U.S. troop withdrawal, his colleagues gave him a serious razzing and only 13 votes. Just over one year later, this past July, the same measure got 52.

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden recently sang Kerry’s praises during the Senate floor debate over Biden’s proposed “soft partition” of Iraq: “I wish to tell him how grateful I am for his joining in this amendment ... because an awful lot of people around the world look to my colleague for his insights into what we do about the most critical issue facing American foreign policy today.”

The Bush administration recently achieved a new nuclear pact with North Korea by using the approach Kerry advocated in 2004. The Washington Post noted on Oct. 4, “The agreement was reached after bilateral negotiations between the United States and North Korea, held in parallel with the six-nation talks, just as Kerry had suggested.”

Elizabeth Wilner prattles some and then goes on to say:

Then, after a laudable effort to help elect Democratic candidates in 2006 — the kind of effort Gore didn’t undertake after his loss in 2000 — came one botched joke about U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Donations of $14 million and visits to 35 states were instantly obscured a week before Election Day. The blowback was so severe that a few months later, Kerry had to exit the 2008 field before he really entered it.

His recovery has since been gaffe-free. Not coincidentally, his Senate colleagues who hope to trace his steps to the Democratic nomination seem to be recognizing the assets he brings to the table.

Which is the flip side of the swift-boat coin: The tactic may have damaged Kerry’s own chances in 2004, but his support could help inoculate other Democratic candidates against similar efforts to impugn their patriotism in 2008.

He also brings brass to the table — not only his own Vietnam service but also a small army of veteran supporters built during his presidential campaign and his efforts to support veterans who ran for office in 2006.

[...]

Kerry’s assets are not inconsiderable given that the current president plans to hand off the Iraq war to his successor and the top Republican candidates seem to be lifting the weak-on-terror charge from the Bush campaign playbook. It seems unlikely that between 2004 and 2008, the need for Democrats to show some trappings of strength will just disappear.

Maybe not worth a Nobel Prize, but certainly worth a little respect.

Having spent nearly two and a half years since the '04 election chronicling most of Kerry's work in the Senate and many of his speeches over that time (not to mention covering events with Kerry here in L.A.), I would have to no doubt claim bias that Kerry's endorsement does indeed hold a lot of weight for whoever it goes to. Kerry has been vindicated many times over that time period, and more so in the past few months it seems. I can't count how many times I have said here on The Dem Daily that "Kerry was right," but it is numerous.

All that said, as for now, still undecided on an '08 candidate myself, I must say that most likely, whither go John F. Kerry's endorsement, will probably go mine. Stay tuned...

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry Congratulates Gore, IPCC on Nobel Peace Prize Win

2007-10-12T20:00:00.000-07:00

The congratulations are pouring in for Al Gore and IPCC in the wake of the announcement this morning that they were "jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today for their work educating the world about global warming and pressing for political action to control it." In a brief public appearance today in California, Gore "vowed to use the award to speed up needed changes in awareness and urgency in addressing climate change."

"It truly is a planetary emergency, and we have to respond quickly," he said.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee characterized Gore as "the single individual who has done most" to convince world governments and leaders that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and poses a grave threat. Gore has focused on the issue through books, promotional events and his Academy Award-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a joint project of the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization, has been monitoring evidence of climate change and possible solutions since 1988.

Senator John Kerry chimed in and congratulated Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for winning the Nobel Peace Prize today:

“This is not only an incredibly well deserved honor for Vice President Gore, it reflects a global awakening to the urgency of taking action on global climate change. Way back when it wasn't easy, Al Gore began criss-crossing the country and the planet to help bring the science of climate change to people everywhere in a compelling way. He's been dogged and tenacious, and with the IPCC he's stood up for the truth against the deniers and the dividers who want to delay action and risk global catastrophe. Their efforts have rightfully been recognized with the highest honor the world community can bestow on those who help define and meet the great challenges of our time.”

Al Gore's statement on winning the Nobel is available here.

The naysayers are questioning what raising awareness of Global Warming has done for world peace, but one simply needs to look back to 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Muta Maathai and remember that Maathai, an environmentalist, "founded the Green Belt Movement, a grassroots environmental non-governmental organization," which had "planted over 30 million trees across Kenya to prevent soil erosion."

It's not rocket science, it's common sense. With out a sustainable environment, global strife over water, fertile grounds for farming and so many other issues will lead to conflicts around the world.

Related Post: Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize with U.N. Panel on Climate Change

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry on How to Restore Integrity to Our Government

2007-10-02T23:18:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: VIDEO AT KERRYVISION. The KerryVision camera crew was at the Q&A with bloggers and has posted a lovely video with behind-the-scenes material, including the question and answer blogged here.

On Monday, the Unofficial Kerry Blog had the opportunity to ask John Kerry his opinion on the best way to confront the corruption in our government and go about restoring integrity, in a political climate in which some are demanding impeachment of Bush and Cheney while others believe that the Democrats need to focus on getting other parts of their agenda through.

First the context: Senator Kerry gave the last in his series of Faneuil Hall speeches on Monday, October 1st. The speech was a tour de force, as the Senator spoke passionately about the ideas he has stressed all along -- responsibility, fairness, shared sacrifice and service --, this time applied specifically to the economic problems threatening the American middle class. You can watch video of the speech on KerryVision (KerryVision had its own crew there filming) here, or at JohnKerry.com here. Afterwards, the Senator made time for a brief Q&A with bloggers. Below Boston has posted their question and answer here. I next asked this question (you can download the audio by doing a right-click save-as here; the Senator's feelings on the issue come through more forcefully than a transcript can convey):

KVH: I have a question about what we can do about the level of, frankly, corruption in the government -- you know, some people are saying that anything less than impeachment of Bush, Cheney, et al. would not be adequate, while other people say if the Democrats invest too much energy in investigations and hearings and so forth, it's going to detract from getting other important business done. What do you think should be the focus in terms of restoring integrity to the government?

JK: Well, the focus has to be on winning a complete government that believes in those things. That means adding more seats to the House, more seats to the Senate, which we can do. I mean, we have very important races -- Jean Shaheen in New Hampshire, Tom Allen -- I mean, you know, Tom Allen in Maine, and in Colorado, Tom Udall, and so forth. If we can grow four, five or six seats, then we're in a position to override a ve -- you know, to get things done, which we can't do today. The House can pass something with a House rule, because they work differently. But in the Senate it takes 60 votes to actually do anything. So I'd rather focus on doing America's work in a way that draws the lines very clearly between what they're doing and what we want to do.

If you do get too caught up in the fracas of politics, they'll throw everybody out. And you don't want to do that in a state where you've got a very fragile line in a semi-red state or a purple state or whatever you want to call it.

So I think common sense says they are corrupt. But the books aren't going to be closed on that corruption if we can win the government. If we get an Attorney General in place and we have a Congress that then can move, we'll hold people accountable. And I don't disagree with you. I have not seen a level of real corruption -- I mean, it is corrupt, what we've seen in terms of the Justice Department, the contracting, the giveways, the quid pro quos, I mean all of the above. And it's just a lack of enforcement that's allowing it.

As he always does, the Senator gave a thoughtful answer that showed he's given the matter serious thought. Thanks to Senator Kerry for taking the time to talk with us on this important issue.

Rush Indignation

2007-09-28T21:45:00.000-07:00

Rush indignation... it's everywhere... from TPM Election Central: Breaking: White House Faults Rush Limbaugh Over "Phony Soldiers" Comment... That's right... Even the White House didn't get Rush's back on this:

Here's a round-up of posts on Limbaugh's "phoney soldiers" smear:

Media Matters: Limbaugh falsely recasts "phony soldiers" smear

TPM Election Central: Exclusive: Dem Rep To Introduce House Resolution Condemning Rush Limbaugh On Monday

Swampland: Re: Phony Soliders

Think Progress: Senate Democratic Leaders Demand Apology For Limbaugh’s ‘Outrageous,’ ‘Unconscionable’ Remarks

CNN's Political Ticker: Dems seize on Limbaugh's 'phony soldiers' comment... On Thursday, John Kerry, a "veteran of the Vietnam War, called the comments a "disgusting attack.""

“In a single moment on his show, Limbaugh managed to question the patriotism of men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line and many who died for his right to sit safely in his air-conditioned studio peddling hate," Kerry said in a statement. "He is an embarrassment to his party, and I expect the Republicans who flock to his microphone will now condemn this indefensible statement.”

VoteVets Respond to Rush:

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Bush Declares War on Bipartisan Bill to Provide Health Insurance to Children

2007-09-26T22:26:00.000-07:00

John Kerry says all there is to say and then some, about Bush's plan to veto the SCHIP bill...

Four days from now, a wildly successful effort to provide healthcare to 6 million low-income children will disappear.

This summer, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together to expand the State Children’s Insurance Program (known as SCHIP) to provide healthcare to millions more children. It was a simple test of priorities, and both sides agreed to put kids first.

Unfortunately, President Bush has chosen a different course. He is putting ideology and political confrontation ahead of the health of our nation’s children, has unilaterally declared war on SCHIP, and is threatening to veto the bipartisan bill.

If the president follows through on his threat, his stubbornness will carry a serious price for American families. Health insurance for millions of children is on the line, and we know what happens when children lack access to proper care: Minor conditions become costly chronic diseases and preventable illnesses can even claim the greatest cost — the life of a child.

That is why Congress rose above partisan divisions to pass a bill expanding coverage to 3 million additional children — 2 million of them poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid, but still uninsured.

President Bush is not even willing to spend enough to retain the children who are currently on the SCHIP rolls. Make no mistake: Under the president’s proposal, kids will be kicked off SCHIP, and they will go uninsured.

Unfortunately, this president’s war on SCHIP doesn’t end with a low-ball figure or a veto threat...

Read on here...

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry: U.S. Must Stand with Burmese Demonstrators

2007-09-26T19:04:00.000-07:00

Editors note: I've been trying to make the time since the monks starting marching in Burma a few days ago, to write about the situation there, but I've had a lot on my plate. The situation with th epeaceful protest, has turned for the worse as the photo from today, below shows:

Andrew Sullivan has a round up of news stories, blog posts and he notes that "the Times of London has several blog reports from inside the country." From one eyewitness:

A respectful old monk is in the vanguard of the column singing national anthem and holding flags of fighting peacock.

Despite [being] peaceful, demonstrators have been beaten to break up the crowd, and they are still together reciting "metta sutta" (A discourse on loving-kindness, about disseminating love to those who are aggressive).

Senator John Kerry spoke from the floor today in support of the peaceful, democratic uprising in Burma. He praised the bravery of the demonstrators and condemned Burma’s brutal junta. Kerry emphasized the need for strong U.S. diplomatic leadership to rally the international community in defense of the Burmese people. Below are Kerry’s remarks, as prepared:

Mr. President: Against all odds, the long-suffering people of Burma have risen up against one of the world’s most repressive regimes. What began a month ago as modest, impromptu protests has since mushroomed into a nation-wide, peaceful democratic groundswell. Tens of thousands of students have joined Buddhist monks in the streets, marching and chanting in unison against Burma’s brutal military rulers.

The Burmese people should know that America and all free peoples across the globe stand in awe of their commitment and courage. Their actions follow in the venerable footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, and all those heroes who understood that nonviolent resistance is humanity’s greatest weapon against tyranny and injustice. I want to join the President of the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and many others in letting them know: We support your struggle. We stand with you.

What is happening today in the streets of Rangoon is as tenuous as it is unexpected. The cabal of generals, who pillage Burma under the guise of governing it, could easily meet these non-violent protests with a bloodbath, just like they did in 1988. And we must do all that we can to ensure that this does not come to pass.

No one should doubt the Burmese junta’s potential for brutality and large-scale violence. Since taking power, they have killed tens of thousands of Burmese and razed more villages than have been destroyed in Darfur. Over half a million have been internally displaced, and an additional one million refugees have fled the country. These tyrannical thugs have engaged in the systematic use of forced labor, human trafficking, forcible recruitment of child soldiers, torture, and rape — an appalling laundry list of human rights violations.

And, yet, despite such grave danger, the people of Burma have stood strong in the face of this extraordinary evil, to demand democratic reforms and basic human rights. They have done so with dignity, and they have done so peacefully.

The United States and the rest of the free world must stand with the people of Burma. The President’s decision yesterday to target the top generals for financial sanctions is a step in the right direction — but it will not solve the problem. And it is not enough.

The massive pro-democracy demonstrations in Burma represent the best opportunity for genuine political change in nearly twenty years. Burma’s “Saffron Revolution” is also an excellent chance for America to finally show greater diplomatic leadership on the world stage.

The United States must lead the international community in pressuring the military junta to release all political prisoners, starting with the venerable Nobel Peace Prize laureate and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and take steps down the path towards political change.

This week’s gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly is a tailor-made forum to get tough with Burma’s generals. From the halls of the United Nations to the headquarters of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the message to the Burmese military must be clear: The world is united behind the people marching in your streets. Do not meet peaceful protest with still more butchery. We are prepared to act in concert against you unless you immediately embark on serious negotiations toward sharing power with the people of Burma.

Showing diplomatic leadership on Burma also requires that we demand better from those countries that have propped up this brutal regime and are thus best equipped to pressure it: India and, in particular, China. The President and the United Nations must engage in strenuous diplomacy with Beijing — which carries the most sway with Burma’s generals — and urge the Chinese to press for political reform.

China has in its grasp a momentous opportunity to demonstrate leadership commensurate with its growing power and status. Beijing can host the 2008 Olympics as an enabler of cruelty and repression or as a responsible stakeholder in the world community. This is an important test. The world is watching.

As the international community exerts greater pressure on the military junta, it must also reach out more aggressively with humanitarian assistance for the Burmese people.

The people of Burma have suffered not only under the bullets and bayonets of the current regime, but also from decades of misrule that have transformed their resource-rich nation into one of the poorest in Asia. Many of Burma’s 52 million people live in abject misery. About one-third are mired in poverty. Nearly half of all children never get to go to school. Malaria and tuberculosis are widespread, and mortality rates in Burma are among the highest in Asia. At least 37,000 died of HIV/AIDS in 2005, and over 600,000 are infected with HIV.

Burma’s suffering destabilizes Southeast Asia. Heroin and methamphetamines, HIV-AIDS and other infectious diseases, as well as hordes of refugees are spilling across Burma’s borders into neighboring countries.

The international community must respond to this ongoing tragedy by providing humanitarian aid to a desperate and deserving people. Current levels of international assistance are woefully insufficient. We need a network of public and private donors to fund health, education, and infrastructure projects. The resilient and brave Burmese people have shown they are more than worthy of our support and compassion.

I want to close by offering a final word of warning: We must not forget Burma’s last great democratic uprising in 1988 — one that was brutally crushed by the military at the cost of some 3,000 innocent lives. That day and the repression that followed show the horrible human toll of our collective failure to act.

A peaceful, pro-democratic outcome in Burma is within reach: the UN, ASEAN, India, and especially China must stand with the United States in solidarity with the Burmese people. We must not fail the people of Burma once again.

The Saffron Revolution has photos, video links and links to other Burmese bloggers, blogging the protest, that looked a bit like this days after it first started:

TIME has coverage here and here.

Bush announced sanctions against Burma yesterday and while addressing the U.N. General Assembly, he "called on the world body to do more to fight tyranny, disease, ignorance and poverty, and pointedly demanded that it reform its own institutions."

AP News reports:

Myanmar security forces opened fire on Buddhist monks and other pro-democracy demonstrators Wednesday for the first time in a month of anti-government protests, killing at least one man and wounding others in chaotic confrontations across Yangon.

Dramatic images of the protests, many transmitted from the secretive Southeast Asian nation by dissidents using cell phones and the Internet, riveted world attention on the escalating faceoff between the military regime and its opponents.

Clouds of tear gas and smoke from fires hung over streets, and defiant protesters and even bystanders pelted police with bottles and rocks in some places. Onlookers helped monks escape arrest by bundling them into taxis and other vehicles and shouting "Go, go, go, run!"

The government said one man was killed when police opened fire during the ninth consecutive day of demonstrations, but dissidents outside Myanmar reported receiving news of up to eight deaths.

Some reports said the dead included monks, who are widely revered in Myanmar, and the emergence of such martyr figures could stoke public anger against the regime and escalate the violence.

Kerry is right, a "peaceful, pro-democratic outcome in Burma is within reach"... "We must not fail the people of Burma once again."

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily

U.N. Summit Urges Action on Climate Change - Bush Silent

2007-09-25T00:09:00.000-07:00

As world leaders met in N.Y.C. on Monday for the first U.N. climate summit, the Bush administration sat idly by and virtually ignored the summit, except for a brief appearance at a "small dinner" on Monday night.

With tales of rising seas and talk of human solidarity, world leaders at the first United Nations climate summit sought Monday to put new urgency into global talks to reduce global-warming emissions.

What’s needed is “action, action, action,” California’s environmentalist governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, told the assembled presidents and premiers.

The Bush administration showed no sign, however, that it would reverse its stand against mandatory emission cuts endorsed by 175 other nations. Some expressed fears the White House, with its own forum later this week, would launch talks rivaling the U.N. climate treaty negotiations.

President Bush didn’t take part in the day’s sessions, which drew more than 80 national leaders, but attended a small dinner Monday evening, a gathering of key climate players hosted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

John Kerry issued the following statement on Bush's decision not to attend the summit:

“The Bush Administration has done everything in its power to downplay, discount, and distract from the threat of climate change, so it’s not surprising that the President is skipping a series of high-level meetings designed to address the problem,” Kerry said. “As heads of state of 80 different countries and representatives from 150 countries gather in New York to chart the global response to climate change, the President’s absence sends a clear signal that he isn’t really serious about an international emissions reduction plan. The President needs to exhibit leadership and spend some political capital by committing to serious domestic emission reductions and rejoining the world’s leaders in a new global strategy to tackle this urgent issue.”

Last Thursday, "veteran advocates for confronting climate change hosted a phone briefing in advance of the United Nations meeting "The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change," being held at the U.N. in New York on Monday, September 24." John Kerry was one of the participants on the call.

During the call, experts discussed this important meeting and the latest developments in the political landscape surrounding U.S. climate policy. They also examined President Bush's "Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change", as well as the December U.N. climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, which will focus on a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.

I had to miss the call, as it was the day I was driving my daughter to college, but the audio of the call is available here and the transcript is available here.

Dan Froomkin noted in his White House Watch column on Monday that "The last two times the Pew Research Center asked people to describe President Bush in a single word, chief among the overwhelmingly negative responses was the word "incompetent."" I'd say that sums it up. From the Iraq War to Global Warming... Bush is incompetent, incompetent, incompetent.

The U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday that "a 15-year international effort to stem global warming has not halted the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions and that governments must take "unprecedented action" to reverse the trend." Ban told delegates, "Today, the time for doubt has passed."

That the "time for doubt has passed" is of no consequence to the Bush administration, who "has conducted a concerted, behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to try to generate opposition to California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, according to documents obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform."

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear questioned why Bush officials would go to such lengths to mobilize opposition.

"The Clean Air Act gives California the right to set its own emissions standards. Regardless of pressure, the EPA has a responsibility to allow California, and all the states that are behind us on the issue, to exercise our right," McLear said.

It's obscene that the Bush administration has turned such a blind eye to Global Warming and is pulling these political manuevers to influence the laws passed on the state level. It's obscene that Bush can't be bothered to show up at the U.N. summit, other than to attend a small dinner. Instead of attempting to make a difference and offer some real solutions, the "Bush administration will offer a variety of diplomatic carrots this week to encourage China, India, Brazil and other large developing nations to join a global effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, which are warming Earth's atmosphere."

Diplomatic carrots. How quaint. The world suffers under the leadership of America's imcompetent president.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry Statement on Ahmadinejad Visit to U.S. and Speech at Columbia University

2007-09-24T16:46:00.000-07:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in N.Y. today delivering a speech at Columbia University. Before the speech Columbia University President Lee Bollinger ripped into Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "going through a long list of documented actions and remarks by the firebrand Iranian leader and his government."

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said to applause from many of the 600 people in the room for a speech from the Iranian leader.

Bollinger cited the Iranian government's "brutal crackdown" on dissidents, public executions, executions of minors and other actions.

And he assailed Ahmadinejad's "denying" of the Holocaust as "ridiculous" and "dangerous propaganda." He called the Iranian leader either brazenly provocative "or astonishingly uneducated."

"The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history," he said.

Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S and his speech has been the source of a lot of controversy with many speaking out about the visit. Senator John Kerry made the following statement today about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United States and his address at Columbia University:

“Today Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was permitted the freedom that he denies to his own people, the right of free speech. I hope the Iranian people welcome him home with tough questions about why he believes he should enjoy liberties his own people do not share,” said Kerry.

“I'm proud of the Columbia students and faculty today who reminded the world that this man engages in the cruelest forms of oppression to strengthen his brutal regime.

“Calls for 'research' and 'study' don't change the fact that this man is a Holocaust denier who trades in anti-Semitism. It is long past time for the world to renounce this bigoted revisionist history, and important for everyone to remember that this demagogue fronts the world's largest state sponsor of terror, aids and abets the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, and is illegally pursuing a nuclear bomb."

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry Condemns Student Arrest

2007-09-18T13:27:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure which is more disturbing at this point, the many videos that have surfaced on the internet(s) of the student getting tasered at the John Kerry event in Florida yesterday, or the fact that once again the wingnuts are blowing a situation out of proportion that is connected to John Kerry.

ABC News (and other news outlets) report that John Kerry issued a statement today in response to the incident leading to the arrest of a student at the University of Florida:

"In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way.

I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention.

I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody.

I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured.

I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted."

Rick Klein of ABC News notes, "For politicians, hecklers come with the territory. But the arrest and detention of Meyer at Kerry speech on Monday stood out in at least two respects: Police acted aggressively in trying to silence Meyer, and the entire incident was captures on video -- making it an immediate Internet and TV sensation."

Videos show Meyer being pulled away from the microphone after as he sought to ask Kerry, D-Mass., a rambling series of questions that touch on allegations of voting improprieties in the 2004 election, possible impeachment of President Bush, Iran, and Kerry’s membership in Yale's secret Skull and Bones society.

Kerry sought to answer at least some of Meyer’s questions even as Meyer was dragged off by campus police -- and after police used a Taser to try to subdue him as he was being arrested.
[...]
The University of Florida has scheduled a news conference to discuss the incident at 3 pm ET today.

Todd has already posted about this mess below, but I'm chiming in here because the incident is being used by the wingnuts to slam John Kerry (and us lefties generally) and I am mad as hell that yet again, the blathering idiots are twisting news to in effect swift boat John Kerry again.

Clearly the cops were out of control here, using excessive force in my opinion, and Meyer wasn't simply asking a question but ranting. This incident is not indictive of liberals nor is it indictive of any Democratic political event. During the NH primary, I was at en event where a LaRouche supported started to ask Kerry a question and the audience tried to shut the questioner out. Kerry insisted on answering the questioner and although the questioner ranted on for sometime, Kerry and the audience let him speak. There were no cops dragging him off, no one harmed the man for speaking his mind. And I will note the man was in much closer proximity to Kerry, than Meyer was yesterday.

ABC's Klein notes that "Kerry, who was the Democrats’ nominee in 2004, is no longer assigned Secret Service protection, and does not bring his own security to events. That left University of Florida police in charge of security -- to notable results on Monday."

People need to take a deep breath and put this into perspective. This could have happened anywhere, at any event. It's not about John Kerry. It's about one person pushing the envelope to be heard and cops using excessive force. I am like many who have seen the video or read the news stunned by this. Knowing Senator Kerry personally, I agree, he could have "handled the situation without interruption" if the school police had allowed him to.

RELATED POST:

What Happened From John Kerry’s Perspective

Student Tasered at Kerry Event

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry and McCain Debate the Iraq War

2007-09-16T21:34:00.000-07:00

John McCain may be "vocal on Iraq" but "quiet on Bush" as the N.Y. Times points out, but John Kerry made certain on 'Meet The Press' that viewers knew that "the Bush-McCain strategy of escalating our troops in the middle of a civil war has no relationship directly to what you need to do to resolve the civil war."

Kerry was relentless with McCain through out the entire debate and at one point, he noted that mcCain, evidently had been debating himself. McCain insinuated that Democrats wanted to “To pull the plug" on Iraq... Kerry responded, “We’re not talking about abandoning Iraq... We’re talking about changing the mission.”

McCain was putty, repeating every Republican talking point he could grasp out of thin air. Kerry was masterful, leaving no corner of the Iraq War issue unexposed. The transcript is as follows:

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: The president restates his belief in the war.

(Videotape)

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: And he calls for an “enduring relationship” with Iraq that would keep American forces there “beyond my presidency.” What now? With us, decorated Vietnam veteran, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry; and decorated Vietnam veteran, 2008 Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. Kerry and McCain square off. A debate: Should we leave or should we stay?

Then, the very latest on the 2008 race for the White House. Insights and analysis from Chris Cillizza of washingtonpost.com; and Chuck Todd, political director of NBC News.

But first, the debate over the war in Iraq. Front and center across the country in our nation’s capital yesterday as anti-war protesters and counterdemonstrations were held. The debate is also front and center this morning right here on MEET THE PRESS. We’re joined by two men who have seen war, who feel they should be president, and who have very strong but different views on the way forward in Iraq. With us, Democrat John Kerry, Republican John McCain.

Welcome both.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, (R-AZ): Good morning.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me start with you, Senator McCain. What should be the U.S. strategy in Iraq for the next year?

SEN. McCAIN: The U.S. strategy in Iraq should be to defeat al-Qaeda, to do everything we can to reverse the increasing influence of Iran in Iraq, and to achieve or move towards the goal of military security and a functioning government.

MR. RUSSERT: General Petraeus was in Washington, and he testified and he agreed that in order to do that we will lose, on the average, two U.S. men or women per day...

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: ...15 will be wounded or injured per day...

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: ...at a cost of $300 million per day. Is it worth it?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, General Petraeus’ answer was pretty much the same as mine. All of us are saddened and frustrated by the course of this war. It was very badly mismanaged by the former secretary of defense and this administration. I, late in 2003, said this strategy is doomed to failure, that we had to fix it, that we had to adopt the strategy that we’ve now adopted. And it is now succeeding. Are we heartbroken at the loss and sacrifice of these brave young Americans? Of course. But the point is that now that we are succeeding with this strategy—and that’s the opinion of most observers—and abandon it and go—either go back to the previous failed strategy, which some Democrats want to do, or set a date for pullout and indicate that we’re leaving the neighborhood, then there’s no doubt in my mind of the consequences. And that’ll be genocide, chaos in the region and far worse than the situation we have today, which I believe can succeed if given sufficient time.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Kerry, your response.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Well, the Bush-McCain strategy of escalating our troops in the middle of a civil war has no relationship directly to what you need to do to resolve the civil war. So you can put additional troops in and secure a small area here or there, but everybody knows there are not enough troops to be able to secure all of the areas you need to secure and, most importantly, it does absolutely nothing to resolve the fundamental differences, Tim. A policy of putting more troops in and staying is a policy for staying. It is not a policy for winning or for changing the equation. And the fact is that over the last four and a half years, they’ve had ample opportunity to make any of the fundamental political decisions that really don’t relate to security. An oil revenue law does not take security to be passed. A de-Baathification law does not take security to be passed. It takes political will. They haven’t shown the political will. We have to change the fundamental equation and create leverage in our relationship.

READ ON HERE.

Kerry & McCain to Debate Iraq on ‘Meet The Press’

2007-09-16T01:02:00.000-07:00

John Kerry and John McCain will be on "Meet The Press' Sunday morning to debate the Iraq War:

Exclusive! Senators John Kerry (D-MA) & John McCain (R-AZ) debate the war in Iraq. How will the Petraeus report affect U.S. policy? We'll discuss the future of the War with two key senators and Vietnam veterans -- only on "Meet the Press."

This is don't miss Sunday morning TV! Last Sunday, Kerry and McCain were on 'This Week', but the show was not in a debate format, Kerry's interview followed McCain's and Kerry was able to wipe the floor with McCain's 'stay the course' stance on Iraq. Before Kerry decided not to run in '08, I thought the perfect face-off for '08 was perhaps John Kerry and John McCain. McCain's candidacy has fallen flat now, and as for John Kerry, he's still leading the charge on ending the war in Iraq.

The Blue State has the full Sunday line-up here which includes General Wesley Clark and Senator Chris Dodd on "CNN Late Edition". Clark endorsed Hillary Clinton on Saturday.

Let's hope the debate doesn't get tied up on the MoveOn ad kerfluffle and McCain's comments on Saturday that MoveOn “ought to be thrown out of this country.” McCain has taken to carrying "a blown-up, laminated poster of the MoveOn ad to his campaign stops" proving he has an issue with the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech. We live in a country, last I checked, that people and organizations don't get thrown out of the country, for expressing their views.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry: Bush Iraq Policy Still Wrong After All These Years

2007-09-13T23:24:00.000-07:00

Tonight in his address to the nation, Bush "tried to turn a corner in the fractious debate over Iraq" by ordering the "first limited troop withdrawals since voters elected an antiwar Congress last year."

But the move did little to appease Democratic leaders, who dismissed it as a token gesture masking an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops.

Bush said progress on the ground means he can pull out by next summer the additional combat forces he sent in January -- roughly 21,700 troops -- and he opened the door to further troop reductions if conditions improve. Although the president offered no forecast for how long it will take, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Washington Post reporters and editors yesterday that current U.S. projections anticipate Iraq reaching nationwide "sustainable security" by June 2009.

Senator John Kerry issued the following statement this evening, in response to the remarks by President Bush:

"Only President Bush could applaud a race back to the starting line when the finish line should be in sight. This is proof positive that the Bush escalation has been a failure. President Bush should acknowledge that the Iraqis have squabbled while American troops fought, squandering the political opportunity our brave soldiers died to create," said Senator John Kerry. "This is more of the same flawed strategy in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is no military solution to Iraq’s civil war. We must change this disastrous Bush policy, and we must change it now."

Glen Kessler of the WaPo offers a fact check on Bush's speech noting that Bush was "citing facts and statistics that at times contradicted recent government reports or his own words."

Read onhere.

Kerry on Boehner’s “Small Price”

2007-09-13T12:45:00.000-07:00

John Kerry responded to today to Rep. John Boehner's "stunningly cavalier" response to the pointed question asked yesterday on CNN by Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer asked Boehner: "The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?"

Boehner responded: "The investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids."

Kerry's slammed Boehner for his "cavalier" statment and demands an apology:

What a stunningly cavalier statement about the lives of the young men and women who serve our country.

Whether you support or oppose the Bush escalation, no American should ever for even a moment think the cost of war is small.

A single life is a large price to pay for any endeavor. Sometimes, in our national interest, we choose to pay that awful price, but we must always make sure that the policy is worthy of it.

Visit our wounded warriors at Walter Reed hospital and ask whether the price they paid was small. Talk to the mothers, fathers, husbands and wives of those who have been killed and ask them to measure the price of war. Young lives stopped short, children who won't have a mother or father there as they grow up, when they graduate, when they get married -- that loss is many things, but it is not small.

Where is Representative Boehner's apology? And where is an Iraq policy equal to our soldiers' tremedous sacrifice?

Call Boehner's office: 202-225-6205. Demand an apology.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry’s Opening Statement at Petraeus-Crocker Hearing

2007-09-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

It's day two of the Petraeus follies on Capitol Hill. General Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning to once again discuss the "progress report on the war in Iraq and explain a new military plan to withdraw the 30,000 reinforcements sent there earlier this year to improve security."

Opening today's hearing on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the committee chairman, called for a moment of silence in honor of the nearly 3,000 victims of the terrorist strikes. He expressed skepticism about President Bush's "surge" strategy and the ability of Iraqi political leaders to govern the country in a centralized system.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee member John Kerry made the following statement at today’s hearing (as prepared for delivery):

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, thank you very much for coming before the Committee today, and thank you for your exemplary service. The country owes the brave men and women who serve in the Armed Forces -- and in our diplomatic corps -- an awesome debt of gratitude for the sacrifices they make every day under extremely difficult circumstances in Iraq.

This is a historic moment: Not since General Westmoreland appeared before Congress 40 years ago has an active duty general played such a major public role in the national debate.

Many thousands of the names inscribed on the Vietnam wall were added after that testimony, after it should have been clear that the strategy would not work. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. That is why we have a solemn duty here to ask the tough questions about Iraq. We owe our troops a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice, and it’s clear that the current strategy -- the President’s escalation -- has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia.

We all agree that there is no American military solution to an Iraqi civil war. That’s why the escalation had a single, simple goal: to create "breathing room" for Iraqis to make the political compromises that will hold their country together and end their civil war.

We heard the bottom line from the GAO last week: only 3 of the 18 benchmarks that the Iraqi government agreed to over a year ago have been met – including only 1 of the 8 benchmarks for political reconciliation. Over 15 months after the Maliki government took power, the Iraqi parliament still has not passed legislation on oil revenue sharing, de-Ba'athification, and provincial elections. The constitutional review process vital to political reconciliation is nowhere close to completion.

Yet despite the obvious lack of movement on political reconciliation, we keep hearing that we are making progress in Iraq. General Petraeus has effectively asked for more time to allow the escalation strategy to succeed. He has spoken about reduced levels of violence, and success in “bottom-up reconciliation” efforts against Al Qaeda, as justification for continuing the current mission.

Let’s be absolutely clear: whatever “tactical successes” we have achieved have not translated into the strategic success we need to turn the tide. The escalation has failed to resolve the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shia that continues to drive the Iraqi civil war, and there’s no reason to believe that more of the same is going to make a difference.

All summer, supporters of the escalation urged us to wait until September. Wait until September to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Well, September is here, and despite your best efforts, the result is clear: Without deadlines, without accountability—there has been no real political progress in Iraq.

We should not be asking any more American troops to sacrifice their lives and limbs for Iraqi politicians who refuse to compromise. That’s why I believe more strongly than ever that we need to change course in Iraq.

As I have been saying for a year and a half, we need to (1) change the mission to pursuing Al Qaeda, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting U.S. facilities and personnel; (2) set a deadline for redeployment that is necessary to make the Iraqis to make the tough compromises necessary to end their civil war; and (3) engage in the intensive diplomacy necessary to get Iraq’s neighbors to play a more constructive role in stabilizing Iraq.

I believe that strategy protects our vital national interests and gives us the best chance to succeed.

In related news, a new AP/Ipsos polls shows that "the public sees the Iraq war as a failure and thinks the U.S. troop buildup there has not worked."

The pessimism expressed by most people -- including significant minorities of Republicans -- contrasted with the brighter picture offered by Gen. David Petraeus. The chief U.S. commander in Iraq told Congress on Monday that the added 30,000 troops have largely achieved their military goals and could probably leave by next summer, though he conceded there has been scant political progress.

By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry Says Petraeus-White House Report on Iraq Fails to Make the Case

2007-09-10T19:04:00.000-07:00

It was day one of the Petraeus follies on Capitol Hill today. Petraeus, the "top U.S. commander in Iraq told Congress today that the military objectives of the Bush administration's troop increase strategy in Iraq "are in large measure being met," and he forecast a reduction of U.S. forces in coming months without jeopardizing gains."

Appearing with the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq to report on military and political developments in the four-year-old war effort, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus claimed major progress for the so-called "surge," the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq last spring.

Citing a drop in the overall level of violence in Iraq, Petraeus said, "I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to pre-surge levels . . . without jeopardizing security gains we fought so hard to achieve." He said he also believes that "it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time," although this will be "neither quick nor easy."

Petraeus said he has "recommended a drawdown" of U.S. forces starting later this month with the withdrawal of a Marine unit. Further "redeployments" should continue into next year, with U.S. troop strength dropping to about 130,000 troops by mid-July 2008, he said.

The much-anticipated testimony of Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker at a joint hearing of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees could help shape upcoming congressional decisions on funding for the Iraq war. The pair also is scheduled to testify together Tuesday at separate Senate hearings, one before the Foreign Relations Committee and the other before the Armed Services Committee.

Senator John Kerry issued the following statement today, in response to testimony from General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker:

“It spoke volumes today when General Petraeus said the Iraqi politicians have been sitting on their thumbs while American soldiers sweated it out all summer. Nothing today suggested that President Bush’s eight months of escalation have done anything to achieve political progress in a deadly civil war,” Kerry said. “The three recent independent reports – from the General Accounting Office, the National Intelligence Estimate and the General Jones Commission - all say the opposite. I am looking forward to hearing from both of these public servants tomorrow during the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee hearing.”

Michael Abramowitz notes in the WaPo, that the "long-awaited testimony this afternoon of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, once seen as a potential turning point in war policy, seemed more like an exercise of kicking the can down the road."

Petraeus left the larger questions -- what will be the future size and mission of the American "footprint" in Iraq -- unanswered. He offered hints that the reductions might continue beyond next summer but said he would not be able to offer a definitive judgment until March.

"Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous," Petraeus testified.

I'm not sure what the line up is for Senator's on the Foreign Relations Committee questioning Petraeus tomorrow, but no doubt, Kerry will not be holding any punches.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry: The Escalation Didn’t Work

2007-09-05T21:26:00.000-07:00

John Kerry posted on DKos and the HuffPo today about Bush's Iraq Escalation. The bottomline... It Didn't Work. Here's a few quips from Kerry's post:

The escalation failed to do the one and only thing it was supposed to do. The entire Iraq policy of George W. Bush has failed since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad. No amount of parsing or spinning can change those simple facts: the escalation is and was the wrong answer.

I chaired a hearing on the GAO Report yesterday, the report that stated that Iraqi civilians overall aren’t any safer, that the political benchmarks aren’t being met in Iraq, that, in short, none of the rationales for the escalation in Iraq have come to pass. It unfolds with maddening, enraging regularity: the Administration claims goals for their policy, they gradually back off of those goals and substitute smaller, less easily measured goals, and then muddy the waters hopelessly on whether even those modest new goals have been met. Time and again we’ve been through this.

That’s why the Congress set up some clear benchmarks to measure what’s happening in Iraq. Mitch McConnell praised the “clarity” those benchmarks brought to the debate. “Just wait until September,” they all said. “We put in these meaningful benchmarks, we can judge in September.”

Well, how do they judge those benchmarks now? Only three of 18 have been met. Another four were “partially met,” which sounds like a “Gentleman’s C” if I’ve ever heard of one (and, for anyone who saw my college transcript, I have.).

Judgment time is here, and the only verdict is the same one we had in January, the same one we've had for a long time in Iraq: the Bush policy is a tragic failure. It's a policy that not only isn't working; it can't work. A political solution in Iraq cannot come about without a clear deadline on where our troops will be pulling out. Only Iraqis can end this civil war, and they aren't - and won't be - making any progress with an open-ended, massive presence by our military in their country.

In an update on Kerry's DKos post, Kerry responded to the many questions of "what can we do about it?"...

A lot of you are asking about what we can do about it. That’s the right question. I can't guarantee success, but we're closer than we've ever been. The media swirl around this debate doesn't capture the dynamics I see in Congress. Republicans are much more nervous about this, and there's far less Democratic disunity than the media storyline portrays. I'm talking to my colleagues every day (I just got out of a caucus meeting), and the Bush-advanced fallacy that the escalation is working just isn't a big part of our discussions. I think we hammered that reality home pretty hard yesterday at the Foreign Relations Committee with some important validation from Sen. Lugar.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are not confident at all. Their party is being driven over the cliff by the President’s stubborn insistence on sticking to this failed policy. And they know it. No one wants to consign themselves to a permanent minority, but that's what's happening. They're not unified at all on this.

But the main question is: what can we do about it? I'm going to make this case in any way I can. Television, newspapers, you name it. There's no magic bullet to this; we simply need to apply as much pressure as possible in as many ways as possible. I'll be back with some specific actions from time to time because concerted action by many people toward a single goal gets the best results. But do as much as you can all the time. Drop by your representatives’ office and let them know your feelings. Write, call, fax, email, get in contact any way you can. These actions aren't glamorous, but they really do make a difference. And don't lose faith. The other side in this debate is intent on outlasting us, convinced that we'll give up. You and I have to make sure that they are wrong on that.

Kerry's opening statement from Tuesday Foreign Relations Committee on the GAO Iraq Banchmarks report is here.

Remember, as Kerry said, "there's far less Democratic disunity than the media storyline portrays," so keep an open mind when you read the latest spin piece from the N.Y.Times: Democrats Newly Willing to Compromise on Iraq.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

A Katrina Reflection

2007-08-29T17:59:00.000-07:00

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has an Editorial today aimed at Bush. The Times-Picayune says: Treat us fairly, Mr. President...

Nobody wants to have to compete for disaster relief.

But that is what Louisianians have had to do in the two years since Hurricane Katrina struck.

Despite massive destruction caused by the failure of the federal government's levees during Katrina, despite the torment caused by FEMA's slow response to the disaster, despite being hit by a second powerful hurricane less than a month later, Louisiana has had to plead to be treated fairly by our leaders in Washington.

Of all the photos from Katrina, the two below are among the most memorable in my mind:

Historian Douglas Brinkley chronicled many photos from Katrina in his book, The Great Deluge. There's a photo gallery here.

From The Guardian UK on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina a reflection from music legend Fats Domino who was missing after Katrina:

The King of New Orleans, Fats Domino, is one of the few optimistic people in the still devastated city. "Everybody is doing the best they can. I think New Orleans will recover," he said on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

He is one of the lucky ones. His house in the city's poor and exclusively black Lower Ninth district, from which he was rescued by helicopter, was destroyed in the flooding. But musicians from around the world - Elton John, Joss Stone, Neil Young and many others - have put together a tribute CD to be released next month to pay for its reconstruction and others in the Lower Ninth.

Speaking in Tipitina's jazz hall, Domino, 79, said he was born and raised in New Orleans, liked everything about the place, from the food to the music, and did not want to live anywhere else. "I think we will be all right," he said.

That is not a view shared by many of the city's 250,000-plus residents still waiting to return to their homes or the 100,000-plus still in exile in Texas and elsewhere.

The recovery goes on in the Gulf. John Kerry noted today in response to Bush's platitudes from New Orleans that Bush aasn’t learned the lessons of Katrina:

“President Bush showed once again that he hasn’t learned the lessons of Katrina. Empty claims ring hollow to the survivors of Katrina still struggling to get back on their feet. While the President hailed the progress made by Louisiana schools, less than twenty percent of the money needed to rebuild the schools has been pledged to New Orleans. The Gulf Coast needs a sustained federal effort to help small businesses and homeowners return and rebuild. It’s time for President Bush to listen to his own advice and make a real commitment to Gulf Coast recovery.”

Enough Is Enough.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Anger and Sadness Mark Katrina Anniversary

2007-08-29T13:55:00.000-07:00

Today marks the two year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. And sadly the question begs to be answered, why have "those dependent on government assistance to rebuild their lives," been overlooked and met with delays.

While middle- and upper-class neighborhoods have rebuilt using private insurance and contacts, residents of low-income areas such as the Lower 9th Ward and Holy Cross — roughly 20,000 of them — for the most part remain scattered throughout the region, their return uncertain.

The flooding that began after Katrina hit on Aug. 29, 2005, delivered an estimated $150 billion worth of damage to the Gulf Coast region, making it the worst disaster in U.S. history. Of the $116 billion appropriated by Congress to Gulf Coast recovery, $34 billion has been earmarked for long-term rebuilding. But less than half of that has made its way through federal checks and balances to reach municipal projects.

Throughout the Gulf Coast, residents are asking why their government — at every level — hasn't done more to streamline the process and bring more rebuilding dollars to the region.

"We're working ourselves close to death," says Scott Darrah, a New Orleans civic activist. "But we can't move it past further than what we have today. The government needs to step up."

Yesterday, Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, made the following statement on the eve of the two-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina:

“Two years after Hurricane Katrina there is still a long way to go to get the Gulf Coast region back on its feet. Too many families and businesses are still struggling with too much red tape and an incompetent federal response that put our kids in toxic trailers and mismanaged billions of taxpayer dollars. Two years ago, Katrina pulled back a curtain and showed the world the true extent of poverty and inequality that still exists in our country. Remembering this tragedy with photo ops isn’t enough. We must finally force accountability and action from the federal government that will get our families and small businesses back on track.

“When Katrina hit, there was no effective safety net to help the individuals and small businesses that were devastated by the storm. And two years later, we still lack a plan that ensures that a Katrina-like response never happens again. I’ve worked with Senator Mary Landrieu and others on a bipartisan basis for two years to provide the government with critical tools to respond more quickly and effectively in the case of future disasters. We passed a disaster loan reform bill in the Senate, and we need to get this legislation on the President’s desk and signed into law.”

“Many families and businesses owners have put themselves back on track and the Gulf Coast region is making progress because of their own hard work and determination. It’s long past time that Washington gives the victims of Katrina a policy that equals their incredible perseverance and hope.”

See here for more information about the legislation.

Bush made an appearance at a "recovering school in the Lower 9th Ward — a predominantly black, low income area that was all but obliterated by the storm" and led a moment of silence followed by platitudes.

"Better days are ahead," Bush said as he sought to assure residents that his administration had not forgotten the region and would make good on the promises of aid.

"We're still paying attention. We understand," the president said.

Protesters, remembering the government's slow response in the storm's immediate aftermath, planned to march from the Lower 9th Ward to Congo Square to spread their message that the government has also failed to help people return.

"People are angry and they want to send a message to politicians that they want them to do more and do it faster," said the Rev. Marshall Truehill, a Baptist pastor and community activist. "Nobody's going to be partying."

Today's anniversary is a stark "reminder of the desperation that filled New Orleans' flooding neighborhoods in the days after Katrina hit."

Images of dead bodies, people in the flood zones calling from their roofs and waiting days for help, and of the thousands of evacuees packed into the grimy and damaged Superdome, are still fresh in many minds.

Politicians have used the date to pitch policy. Scholars and activists have released a steady stream of reports on the state of recovery.

An international people's tribunal, spearheaded by legal activists trying to build a case under international law accusing the United States of human rights abuses during and after Katrina, has also been convened to take testimony from victims.

It's stunning to mark the two year anniversary of Katrina with the fact that in so many ways our government is still failing the people of the Gulf. As historian Douglas Brinkley pointed out in the WaPo a few days ago, victims of Katrina are "still in the middle of the Katrina saga" and suffering from the Bush Administration's "Reckless Abandonment."

A year ago The Dem Daily marked the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina with a few posts including one referring to an article in the Boston Globe that featured this photo of "Mounds of debris fill a waste collection point in New Orleans":

The sad fact is, 2 years later, when it comes to Hurricane Katrina, we're still "waiting for a leader."

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry Says Census Statistics on Uninsured Americans Show Urgent Need for Action

2007-08-28T19:25:00.000-07:00

The latest Census Report is out today, showing that although the poverty rate dropped in '06, "the percentage of Americans without health insurance coverage hit a record high."

Census officials attributed the rise in uninsured Americans to 47 million from 44.8 million in 2005 mostly to Americans losing employer-provided or privately purchased health insurance. The percentage of people who received health benefits through an employer declined to 59.7 percent in 2006 from 60.2 percent in 2005.

The percentage of people with government-provided health insurance also dropped, to 27 percent from 27.3 percent.

The number of uninsured children increased to 8.7 million, or 11.7 percent, in 2006, from 8 million, or 10.9 percent, in 2006.

Senator John Kerry made the following statement today in response to the Census Bureau’s report that 2.2 million more Americans became uninsured over the last year, including 700,000 additional children under the age of 18:

“As President Bush promises to veto kids’ health care and chips away at bipartisan efforts to insure low-income children and poor families, the health care crisis in this country is growing,” Senator Kerry said. “Today’s news serves as even more evidence that programs like SCHIP must be fully funded and extended to the growing numbers of uninsured Americans. Health care costs are soaring and our health care professionals are feeling incredible burdens. 47 million people in this country have no health care coverage, yet this President continues to choose tax cuts for millionaires over funding commonsense, workable programs that cover the poorest Americans. And now the administration proposes to limit the ability of states to extend SCHIP to vulnerable children of the working poor. It’s time for this President and his allies in Congress to stop playing politics and get their priorities straight.

“In Massachusetts the news has not been so grim—the number of uninsured has dropped dramatically because Gov. Patrick is implementing an innovative new program to provide quality health coverage for everyone. Massachusetts has set an example for the rest of the country -- now it’s time for Washington to do what’s right to reverse years of ignoring the needs of the uninsured, including rejecting the president’s latest effort to restrict access to SCHIP.”

Earlier this year, John Kerry introduced the Countdown to Coverage Act, which calls on Members of Congress to either pass legislation that would ensure quality coverage for every American by 2011 or be forced to pay the full cost of their federal insurance plan. Kerry also sponsored “Kids First,” a bill that would cover all uninsured children in the country and also introduce an amendment to SCHIP that would have fully funded the program to $50 billion dollars. Both of John Kerry’s efforts would be paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for millionaires.

Access to affordable Healthcare should be a right not an option.

Cross Posted FromThe Democratic Daily.

John Kerry Tells Bush to Restore Integrity to Justice Department

2007-08-27T15:35:00.000-07:00

As Hart noted below, Alberto Gonzales resigned today and even the wingnuts are "swimming away from the sinking Ship of State." The WaPo reports that Gonzales' resignation ends "a controversial cabinet tenure that included clashes with Congress over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and over the use of warrantless wiretaps in the war on terror."

In a brief statement, he called his 13 years in public service a "remarkable journey," but he gave no explanation about why he chose to resign now after resisting months of pressure to quit.

Gag me... The praise from Dubya is nauseating:

In a brief statement from an airport tarmac in Waco, Tex., President Bush praised Gonzales as "a man of integrity, decency and principle." The president also asserted that his attorney general had been unfairly maligned.

"It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons," Bush said.

Gonzo's resignation "marks the loss" of yet another BushCo loyalist "at a time when the president's support in public opinion polls has been lagging and amid a fight with Congress over the future of Iraq war policy."

Senator John Kerry issued the following statement today, following the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez:

“Alberto Gonzales turned the Justice Department into a political arm of the White House and he should have resigned long ago,” Kerry said. “From the firings of the US Attorneys to evasion about illegal wiretapping, Gonzales single-handedly damaged the integrity of our legal system and subverted efforts to get to the truth. This is a critical moment. President Bush can either continue on a divisive and destructive path, or choose in the next Attorney General someone who knows they’re not the president’s lawyer but rather the nation’s top law enforcement officer. The President should choose a replacement that gives the department a fresh start, untainted by controversy; and even with Gonzales gone, Congress must keep pushing until we get truth and accountability on unanswered questions involving everything from illegal wiretapping to the US Attorneys scandal.”

RELATED POST:

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.
John Kerry Tells Bush to Restore Integrity to Justice Department

John Kerry Responds to Bush’s VFW Speech Invoking Vietnam

2007-08-22T18:16:00.000-07:00

Bush offered a defense of Iraq War "surge" today at a speech to the VFW, "declaring that he envisions an American victory there and asserting that a hasty withdrawal by the United States would unleash a bloodbath reminiscent of the Vietnam War era." His defense of the "surge" is a prelude to the expected "tough battle with Congress over the future of the war" when Congress reconvenes in September. In his speech Bush "accused the Congress of planning to “pull the rug out from under” American troops."

He said the American pullout from Vietnam more than 32 years ago was to blame for millions of deaths in Cambodia and Vietnam, and for putting a dent in American credibility that lasts to this day.

“Then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America’s presence, and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end,” Mr. Bush told an audience at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention here today. “The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.”

Senator John Kerry made the following statement in response to the speech today by Bush:

“Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars,” Senator Kerry said. “Half of the soldiers whose names are on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after the politicians knew our strategy would not work. The lesson is to change the strategy not just to change the rhetoric. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our brave soldiers can’t bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq’s leaders are unable or unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their sectarian and political differences.

“It is unfortunate that President Bush would want to invoke a false comparison of Vietnam to Iraq, but not surprising that he would oversimplify the differences and overlook the tragic similarities. As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception. As in Vietnam, more American soldiers are being sent to fight and die in a civil war we can’t stop and an insurgency we can’t bomb into submission. If the President wants to heed the lessons of Vietnam, he should change course and change course now.”

In the Hill: Democrats blast Bush’s Vietnam comparison.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry: Army Report on Suicide Rates Reinforces Need to Improve Care for All Wounds of War

2007-08-16T11:47:00.000-07:00

Following up on my early morning post about the Army suicide rate being the highest in 26 years, Senator John Kerry made the following statement today, in response to the newly released military report on suicide rates of those serving in the United States Army. The report notes that soldiers in the Army committed suicide last year (2006) at the highest rate in 26 years, and it also said that more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Today’s report underscores even more powerfully the urgency of getting our soldiers the care and assistance they need before they deploy, while they are in combat and most importantly when they return,” Senator Kerry said. “There is nothing more important than getting our government prepared to help heal all the wounds of war – including those that might not be visible. It starts with improving PTSD treatment and giving our veterans centers the resources they need to provide the care our soldiers deserve.”

“Over the past 6 years we’ve too often seen the rhetoric of supporting the troops fall short of promises kept. From threatened vetoes of military pay raises, failure to provide our troops with the proper equipment, and a multi-billion dollar shortfall at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the gaps in preparedness have been unacceptable. The Administration must reverse course and immediately follow the Dole-Shalala Commission’s recommendations and improve care and resources for PTSD and traumatic brain injury. I also call on the President to support bipartisan efforts in Congress to increase the number of mental health specialists in both the Department of Defense and the VA and increase dwell time for our soldiers between deployments.”

In the blogosphere, Outside the Beltway and Armered Liberal at Winds of Change, are pulling out national suicide statistics to downplay the reports findings. There is no downplaying this. The fact is that we're not doing enough to help out troops cope with PTSD, we're sending suicidal and stressed out soldiers back into combat, and we're not providing adequate medical care for our veterans.

Enough Is Enough.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry Aide with Aspirations Considers Run for Mayor in ‘09

2007-08-01T01:28:00.000-07:00

John Kerry’s deputy state director, Setti Warren is considering running for mayor of Newton, MA in 2009. Warren "served in the Clinton White House, and was appointed in 2002 the regional director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for New England. Warren joined Kerry’s crew in 2003, serving as the senator’s trip director and press secretary before becoming his deputy state director in late 2005." I had the pleasure of meeting Setti Warren on many occassions during Kerry's '04 campaign. The Newton TAB reports Warren's possible candidacy has garnered the interest of "Steve Grossman, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and long-time Newton resident."

Should Warren decide to run in 2009, Newtonites would potentially benefit from a debate between a mayor with a strong track record and a new face with a list of real-life experiences, Grossman added.

"I think a lot of people will see a competition, if you will, as something of being a win-win for the people of Newton,” he said.

In his current position, Warren works with municipalities on economic development and constituent issues across the state.

Considering his experience within the executive and legislative branches, “[Setti] has a finger on the pulse of unmet needs of cities and towns,” Grossman said.

He didn’t consider Warren’s status as a first-time candidate a detriment to any future campaign.

“I think the people of Newton are very open-minded to fresh faces who offer something special and exciting and bold and imaginative ... and Setti is all those things.” Grossman said.

Last August, Setti Warren married Elizabeth Tasker Plummer, who he met during Kerry's '04 campaign. John Kerry was a groomsman at Warren's wedding.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry Responds to Cheney’s Defense of Pentagon’s Smear of Senator Clinton

2007-08-01T01:26:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday John Kerry responded to comments made by Vice President Dick Cheney during his interview with Larry King on CNN. Earlier in July, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman said that Senator Clinton was aiding the enemy by asking for plans on troop redeployment from Iraq. Dick Cheney defended these attacks in the interview, saying Edelman’s letter was “a good letter.” He also refused the oversight role of Congress on the war in Iraq.

Senators Kerry and Clinton are introducing legislation that would direct the Pentagon to prepare a report and briefing for Congress on contingency planning for redeploying troops from Iraq. Kerry said in a statement:

“It’s no surprise that today Dick Cheney stands by these politically motivated attacks and belittles accountability from Congress on the war in Iraq,” Senator Kerry said. “After all, this is the Vice President who said Saddam Hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons, who said over two years ago that the insurgency was in its “last throes,” and who just weeks ago contended he wasn’t part of the Executive Branch. This Administration needs to honor our troops by listening to its own generals and changing course in Iraq now. The Vice President should focus on how to bring our heroes home from a stable Iraq.”

Good for Kerry for holding ground against Cheney and the Pentagon in their attempts to smear Hillary. And speaking of the Pentagon, Raw Story reports that the Pentagon has announced "20K troops will rotate into Iraq." There is "No End In Sight."

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry on The Hill Blog: Insurance For Kids Will Not Fall Victim to Politics

2007-07-30T23:49:00.000-07:00

The battle over SCHIP was in the news on Monday with Paul Krugman noting that "denying basic health care to children whose parents lack the means to pay for it, simply because you’re afraid that success in insuring children might put big government in a good light, is just morally wrong."

And the public understands that. According to a recent Georgetown University poll, 9 in 10 Americans — including 83 percent of self-identified Republicans — support an expansion of the children’s health insurance program.

There is, it seems, more basic decency in the hearts of Americans than is dreamt of in Mr. Bush’s philosophy.

John Kerry, a longtime champion for healthcare for kids had a post on The Hill Blog on Monday about the battle over State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP):

The fact that nine million children in our country live without health care is unacceptable. When it comes to family values, it’s time for Congress to start putting its money where its mouth is. We all know that members of Congress love to talk the talk about children, their health, and raising our kids right. Well, this week I’m going to challenge them to do just that when I bring my amendment to the floor of the Senate to fully fund the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) at $50 billion. This will bring coverage to approximately half of the nine million uninsured children in American today.

You would think it would be common sense to give some of the nation’s poorest kids healthcare. Not to this White House. President Bush spoke loud and clear when he said last week that he will block care for these kids with a stroke of his veto pen. Not only is he against expanding SCHIP – he doesn’t even want to retain the children who are currently enrolled. That’s wrong, and this Democratic Congress will make sure that insurance for kids will not fall victim to political games.

As a self-employed single mother who hasn't been able to afford healthcare insurance for the past couple of years, thanks to the not so booming BushCo economy, I have been a longtime supporter of John Kerry's Kids First Act. It is unacceptable that so many children are without healthcare in this country. It's time to amke healthcare for all children in America a reality.

The WaPo's editorial chimes in on the SCHIP debate asking, "Do House Republicans really want to be arguing for taking away health insurance from children who now have it?"

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Kerry Challenges Bush, Republican Allies to Stop Obstructionism

2007-07-26T23:50:00.000-07:00

The big news from the Senate today was the subpoena for Karl Rove issued by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). The Hill reports, "Leahy issued the subpoenas, one to Rove and one to White House aide Scott Jennings, after consulting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee’s ranking member."

“The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances,” Leahy added. “Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”

John Kerry spoke on the Senate floor today on the subject of the obstructionism from the Bush Administration and the Republican party, highlighting the accomplishments of the new Democratic Majority in the 110th Congress.

Below are Kerry’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

Mr. President, last November, was one of those rarest moments in the short history of our country and our democracy. Any political science student taking a freshman lecture course will hear how hard it is to remove entrenched congressional majorities. They know the statistics about how hard it is to defeat incumbents around here. It doesn’t happen often.

But sometimes it does happen. Just six times in our 230-year history has one party lost both houses of Congress. 2006 was the first time the Republican Party failed to win a single House, Senate, or Gubernatorial office previously held by a Democrat.

We Democrats have been there. In 1994, Democrats woke up to a landslide defeat some people thought would never come. It wasn’t always easy, it wasn’t always collegial, but we listened, and we learned – and together we reached across the aisle to balance the budget and reform welfare. We wrestled with why we’d lost and we wrestled with what we had to do to come together not just as a Party but as a country.

Evidently, some people still haven’t wrestled with what happened last November 7th.

Last November Americans were angry. They saw our young men and women in uniform paying the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq for a failed policy stuck on auto-pilot. They saw the number of Americans without health insurance skyrocket to 45 million—with more hardworking Americans joining them every day. They saw record-high oil prices and global climate change a reality denied and deferred, and no serious national effort to address them. They saw staggering corruption and no accountability for the way the peoples’ house had been turned into a refuge for the special interests.

Read On here...

Overhaul Urged in Care for Soldiers… Kerry Says Dole –Shalala Commission Report Requires Immediate Action

2007-07-25T21:56:00.000-07:00

A new report by a presidential commission that examined the care given to wounded U.S. service members was released on Wednesday. The report "recommended "fundamental changes" aimed at simplifying the military's convoluted health-care bureaucracy and overhauling the veterans disability system for the first time in more than half a century."

The panel issued six broad recommendations intended to transform a troubled system for military health care and veterans' assistance that has left some injured soldiers languishing for years and resulted in inequitable and inconsistent disability benefits.

In the wake of the report, Senator John Kerry announced that he will work tirelessly to immediately bring the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors to the Senate floor for a vote.

Kerry also strongly criticized Bush, who upon receiving the report this morning said only that findings were “very interesting” while his spokesman said there were no plans to take immediate action on the report.

“Congress needs to act on these recommendations immediately and we cannot tolerate White House foot dragging on yet another bipartisan commission’s findings,” Kerry said. “The White House stonewalled the advice of the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group, and we’re less safe because of their inaction. That pattern must not be repeated when it comes to helping America’s veterans. The crisis at Walter Reed was a tragic reminder that the government failed to plan for a new generation of veterans, and there is no excuse for waiting to get them the help they need. The important recommendations in this report must be turned into an improved reality for our hard-working military and I intend to work tirelessly with my colleagues to make sure that happens.”

The nine-member Commission, headed by Fmr. Sen. Bob Dole and Fmr. Sec. of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, was established by Executive Order to “conduct a comprehensive review of the care America is providing our wounded servicemen and women returning from the battlefield.” Members of the commission met with Bush at the White House "to brief him on their findings and to press him for quick action. "We left there feeling the ball's in their court now," Dole said."

The Commission Recommendations Include:

Implement comprehensive Recovery Plans

Restructure disability and compensations systems

Improve care for people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI)

Strengthen support for families

Transfer patient information across systems

Support Walter Reed until closure

Other reactions to the report are available here.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Public Opinion Moving in Kerry’s Direction

2007-07-25T09:12:00.000-07:00

How maddening is it to know that you were right on an issue, and you were way ahead of the curve and then to sit back and watch the public catch up to you? If you were John Kerry, right about now, you'd be taking it in stride, and keeping on doing what you feel is right in your gut. And that's what Kerry is doing... while pulic opinion is finally catching up to him on Iraq and a few other issues. Last week after the latest Iraq vote, Paul Kane noted on Capitol Briefing:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): Few people might have realized this, but Levin-Reed -- setting a timetable for withdrawing troops -- was essentially the same amendment Kerry offered in June 2006. Back then, it got 13 votes. Now, 53. Of course, the 2004 Democratic nominee wasn't given his due, relegated to speaking shortly after 5 a.m. Wednesday.

Who made the correlation before the vote that Levin-Reed was essentially Kerry-Feingold? No one, perhaps. But Kerry knew. Now, I can't say how many times it has been said here on The Dem Daily, that Kerry was right, but I know it's numerous and plentiful. In Tuesday's Boston Globe, Globe Columnist, Peter S. Canellos lays out neatly what I have known for sometime, sadly... "Dividends of Kerry's views come too late for '08."

In June 2006, when Senator John F. Kerry joined his colleague Russell Feingold in pushing for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, the bill drew a paltry 13 votes. Most Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, felt a deadline was irresponsible.

Last week, the same bill got 52 senators, a majority, voting to break a filibuster and force an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Clinton was among them.

The vote failed because 60 votes are required to break a filibuster, but it nonetheless affirmed the growing impatience of Congress with the Iraq war. It also vindicated Kerry's strategy in plotting his second presidential race: Move to the left of Clinton, thereby winning over liberals. Show more passion than in 2004, and a deeper commitment to Democratic principles. Most of all: Exert leadership on Iraq.

Kerry's strategy seems ready to pay dividends. Another of his bold moves -- leading the filibuster against confirming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito -- now looks very smart to liberals, after Alito provided crucial votes to eviscerate liberal positions on school desegregation, late-term abortion, and campaign finance restrictions.

But Kerry, of course, isn't in a position to collect his dividends. His second presidential campaign never got off the ground.

In retrospect, Kerry's presidential hopes ended with his "botched joke" about soldiers in Iraq, made in the final days of the 2006 congressional campaign.

For those who don't remember, Kerry had been making some headway in showcasing his new fighting image by logging more miles than any national campaigner in 2006. He gave a speech that a focus group ranked as the best of all potential 2008 presidential contenders.

All this activity was important because most Democrats were dubious about another Kerry presidential run. In 2004, he had come within three points of President Bush in the popular vote and within one big state in the Electoral College, but that only made Democrats more fixated on ways he could have done better -- mostly by fighting harder against Bush and his surrogates.

In 2006, Kerry worked hard to show he had learned from his mistakes. Then, eight days before the midterm elections, he quipped that students who don't do well in school will end up in Iraq. He hadn't meant his joke to come out that way, and provided his text to prove it.

When Republicans began demanding an apology, Kerry thought he saw a chance to fire back. "This is a textbook Republican campaign strategy," Kerry fumed at a nationally televised press conference. "Try to change the topic. Try to make someone else the issue. . . . Well, everybody knows it's not working this time, and I'm not going to stand around and let it work."

Clearly, Kerry expected other Democrats to join him in turning the tables on the GOP. But he was no longer his party's nominee, and Democrats had no desire to climb out on a limb with him.

Clinton, in particular, fanned the flames by declaring, the day after Kerry's press conference, that his joke had been "inappropriate, and I believe we can't let it divert us from looking at the issues that are at stake for our country."

Kerry left the campaign trail like a pariah. Later, when he consulted supporters about making another run, many argued against it. He was old news.

But Kerry's instincts now seem prescient -- and worth noting because Clinton, now comfortably ensconced at the top of the Democratic polls, is behaving a lot more like Kerry in 2004 than Kerry in 2006.

The Kerry campaign's big inhibition in 2004 was the fear that taking aggressive stands against the Iraq war, and endorsing a whole new approach to the war on terrorism, would inevitably mark the candidate as a dove.

Clinton, as the first woman to mount a serious challenge for her party's nomination, seems to perceive the same political threat. She has distanced herself from the antiwar sentiments of her rival John Edwards in much the same language as Kerry moved away from his rival Howard Dean.

But Kerry came to understand that forcefulness in fighting terrorism isn't just shown by expressing willingness to use force; it can be demonstrated by the clarity of one's position and the courage with which one sticks by it.

Like Kerry in 2004, Clinton has become more and more critical of the Iraq war. But she's been wary about moving beyond public opinion. Kerry, for all his woes, did just that in 2006. And now public opinion is moving in his direction.

Yes, Kerry's instincts have frequently been "prescient." And Cannelos draws a good analogy to Clinton's unwillingness to step out on a limb. She stepped out on the limb when she put her ambitions first over the "botched joke," but now we all know she could learn a thing or two from the always gracious Junior Senator from Massachusetts who came to her defense last week when the GOP went after her.

And yet, there are some that do believe (contrary to the mocking views of others), that it's not too late for Kerry to jump into the race, though sadly, I don't think that he will. We can dream, we can wish and we can see from Cannelos analysis... what might have been.

Cross Posted at The Democratic Daily.

Kerry: Bush Will Relent on Iraq by September

2007-07-17T00:53:00.000-07:00

In the wake of Harry Reid's announcement that he planned to force an around the clock debate on Iraq, Casey Ross posted on The Boston Herald Politics Blog on Monday night that "U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry on Monday predicted that U.S. troops will be pulled from Iraq by the early fall, saying President Bush is slowly wilting under pressure from Congress."

“I believe that by September the president will announce that troops will be able to come back, and they’ll do it under one guise or another,” Kerry said during a rare visit to the State House on Monday.

The senator was on Beacon Hill to tout government investments in renewable energy and small business, but he took time to address the intensifying battle over Iraq war policy.

He said senate Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to force a withdrawal, but he believes Bush cannot hold out against opposition much longer. “My hope is the president is going to change his policy because he’s going to see that this thing’s moving against him.”

Kerry, of course has been a leader in the Senate fight to bring the troops home for the past couple of years. Last Thursday Kerry delivered a powerful speech on the Senate floor in the Iraq War, telling fellow members of the Senate, " If you know this policy is broken now, don’t wait until September – fix it now."

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is still forcing the issue and General Pace said on Monday that "troop buildup" was possible. Sounds like more smoke and mirrors from the Bush administration for their failing mission in Iraq. As Dan Froomkin pointed out, Bush "has a tendency to celebrate his generals when they're providing him political cover -- then stick a knife in their backs when they're no longer of any use to him."

I won't be at all surprised if Kerry is right on this one, as he has been so many times in the past.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Irony Alert:

2007-07-14T21:30:00.000-07:00

Posted by Todd Mitchell
July 14th, 2007 @ 10:26 am

Rove Strategy Paper Found In Nixon Archive.

WASHINGTON, July 13 — The year was 1973, and Karl Rove was looking for help — from the Nixon White House. Tucked away inside 78,000 pages of documents from the Nixon administration, released by the National Archives earlier this week, is a little gem: a strategy memorandum from the man who would go on to become the architect of President Bush’s rise to political power.

[...]

[snicker] Also tucked in those 78,000 pages of Nixon documents released earlier in this week, John Kerry's name came up:

More at The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry: New Iraq Policy Can’t Wait Until September

2007-07-13T01:07:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the newly released Iraq report, Bush is in a "race against time" in thebattle to preserve his long failing Iraq War policy. On Thursday, the House passsed a measure calling for troop withdrawal by the spring and in the Senate, Senator John Kerry spoke on the urgent need for the U.S. to shift the mission in Iraq to allow a redeployment of troops out of the country within a year. Kerry, who is co-sponsoring the Levin-Reed-Kerry withdrawal amendment, originally called for moving US troops out of Iraq more than a year ago.

Kerry's powerful floor statement as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor is below:

Today the President made a partial report on Iraq. While it is true there has been some tactical military success—no amount of spinning the military component can obscure the bottom line reality in Iraq today: That reality is clear: there has been no meaningful political progress, and in the long run, that is the only progress that counts. Unless and until Iraqis begin to resolve their fundamental political differences, any security gains will be temporary at best. Welcome, but temporary. Moving the goalposts, dressing up the failure to meet strict benchmarks as “progress”—these are rationalizations for failure, not plans for success.

Meanwhile, another report tells us that while we’ve been bogged down and distracted in Iraq, Al Qaeda has found safe haven in Pakistan and rebuilt its organization. Today, top intelligence officials tell us that Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West than they’ve been at any time since 9-11. And where’s our focus? On Iraq. Our continued presence in Iraq isn’t just a distraction from the fight against terrorists—it’s also Al Qaeda’s best fundraising and recruiting tool. We don’t have to wait until September to know that we need a new policy.

Two days ago, I heard some colleagues come to the floor and question why we’re having this debate now when the White House is going to report on his escalation in September.

I heard Sen. Sessions say “This is not the time to alter the policy we established about 2 months ago.” I heard Sen. Kyl say “we need to await the report in September before making judgments about what to do next.” I heard Sen. McCain ask, and these are his words, why “do we have to keep taking up the Iraq issue when we know full well that in September there will be a major debate on this issue?”

I have great respect for my colleagues, I particularly know how much my colleague the senior Senator from Arizona cares about American troops serving in Iraq.

But these questions from the other side of the aisle astonish me. Why now? Why this debate now? Why do we have to, as Sen. McCain asked, “keep taking up the Iraq issue?”

The answer is simple—and compelling: Because American soldiers are dying now. Because the escalation is a failure, now – and we know it. Because when a policy isn’t working, you don’t wait for some artificial timeline to fix it. You fix it now.

Read on here: John Kerry: New Iraq Policy Can’t Wait Until September

Kerry Bill Would Prevent President from Misusing Signing Statements

2007-07-09T23:48:00.000-07:00

With the White House in "Panic Mode" over the GOP revolt on Bush's Iraq War, Senator John Kerry gave them a little more cause earlier today when he announced that he will co-sponsor legislation aimed at preventing the President from writing so-called “signing statements” when he signs bills – a little known measure that allows the White House to effectively circumvent Congress.

Under the new bill, the president could not issue a signing statement if it substantially altered the original legislation. Kerry is co-sponsoring the legislation with Republican Senator Arlen Specter of PA. The measure could be voted on as early as this month if it is added as an amendment to the defense spending bill.

“The Bush Administration’s abuse of signing statements is clearly unconstitutional and renders the Constitution’s system of checks and balances null and void,” Kerry said. “With these statements, the President has effectively subverted the law and the legislative process without actually ever using a veto. No administration should be allowed to cherry-pick legislation this way. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and I want to again thank the Boston Globe for shining a bright light on this abuse.”

Reporter Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe first reported on Bush's signing statements on April 30, 2006. There's more here.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

Bush Denies Congress Access to Aides - Kerry Says White House Stonewalling is a Disservice to Democracy

2007-07-09T13:00:00.000-07:00

Today Bush invoked executive privilege again to deny the requests from Congress for "testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors."

The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

"You may be assured that the president's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented," the letter said.

In response to the White House announcement that the President’s lawyers will block Congress from hearing testimony from two aides suspected of playing a role in the US Attorney’s purge, John Kerry issued the following statement today:

“I hope President Bush will rethink his refusal to cooperate with Congress and have his aides come clean on the firings of U.S. Attorneys,” Kerry said. “Attempting to prevent the Senate from investigating only prolongs the toxicity and further isolates a White House in bunker mode, at a time when bipartisan cooperation on big issues is desperately needed. From Day One, the President has invoked the Cheney playbook and tried to draw a vast circle of secrecy around his Administration. His refusal to allow aides to answer questions openly and honestly is another reminder of not just how little this White House respects the legislative branch, but how stubbornly committed they are to avoiding transparency and thwarting the public’s right to know.”

Cross Posted from The Democratic Daily.

Iraq and The Road Home

2007-07-08T00:24:00.000-07:00

Bring Them Home. The WaPo's Foreign Service reported on Saturday that "Suicide attacks across Iraq killed at least 144 people and injured scores in an 18-hour period, including a massive truck bombing in a northern Shiite village that ripped through a crowded market, burying dozens in the rubble of shops and mud houses," and 8 U.S troops died. 8 more to die in a war based on lies. It is time... Long past time, actually, to begin to prepare our troops for "The Road Home."

Well over a year ago, John Kerry pegged it, Iraq was in a civil war. The N.Y. Times in their Sunday editorial has now come to that conclusion, and they are calling for the Bush Administration to end the Iraq War: "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."

Better, late then never the N.Y. Times claims that "Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward."

At first, the Times editorial board notes they "believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq." But then, "became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that" and so they "argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow."

Now the N.Y. Times admits, "Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong."

The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

The time to end this war is now. The time to bring our troops home is now. It's long, far too long over due. The tyranny that the Bush Administration has used to squelch the debate over and over must end too:

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

We, America face "a choice" and now that the N.Y. Times editorial board seems to get that "We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading."

Bring Them Home. Bring Them Home. Because we have long been at the precipice and now there are those who ask, "Who Will Be Last Soldier to Die for Iraq Mistake?"

There is no solace in being right on this issue. There is no solace in knowing long before the N.Y. Times and Republicans with a change of heart, have stepped up to the plate that ending this war based on lies was long over due. The solace will come when we bring our troops home and begin to repair the damage done to this nation by our rogue leaders. Let our troops begin on the long and arduous Road Home.

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry on Bush’s Decision to Commute Libby’s Sentence

2007-07-02T18:14:00.000-07:00

The outrage over Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence is beyond palpable at this point. There's a huge firestrom brewing in the blogosphere, as I noted below and the Washington crowd is weighing in.

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) just weighed in with the following statement on Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence:

“President Bush's eleventh hour commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence makes a mockery of the justice system and betrays the idea that all Americans are expected to be held accountable for their actions, even close friends of Vice President Cheney,” Senator Kerry said. “It's a tragedy that with young Americans paying the ultimate price in Iraq for this administration's mistakes, this White House continues to avoid accountability and reward deceit for their friends and supporters.”

Bloomberg reports, "Republicans approved of Bush's decision." No small surprise...

"I am very happy for Scooter Libby,'' said former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, a potential Republican presidential candidate who had urged a pardon. "This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.'' Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that Bush "came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct.''

Senate Republicans Block Labor Bill, Kerry Says, Opponents of Workers’ Rights Shortchange America’s Workers

2007-06-27T00:21:00.000-07:00

Why do Senate Republicans hate American workers? The N.Y. Times reports that "Senate Republicans today blocked the labor movement’s top legislative priority, a bill that would have made it easier for unions to organize workers."

In a largely party line vote, supporters of the bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, failed to get the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and allow a vote on the bill. The vote was 51 for cutting off debate and 48 against.

The bill would have given workers the right to insist on a procedure, known as majority sign-up, that allows employees at a workplace to form a union as soon as a majority of them signed cards saying they wanted one. Under current law, an employer facing a unionization drive can insist on a secret-ballot election.

The bill fueled a feverish lobbying battle between business and labor. Corporate lobbyists and their Republican allies asserted that the bill would infringe on workers’ rights by denying employees the right to a secret-ballot election. Union officials and their Democratic allies said the bill was needed to help reverse labor’s decline, because employers often defeat unionization drives by intimidating and firing workers during secret-ballot elections.

Senator John Kerry, an original co-sponsor and longtime supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act made the following statement on Tuesday following the vote on the Employee Free Choice Act:

“The Republicans who stood in the way of this bill insulted workers across our country, but we will keep fighting until the right to organize is free from obstacles and fairness is restored to this system,” Senator Kerry said. “Millions of Americans want to join a union, but corporate-funded illegal activity and fear tactics have stood in their way. Since day one, this Administration has been rolling back the clock on workers’ rights and turning a blind eye to its union-busting patrons. We will restore balance to a broken labor system. I urge opponents of this bill to consider whether America’s workers deserve fair pay, health care and a stable retirement. We will fight to get this legislation back to the floor as soon as possible.”

MORE...

Cheney Continues to Duck and Dodge on Agency Scrutiny, Classified Documents

2007-06-26T22:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I reported here that John Kerry had written to David Addington, the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and asked for details as to "why Cheney believes that he is not subject to agency scrutiny?"

The Hill reports that Cheney’s office dismissed "Democratic claims" including Kerry's, "that Cheney is putting himself above the law because his office refused to grant access to an oversight agency that is tasked with reviewing how classified information is handled."

“Constitutional issues in government are generally best left for discussion when unavoidable disputes arise in a specific context instead of in theoretical discussions,” Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington, said in a letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Kerry had joined a growing chorus of Democrats who criticized Cheney’s refusal to submit to Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton and amended by President Bush in 2003. The order requires the National Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) to oversee executive agencies’ handling of classified documents.

According to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Cheney ignored questions from Waxman and the National Archives in 2006. Still unwilling to submit its document classifications to oversight, Waxman said Cheney’s office responded in 2007 by seeking to abolish the ISOO.

A PDF copy of David Addington’s less than adequate response to Kerry is available here. Kerry said on Addington's response:

“This legalistic response raises more questions than it purports to answer. I am far from satisfied with the response from David Addington, and ask again for the Vice President’s office to plainly answer the question of whether he considers himself outside the realm of agency scrutiny, and what their office is doing to secure our nation’s most privileged information. The American people deserve to know the truth and are owed more than a ‘parse constitionally’ as the president’s spokesman said today.”

Kerry responded to Addington with a 2nd letter, the text of the letter is available on The Democratic Daily: Cheney Continues to Duck and Dodge on Agency Scrutiny, Classified Documents

Kerry Asks Cheney to Explain His Latest Effort to Shield His Office from Scrutiny

2007-06-25T17:18:00.000-07:00

As the pressure builds on Dick Cheney today, Senator John Kerry today wrote to David Addington, the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and asked for details about why Cheney believes that he is not subject to agency scrutiny? Addington recently claimed that Cheney does not consider himself part of the executive branch of government, according to National Archives officials. Instead Dick Cheney believes he's a 4th branch of the U.S. government. Kerry, obviously outraged by Cheney's claims said:

“It comes as no surprise that the ‘imperial president’ and his vice president are once again trying to dodge scrutiny with a ridiculous claim that Dick Cheney is not part of the executive branch of government. This is an unprecedented break with hundreds of years of history, and undermines the integrity of executive power and the Executive Order as an institution.”

The text of the letter to Addington is here: Kerry Asks Cheney to Explain His Latest Effort to Shield His Office from Scrutiny

John Kerry or Ed O’Reilly — John Kerry Has My Vote

2007-06-25T17:16:00.000-07:00

Posted By: Diane

Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest is cross-posting madly all over the web, ostensibly soliciting bloggers' opinions of John Kerry.

Why? Who is behind this? The phrasing of the question strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme. Kerry's declared primary opponent Ed O'Reilly's website shows him to be thin on resume, thin on ideas, and thin on qualifications. What is he offering the people of Massachusetts in exchange for Kerry's high profile on progressive causes, not to mention his seniority?

Read On: John Kerry or Ed O’Reilly — John Kerry Has My Vote

Bush Vetoes Bill to Fund Stem-Cell Research - Kerry Says Bush Stem Cell Veto Hurts Science

2007-06-20T23:16:00.000-07:00

Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday, “easing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research” and called on “House Democrats to send him a bill funding alternative stem cell research that does not destroy human embryos.”

Read on: Bush Vetoes Bill to Fund Stem-Cell Research - Kerry Says Bush Stem Cell Veto Hurts Science

Kerry Tells Homeland Security Not to Deport Wife of Missing Soldier

2007-06-20T21:28:00.000-07:00

Rebel Reaper pointed out this tragic story earlier today here and on his own blog, about Department of Homeland Security attempts to deport the missing soldier’s wife.

Senator John Kerry announced this morning that he is working to prevent US officials from deporting Yaderlin Hiraldo, a woman from the Dominican Republic whose husband has served two tours of duty in Iraq and is currently missing in action. Even FOX News has picked up on this one, noting that both Senators Kerry and Kennedy have gotten involved.

Vincent Morris, a spokesman for Kerry, said the senator is also looking into whether this is a more widespread problem in the Army.

Kerry said it is unconscionable for the Department of Homeland Security to deport the missing soldier’s wife under the current circumstances, and asked the agency not to take any action until her husband is found. The couple were married in 2004.

“Under no condition should our country ever deport the spouse of a soldier who is currently serving in uniform abroad,” Kerry said. “I feel even more strongly in this case, given the terrible uncertainty surrounding Army Specialist Alex Jimenez, who has been missing since May. Our country owes a special debt of gratitude to anyone who puts their life on the line by wearing a uniform and fighting overseas on behalf of the United States. My heart goes out to the family of Specialist Jimenez and I am determined to do everything in my power to make sure his wife is not deported from our country while our military is frantically searching for him.”

Senator Kerry’s letter to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff is here: Kerry Tells Homeland Security Not to Deport Wife of Missing Soldier

John Kerry: "There is a struggle going on in the heart and soul of Islam"

2007-06-20T19:03:00.000-07:00

Senator John Kerry spoke this last Saturday night at a town hall meeting in Natick, Massachusetts. The subject was the war in Iraq. Democrafty of www.welovejohnkerry.com and I have been transcribing the audio recording of the meeting (which was originally posted at Firedoglake). Here are Senator Kerry's opening remarks. To set the stage for the Q&A session, he focused on the need for a new kind of dialogue on national security and a more realistic engagement with the Middle East -- both of which require that the U.S. government and Americans in general set aside simplistic thinking and take the time to understand what is actually going on in Iraq and in the larger Muslim world. In that vein, Sen. Kerry devoted the bulk of his remarks to describing the historical roots of sectarian violence in Iraq and the strategic missteps the U.S. has made in the region, starting with the Bush Administration's failure to understand the deep and dangerous faultlines that have now been opened up as a result of the U.S. invasion. He also spoke about next moves the Democrats can make to continue to push for a timeline for withdrawal. We'll post the Q&A which followed as soon as it's transcribed.

INTRODUCTION
Senator Kerry: Thank you. Thank you very, very much. First of all, Karen I just wanted to -- Karen, get back here so I can brag on you for a minute! Ladies and gentlemen, I think many of you know this because a lot of you are part of town committees and some of you on city committees and so forth, but it's a tough job herding cats. [Laughter]. Ah, getting everybody energized and making sure that we live up to the sort of state process. And I admire those who do that; I've been involved in some at the earliest level, and I really do thank you for what you're doing. Your leadership is terrific, we all appreciate it, and I thank the Natick Town committee - thank you so much for putting this together. [APPLAUSE].

And Stephanie, thank you so much. It's a privilege to be here at this school. I don't know how many of you know this, this was the, I think was the first and only independent secondary school for the arts - alone, in the nation, at first. Am I correct? And subsequently -- obviously at first women only, and then subsequently decided to transition, as most places have, to co-educational -- but what a spectacular thing! And nothing is more of a statement than that than that brilliant voice of Kevin here, who did a brilliant job, and we thank him, and – Kevin, where are you [APPLAUSE.]

What a great stage and theater! I was privileged in high school to be in a couple of plays, and this is a really superb [unintelligible], let me tell you, from all those makeshift curtains people used to do, and, you know, they'd drop at the wrong times and so forth. Anyway, thank you all. This is a remarkable statement about your commitment - each and every one of you. Because this is about as glorious a spring day as I've seen in a while, and the Red Sox are playing to boot. So you are really superb to be here this afternoon, to talk about, obviously, a critical subject.

Let me get right into it, because that's what we came here to talk about, and that's what we want to do. And I'll try to be as concise as I can in some opening introductory comments, because I think, obviously, the best thing we can do is spend having a dialog. And I want to answer your questions and have a chance to really share the thinking of where we are here.

TOWARD A NEW DIALOGUE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Two days ago, I gave a speech at SAIS, which is the international school, the School for International Affairs at Johns Hopkins in Washington, under the banner of a new organization that I helped found, called the American Security Project. Which has on its board Former Senator George Mitchell, Former Senator Warren Rudman, Gary Hart, and others - including former four-star general Daniel Christman of West Point, and Admiral Lee Gunn who was head of naval planning and logistics -- General Claudia Kennedy, the highest-serving woman in the armed services. General Tony Zinni, former Sec Com commander, and others.

"It is no accident that seven months after 9/11, seven out of 10 Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11."

I put these people together because we really need to re-think America's entire thinking process and ability to be able to cope with major foreign policy issues. It is no accident that seven months after 9/11, seven out of 10 Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. No accident. It has to do with cheap sloganeering, and the purposeful deception, and the sort of, you know, wasteland that we've had in terms of real dialogue and discourse and sharing with the American people. And with a calculated effort, which played out through 2001 all the way through the presidential race in which I took part, to scare Americans, and to substitute fear for thinking. And to convince Americans that somehow it is better to fight them over there than here.

"We are ... creating more terrorists than we are killing in Iraq."

That is the rationale for what we're doing today. And it is such a fallacy, such a dangerous, simplistic approach to what is happening that it threatens the legitimacy of our country's interests in every single regard, and on almost every other issue of importance. Obviously, there is a complete and total twisted, dangerous tautology in that notion that it's safer to fight them over there than here when our own CIA is telling us today that we are, in fact, through our policy in Iraq, creating more terrorists than we are killing in Iraq. Creating more people that want to fight us than we are killing in Iraq. [APPLAUSE]

I long ago came to the conclusion - and I'm proud of the effort I've made to lead that fight in the United States Congress - not one American soldier should be killed or maimed or shed their blood or put at risk for the purpose of allowing Iraqi politicians to avoid making their compromises and assuming responsibility for their country. It’s that simple. [APPLAUSE]

THE FIGHT TO CHANGE COURSE
It's been a tortured journey, obviously, to sort of get where we are today. Last summer, in August, I led -- I wrote the amendment and I brought the amendment to the floor to set a timeline for the beginning of a withdrawal, and for the ultimate withdrawal of our troops. I remember a front-page story in the New York Times that vilified me for doing it. There were backroom chatter that, you know, reporters can always find; some people will stick a knife in from behind you - and they did. People said, "What? What's Kerry doing? Why's he doing this? It's a terrible vote for us, we don't want to do this." And criticisms from Democrats, that we were forcing Democrats to actually take the position that they were unwilling, at that point, to take.

Well, we had the vote, and I'm proud to say we got, I think it was 13 or 14 senators joined together to say that was the right move. I'm even prouder that, come November, four months later, three months later, that was the closing argument of the Democratic party. And everyone was then in the position of trying to say, "Yes, that's what we ought to do.” And that's what the American people voted for - was to have a change that began the withdrawal of our troops and began the shift of responsibility to the Iraqis. That was democracy at its best - people reclaiming accountability.

Again, this year, we came to the point where, just recently, last month, we had a vote. Russ Feingold and I brought the amendment to the floor in order to make it clear that we should stop funding down the road - which was no different – this wasn’t tearing the rug out from under our soldiers, which is always the argument you hear - that's not what we did. What we did was, we gave the President - and some people didn't like the fact that we gave the President this - but we gave an element of discretion at the end of the year, if we were going to complete the training and the training could be completed and we're actually showing progress, we're moving down the road, the President would have the discretion to be able to leave some troops there to sort of finish the training, or the discretion to be able to leave some troops, special forces particularly, to be able to chase Al-Qaida. Or the discretion to be able to leave some forces to be able to protect American facilities and forces that were doing the two things I've just mentioned. That's logical.

But I'll tell you, I've been to Iraq at least five times now. I've met with all the leaders. I'm now chairman of the Mideast-South Asia subcommittee. And in that capacity, I've met with every single one of these guys - President Mubarak, King Abdullah, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Olmert, Siniora of Lebanon, Assad, twice now, in the last few years, I've met with Assad in Syria, and I have a pretty darn good sense of what is possible and what is not possible. Of what our interests are and what they aren't. Of what has happened in the Middle East as a consequence of our being there, versus what would happen under a different structure of our being there.

And everything I've heard from these leaders, my friends, convinces me that they're desperate to see us change our policy and have a more responsive policy to the region and to the issues that really matter. This administration's lost credibility, they've lost leverage, they've lost the moral high ground, if you will - and the ability to be able to move us to a place that makes us safer here at home. And that's the bottom-line motivation of my policy, and of what all of us ought to be thinking about. How - you know, that is what foreign policy is; it's the extension of your politics into the foreign arena. It is the accomplishment of your needs as a nation through the art of the possible in terms of foreign relationships.

And there are interests. And there are challenges. Let me just say a couple of words about those.

Chris: Senator Kerry? [unintelligible]

JK: Can I just finish up for a second?

Chris: [unintelligible]

JK: We're going to have plenty of time to have...

[LOT OF CROWD RUMBLING]

JK: That's all right. That's all right, folks. [Unintelligible] listen. Let him ask a question. What’s the question?

Chris: Just a simple question.

JK: Yeah.

Chris: Because I know we all feel we really want to be [unintelligible] Iraq, we don't want to, you know, our [unintelligible] as a nation is not to, you know, be militaristic, we just want to, you know, [unintelligible], but the problem here is that, you know, I'm reading signs outside here protesting. They're saying that over 100,000 civilians may have died in Iraq over the last five years. And, you know, quite possibly – half a million. Is that true?

JK: Quite possibly what?

Chris: Half a million. Is that true, Senator?

JK: Did I - what's your name?

Chris: Ah, Chris.

JK: Chris. What do you do, do you mind if I ask?

Chris: [unintelligible]

JK: Thank you. Well, Chris, there are different reports from different groups that you have - Amnesty International has put out a report, the UN has put out a report, there are international groups that have put out reports - and the estimates vary as to how many civilians have been killed. But they do range from, you know, the 50,000s up to half a million. I've seen those studies, I've seen those analyses. The problem is, there's no way to completely measure, because people are disappearing in the dead of night. People are mass-grave buried. People are disappearing in basements in areas that we don't even get into. And the militia on all sides are engaged in a kind of ethnic cleansing right now that is, you know, rampant. So nobody has, nobody's going say - I'm not going to stand in front of you and tell you I've got the exact accurate figure. But I am going to tell you that, yes, by the tens of thousands, there's no question that that’s -

Chris: Tens of thousands. Do you think it's in the hundred thousands?

JK: I personally believe it's well over 100,000 by now. Yes, I do.

Chris: Thank you.

JK: Now, let me just come back quickly to - and then I'll wrap, because I can see you want to get into questions, and I'm happy, actually, I'm happier, to move into the questions; it’s fun.

But let me just tie this in very, very quickly for you. What is going on cannot be ignored -- what is going on in the Middle East - by liberals, or by conservatives. By Democrats, or by Republicans. And what's important, I think, is that we try to get a reality, if you will. A reality based here on sort of facts, and what the real choices are, rather than just emotion or ideology that sometimes cloud those facts.

ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT

"There is a major struggle going on in the heart and soul of Islam."

Now, it is a fact that there is a major struggle going on in the heart and soul of Islam. It is a fact that radical extreme fundamentalists within Islam are pursuing a non-ideological jihad that has everything to do with a sort of huge frustration in their disenfranchisement and in other perceptions of their place in life, that is as directed against those governments in the region as it is against us, or against Europe, or anywhere else.

And you can't simplistically talk about "they," which is what our politicians have done. Because "they" is about 60 different Al Qaidas in 60 different countries. And it doesn't allow for the distinction between Shia and Sunni, religious/tribal, this, that - Kurd, Shia, it's hugely complicated. And it goes back deeply into - I don't know how many people read a wonderful book that I read a few years ago about Gertrude Bell, The Desert Queen, which talks about sort of how Iraq became Iraq, this whole evolution, and how Winston Churchill, and obviously, Lawrence of Arabia, Gertrude Bell, Anglo colonialists sat there and sort of divided the place up and created this thing. And much of what we've done has been done out of ignorance. There's another wonderful book that I commend to you called The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. It's a brilliant book that lays out the full complexity of what has happened. What has happened -- simplified, and then I'll get into the questions, is this:

"There are people at the highest levels of our government who didn't even understand the difference between Shia and Sunni."

You can go back to the early days of the Prophet Muhammed. And when the Prophet Muhammed died, in succession after that, there was a struggle to see who was going to be the successor. A bunch of people thought that Ali - that his grandson ought to be the immediate successor. But he wasn't. There was a hierarchical thing, and Ali, to his credit, accepted that he wasn't. But there were two intermediaries. And then finally Ali became the Caliph. They were all assassinated. And ultimately, Ali's grandson, a fellow named Hussein, wound up in about 682 in a place called Karbala. And they were assaulted by the [unintelligible] Qum, which is in Iran -- what is now Iran, and from Najaf, in what is now Iraq. Both holy cities to the Shia, to Shiism.

Shiism is a much more emotional, sort of demonstrative, engaged kind of practice of the Muslim faith. And what the Shia - what the Shia have struggled as a minority in their faith throughout their existence. The Shia are the followers of Ali, the people who felt disgruntled in 600, see, that he wasn't then chosen to be Caliph. This has been going on since then, folks.

And I want to tell you there are people at the highest levels of our government who didn't even understand the difference between Shia and Sunni when they got into this.

So they wind up traveling to Iran, guess what happens to them, they get attacked by the Sunni. And every single one of them was wiped out in that desert. In fact there's a courageous story of how they charged at the enemy, knowing they didn't have the water, didn't have the weapons, didn't have the numbers, they charged in the desert and they all got slaughtered and they all got their heads cut off. And they took their heads and they put them on posts in Najaf. And they took the head of Hussein, the grandson of Ali, and took it to Damascus. Interestingly enough it was the sister of Hussein who followed in the sort of Shia succession and brought this to life for all of our time, even to this day. You know how many people were in the desert with them, how many followers there were? 72. Does that ring a bell? In the context of martyrdom and 72 virgins that await you if you die as a martyr? 72.

This all goes back to there. And then folks have been killing each other ever since over this differential. Including as recently as 1990, when George Herbert Walker Bush incited them to rebel, and they did rebel, believing they could knock out Saddam Hussein, and we then pulled the rug out from under them, sent signals to the counter, and tens of thousands of them were killed brutally by Saddam Hussein.

This is current history. This is a modern hatred.

So that's what's going on. We come in, we liberate the country, we kick out Saddam Hussein, without any plan, without any planning, without any - without sufficient numbers of troops, you could run the list of mistakes, but most significantly, we strip away the Baathists and the legitimate civil servants who have the ability to deliver services, and the Sunni, who are a 20% minority in Iraq, suddenly find themselves for the first time in that thousand-year history - plus, thirteen hundred years -- they find themselves being governed by the Shia, whom we have unleashed and given at the ballot box what they couldn't achieve in any other way all of those years.

That's what we're in the middle of, my friends. A civil struggle for power. And I sat with Mr Maliki and the Speaker of the House and all these other people, and you could look at them and you could say, "You gotta make this decision and you gotta do this and that," and I'll tell you this - as long as the United States military security blanket is sitting there, to them, to know that we're sort of the backstop in the way that they are, they don't have to make a serious decision about anything, they can continue to unleash their militias and continue to fight each other, and that's why I intend to continue to fight to set a date to say our troops have done their job, it's time -- [APPLAUSE].

I don't want to do it in a vacuum. I'm not - I don't think I'm stupid.

"This country must never again confuse the warriors with the war."

I remember flying into Baghdad, and the captain of a C-130 – he was a pilot, and he says “Senator” -- we were up on the flight deck and he looks back at me and he says, "Senator, make sure whatever you guys do, that 20 years from now, this was worth it for us." That's at stake in this, folks. I remember what it was like to be in a battle, in a war where it wasn't made worth it. Not by the country, not by the policy leaders, not by anybody. And one of the lessons we learned back there - a bright-line lesson was, this country must never again confuse the warriors with the war. It is critical that the soldiers -- [APPLAUSE]

So I think it's important that we try to find a way to give that meaning and the question is how do you do that now when you have this mess, this infernal mess that we have?

Secondly, we also have interests in the region. We do have interests. Israel; beyond Israel, our relationships with the other countries. Sunni - the Sunni minority who live in that country, now that it's followed this course, not simply be abandoned to ethnic cleansing or further chaos.

THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION

And the issue now is how do you give life to what General Petraeus has said, General Pace has said, General Abazeid has said, Condi Rice has said, the President has said, and we have said, which is that there is no military solution, there is only a political and diplomatic solution. And what burns me up, my friends, is for all the talk of that, there is no legitimate, high, heavy lift diplomatically taking place right now that is the kind of thing we saw with Jim Baker who traveled 15 times to Syria just to get Assad to consent to what they were doing in Desert Storm, or Henry Kissinger with the shuttle diplomacy and the efforts in China or Vietnam -- nothing like that, nothing that closely resembles it. And the result is, they're drifting, the whole place is drifting.

I'll just close this opening by telling you this. I was in the West Bank the day that President Abbas was elected, three years ago. And I was the first person to meet with him, literally the first person to meet with him the morning after he was elected. I walked into Ramallah, into the headquarters, and he looked at me - we spent about an hour and a half together and he says, "You know, I know what you and the rest of the world expects of me. I have to disarm Hamas. Look around you, Senator. You tell me how I'm supposed do that," he says. "I don't have any radios, I don't have any cars, I don't have any police officers, I don't have any police -- not that have really been trained; how am I supposed to do that?"

I'll tell you, that was the moment that I felt sort of the greatest pang of having lost the presidency -- was sitting there when I knew what I could've done to have made a difference in helping to create a legitimate partner for peace in [unintelligible]

And nothing happened, folks. Nothing happened for months after that. And we effectively sort of stood back while Hamas understood Politics 101. They got up earlier, they stayed up later, they worked harder, they delivered the services to the people, and they had the money coming through some of these other Arab countries and charities, and the rest of the world did not provide [unintelligible] and the others with a chance to fight back.

That's the story of what's happened there. The lack of engagement, the lack of reality, the lack of understanding of what's at stake and of our options.

And it wasn't - it was also being repeated in Lebanon, when I went there. I found out that Iran and Syria were putting $500 million in and reconstructing Lebanon after the war. They had put a Hezbollah flag on every building that they intended to rebuild, and they were doing the rebuilding, not the government.

The minute I got back I called the White House to Stephen Hadley and said, “You guys have got to get some money in here, you've got to get going, you've got to get engaged.”

So we got a very complicated situation in front of us. And we are going to keep fighting with all the energy we have. We're going to bring Iraq back somewhere in the next three weeks. We have the defense authorization bill coming up, and we are going to fight for the things that we just fought for a few weeks ago. But without the money involved directly - because it's not appropriations, it's authorization - we could actually hope we make a law. And we believe that, you know, Republicans are beginning to realize that this strategy is a bankrupt strategy and that it's time to change.

So I'll just close by reminding you that when I demonstrated when I came back from Vietnam -- I'll never forget that - it was a presumption that soldiers didn't do that and a presumption that - you know - you don't roil the waters. And I'll never forget, when we marched into Washington, 5000 strong. There was this sort of, you know, standard response to a demonstration, people would yell at you and say, "My country, right or wrong." It didn't matter. You just - do you accept what the president's saying?

And we knew better than that, because we'd seen what that did to our friends and to real human beings.

And I remember one soldier, one woman yelled at one of our guys who was in a wheelchair, a Marine, and said, "Why don't you guys support the troops?" And he looked back at her and he said, "Lady, we are the troops."

And it always reminds me of our responsibility with respect to this war or any war, any time you send anybody to possibly go in harm's way. I'll accept that tension, "My country right or wrong" - I believe in that. When it's right, keep it right. And when it's wrong, make it right. And that's our obligation.

[APPLAUSE]

Kerry’s Tax Credits for Plug-In Cars, Building Efficiency Added to Energy Bill

2007-06-19T22:17:00.000-07:00

Following up on my earlier post about John Kerry and his stance on energy issues and CAFE Standards, the Senate Finance Committee today accepted several key provisions introduced by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) to the energy tax package. Kerry’s plan will roll back tax breaks for big oil companies, saving taxpayers $9.5 billion during the next 10 years. His proposals for tax credits for energy efficient homes and buildings, plug in hybrids cars, and renewable fuel production were also agreed to by the Finance Committee.

The Committee also accepted a Kerry amendment to demand higher environmental standards on liquid coal facilities. The amendment mandates a 20% life cycle greenhouse gas reduction requirement to liquid coal facilities that receive the alternative fuels tax credit

Read on here: Kerry’s Tax Credits for Plug-In Cars, Building Efficiency Added to Energy Bill

Let’s Not Take Back Accountability by Misinterpreting A Senate Vote

2007-06-19T22:16:00.000-07:00

James Boyce, who I consider to be a great progressive blogger linked to a misleading USA Today article yesterday in a piece he wrote on the HuffPo. What disturbs me about this, is that Boyce is a blogger that usually does the research and makes sure he’s got something straight before he posts it. This time, evidently he didn’t and he misrepresented Kerry’s stance “in 2005, when the last fuel efficiency bill came before the US Senate,” referring to an amendment (so noted by USA Today) by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill in 2005, that was defeated by a vote of 67-28. I responded to Boyce’s post in the comments on the HuffPo with this:

I looked up the Congressional for the vote that USA Today is talking about and this is the statement from Kerry on Durbin’s Bill:

Read on here: Let’s Not Take Back Accountability by Misinterpreting A Senate Vote

Kerry Says Pentagon Report on Mental Illness Among Troops is a Wakeup Call

2007-06-16T11:48:00.000-07:00

The WaPo reported on the newly released Pentagon report that shows that “U.S. troops returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer “daunting and growing” psychological problems — with nearly 40 percent of soldiers, a third of Marines and half of the National Guard members reporting symptoms.” The Pentagon task force also reported yesterday that “the military’s cadre of mental-health workers is “woefully inadequate” to meet their needs.”

Read on... Kerry Says Pentagon Report on Mental Illness Among Troops is a Wakeup Call

Kerry Rips GOP Field Over Foreign Policy

2007-06-16T01:28:00.000-07:00

Posted by Ginny Cotts
June 16th, 2007 @ 1:00 am
Senator John Kerry’s speech on the GOP candidates foreign policy statements attracted the attention of a Boston Globe writer.

Kerry rips GOP field over foreign policy… Criticizes rhetoric as ’scare tactics’
By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent

Senator John F. Kerry blasted the leading Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy yesterday, saying “it should disturb all of us” that the GOP contenders are taking increasingly hawkish stances on national security issues like Iran and the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Read on... Kerry Rips GOP Field Over Foreign Policy

Kerry Tells White House: Attacks on Harry Reid Are No Substitute for Accountability

2007-06-15T12:40:00.000-07:00

Kerry Tells White House: Attacks on Harry Reid Are No Substitute for Accountability

John Kerry Calls for New Approach to Fighting Terrorism

2007-06-15T12:38:00.000-07:00

John Kerry Calls for New Approach to Fighting Terrorism

Time for Action On Energy

2007-06-15T12:37:00.000-07:00

Time for Action On Energy

Kerry to Vote No on Iraq Bill: ‘An Iraq Bill Without a Deadline is Meaningless’

2007-05-24T09:40:00.000-07:00

The new Iraq spending bill is making waves and Chris Bowers on MYDD has the new video from Chris Dodd up that explains why Dodd is voting "NO" on the bill. Bowers said, "It will be interesting to see if there is a chorus of Democrats who start to join him on this." Meteor Blades on DKos reports that "nearly a two-thirds majority, will vote against the egregious Iraq funding "compromise" put together by the Senate-House conference committee."

Here's one Senator who will be joining Dodd with a "NO" vote. Personally, I had no reason to think that Kerry would support the new plan...

Sen. John Kerry issued the following statement today on his plan to vote “no” on a military spending bill that no longer contains any binding deadline for the redeployment of troops from Iraq. He reiterated that a "timeframe for redeployment of the troops is the Only Way Forward."

"We support the troops by getting the policy right and this bill allows the President to keep getting the policy wrong. We need a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, not watered down benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President. We support the troops by funding the right mission, not with a White House that opposes a pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform,” Kerry said. “The original Senate legislation offered a roadmap to change course in Iraq. This new version enables the Administration and Iraqi politicians to deliver more of the same. I am determined to continue pressing this issue until President Bush changes course. We owe our troops nothing less than a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice.”

Keep the pressure on... Chime in here: Tell Congress - No Blank Check For Iraq.

Kerry Warns White House: If you Expect Senate Confirmation, Send us a Nominee Who will Protect Consumers

2007-05-24T09:38:00.000-07:00

The White House agreed to Wednesday to withdraw the name of Michael Baroody as the new chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Baroody had faced "strong opposition from some Senate Democrats because of his career as a manufacturers' lobbyist."

Baroody is a lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers, and his critics on Capitol Hill said he would not provide the leadership the agency needed in order to protect consumers.

Democrats also had raised questions about a $150,000 payment that Baroody would have received from the manufacturers' lobbying group when he left.

Given his poor record on issues of consumer protection, John Kerry had announced that he was likely to vote against Baroody if his nomination ever came before the Commerce Committee.

“I hope the White House now knows that on an issue as important as consumer safety we won’t allow them to put a fox in charge of guarding the henhouse. This agency matters too much to parents and children to be a gift to someone without even a vague interest in consumer protection. The White House now needs to send us a nominee who will fight for consumers, not one who will fight against their interests.”

Another Bush nominee bites the dust...

Kerry Amendment Protects Children, Families Caught In Immigration Raids

2007-05-24T09:35:00.000-07:00

With the immigration reform debate heating up in Congress once again, a new Rasmussen Reports Poll shows that "just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation." Senator John Kerry introduced an amendment today to that would offer protections for immigrant families and children who are caught in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) workplace raids – like last month’s jarring roundup in New Bedford, Mass.

Kerry said that his amendment was aimed at putting a little “humanity” into ICE. His amendment will be offered to the broader, bi-partisan immigration bill, which Kerry praised as a welcome start toward repairing a broken system.

“We need safe borders and we need a sensible immigration policy,” Senator Kerry said. “But there is no place in our country for families being torn apart by reckless ICE workplace raids that separate parents from children and coerce immigrants into waiving their rights. The raid in New Bedford was inhumane. It left young children confused and alone. We need a law that is enforceable and sensible but that also deals humanely with the millions of hard-working immigrant families that contribute to our country each day.”

Kerry’s amendment would:

o Require ICE to afford access to state social service agencies to screen and interview detainees. A majority of the problems in these raids arose from the fact that the people were too scared or intimidated to provide information to ICE agents. Social service agencies are also better equipped to handle child and family needs.

o ICE must also give sufficient notice to these state agencies so they can arrange for representatives who speak the detainees’ first language fluently and for any other services that may be needed.

o To the extent that space is available aliens that are being detained should be to be placed in detention within the jurisdiction of the local ICE field office. Previously detainees, many of them mothers, have been shipped off to facilities hundreds of miles away from their families to await a determination of their status.

o If it is determined that an alien has humanitarian grounds for release including but not limited to those with medical conditions that require special attention, pregnant women, nursing mothers, parents who are the sole caretakers of their minor children or elderly relatives, parents who function as the primary contact between the family and those outside the home due to language barriers, parents who are needed to support their spouses in caring for sick or special needs children, parents whose spouses are ill or otherwise unable to be sole caretaker, and minors, within 72 hours of their apprehension, if they are not subject to mandatory detention or pose an immediate flight risk, they shall be released on their own recognizance, on minimum bond or placed in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP). This gives ICE the ability to track the alien but also allows families to be reunited and aliens to receive medical and social services.

o ICE must also provide a toll free number for families to use after a raid, to report their relationship to a detainee or for more information about the status of their loved one.

o In cases of raids with the apprehension of 50 or more aliens ICE must also allow the aliens access to legal orientation presentations provided by independent, non-governmental agencies through the Legal Orientation program. This program cuts down on confusion and allows the detainees to fully appreciate their rights.

RELATED POSTS:

Where Has Our Sense of Decency Gone?

Is ICE Out of Control Under BushCo? Kerry Vows Investigation into Raid

John Kerry Asks Bush Not To Cut Military Pay Raise

2007-05-21T21:07:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, I reported here that the "Bush Administration won’t approve a pay raise for our military." The simple reasoning is of course, Republicans don't really support the troops.

The piece I quoted Saturday from the Boston Globe noted that Kerry had sent a letter to Bush on Friday, saying that "he was “extremely disappointed” by the White House position on the pay raise, saying it stands “in direct contrast to the will of the American people who support all the efforts to support our troops.”"

Today, Senator Kerry asked Bush to back off his plan to cut a proposed military pay raise. Kerry also asked Bush not to cut a proposed benefit for surviving spouses, which Congress and veterans groups say would help grieving families with a $40 month benefit to help cover expenses when a loved one is killed in action. Last week, the White House opposed both of those provisions in the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Bill.

“It’s unacceptable that this White House continues to choose more tax breaks for the richest Americans and less pay and fewer benefits for our military families,” Senator Kerry said. “Our Democratic Congress has put forth a plan to give our troops a raise at a time of war, and no White House opposition will stand in the way of our commitment to our military. Our troops make incredible sacrifices for our country and we owe them a pay raise and benefits that make it clear we honor their sacrifice. We will fight for this pay raise for our troops until it becomes a reality.”

The Office of Management and Budget said that the House bill’s moves to increase military pay by .5 percent (from 3.0 to 3.5 percent) and give a $40 monthly benefit for surviving spouses and military families were unnecessary. On the same day, the White House expressed opposition to the FY 2008 Budget Resolution Conference Report because it failed to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Last year’s pay increase for members of the uniformed services was just 2.2 percent, the lowest since 1993. Congress has made a commitment to keep pay raises for the military ahead of private sector pay raises.

Kerry is the author of the Military Family Bill of Rights, which has become law. Kerry’s Bill increased the death benefit for surviving spouses and families of troops who die in action to $250,000 and extended the amount of time they can remain in military housing to one full year, along with increasing TRICARE benefits and promoting better care for those suffering from PTSD and other mental illness.

Below is text of the letter Kerry sent Friday:

May 18, 2007

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Mr. President:

We are all proud of our men and women in the American military who continue to perform magnificently in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. They represent the best that this country has to offer, and America owes them and their families a special debt of honor and gratitude. In light of their sacrifice, I ask you to change your position and support a 3.5 percent increase in military pay and an increase in the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance to help American military families.

On May 16, the Office of Management and Budget’s Statement of Administration Policy for the House FY 2008 National Defense Authorization bill opposes Section 644 of the bill, which would pay a monthly Special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, calling the existing benefits “sufficient”. The Statement of Administration Policy also “strongly opposes” Sections 601 and 606 of the House bill, which provide a 0.5 percent increase in military pay above the President’s proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board pay increase, calling it “unnecessary”.

I am extremely disappointed in these decisions. This position fails to honor our military families who have made the ultimate sacrifice. It also stands in direct contrast to the will of the American people who support all efforts to support our troops.

Most disappointing, on the same day your position on a military pay increase was announced, the Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman expressed opposition to the FY 2008 Budget Resolution Conference Report because it failed to extend tax cuts to provide billions for the wealthiest in our country.

Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. These provisions can do something to ease their burden--but truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

Tomorrow, Senator John Kerry and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel will hold a press conference to respond to President Bush’s opposition to a 3.5 percent military pay increase for American troops. The press conference will be held in the Senate T.V. and Radio Press Gallery at 11:30 am est.

Kerry Plan Would Save Bristol Bay from Oil Drilling

2007-05-07T23:13:00.000-07:00

John Kerry introduced the Bristol Bay Protection Act on Monday, which will permanently prohibit oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay. Bristol Bay is north of the Alaskan peninsula.

The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area in Bristol Bay has been banned from drilling under the Congressional Moratorium, but last week, the Bush Administration announced plans to lift the ban and begin drilling there starting in July. Kerry’s bill would ban all drilling in Bristol Bay.

“We can’t depend on drilling just because some refuse to take on our energy challenge in a meaningful way,” Senator Kerry said. “Bristol Bay contains some of our nation’s best remaining fish and wildlife habitat. This legislation will permanently prohibit drilling in Bristol Bay and uphold an important mandate that protects our coastlines from drilling.”

Kerry’s legislation is the Senate companion to H.R. 1957, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Inslee (D-Wash.), Rep Gilchrest (R – Md.), and Rep. Hinchey (D – N.Y.) Kerry’s legislation would take effect immediately after passage.

“As gas prices soar and the threat of global warming looms, we need bold new ideas to become energy independent,” Kerry added. “This administration looks at every unspoiled landscape in America and wonders how much oil is buried beneath it. We can’t sell off Alaska’s coastline to the big oil companies. I will work with my colleagues in the House and here in the Senate and fight this dangerous proposal.”

Ed Schultz mentioned this on his show today, noting that Kerry is a guy who is "way ahead of the curve" when it comes to the issue of becoming energy independent. With gas prices soaring under the Bush Administration it's time to make a change and break from from Bush's dangerous addiction to oil.

The oil industry is none too happy about Kerry's plan.

Cross posted on The Democratic Daily.

Kerry in Florida... 'We Can Stop a Catastrophe'

2007-05-07T23:11:00.000-07:00

John Kerry was in Coral Gables, Florida on Sunday afternoon to promote his book about the environment -- "This Moment on Earth."

Kerry co-wrote "This Moment On Earth," with his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

It talks about the environmental movement and the need for solutions to pressing environmental problems.

"It's about how we can deal with environmental issues effectively, make money, create new jobs, be more secure and ultimately make America stronger," Kerry said.

The Kerry's also had an OP/ED published on the environment, in the Miami Herald on Monday. Read it here:

We can stop a catastrophe
Miami Herald
May 07, 2007

BY John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry

Hundreds of thousands of people move to Florida every year, but -- for the same reason that people flock there -- Florida has more to lose than almost any other state from global warming.

Florida has 8,400 miles of tidally influenced coastline. Scientists estimate that, unless we act, sea levels could rise 18-20 inches by 2100 -- endangering everything within 250 feet of the shoreline. Hurricanes are already growing stronger, and rising sea levels and fiercer storms could create disasters that dwarf those we've experienced in recent years.

Florida stands to lose twice over because of the revenue generated by its beaches and natural beauty. The tourism industry is one reason why, in the 12 months before July 2006, Florida's population grew by 321,697 people, the second-most of any state in the country. Beachgoers generate more than $15 billion in revenue. In 2001, nearly 5 million people spent around $6.2 billion on wildlife viewing, hunting and fishing -- supporting 122,518 jobs in the state.

Difficult choices

So when the next batch of presidential candidates starts converging on your state before the 2008 election, make sure they tell you exactly what they plan to do to stop global warming. Because this state has a special stake in solving climate change.

Inaction on global climate change has been the latest chapter in the long story in both parties of politics at its worst -- ducking the difficult choices, giving into the big contributors, substituting words for deeds, postponing the reckoning until the day after tomorrow. If you offend no one, you change nothing.

Here's the bottom line: Within the next decade, if we don't deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren will have to deal with global catastrophe.

Business leaders will tell you: This crisis presents an economic opportunity to create new technologies that lower emissions and reverse the damage already done. Every schoolchild knows our history of innovation -- from the Wright Brothers to Henry Ford to Bill Gates, from the Model T to the iPod. Why would we stop now?

The real crisis will come if we fail to seize the opportunities that global warming presents -- for renewables, efficiency breakthroughs and clean technologies.

We can create millions of new jobs and vast new markets, slow global warming, save taxpayers money, earn the world's respect and significantly strengthen our long-term outlook. All by making a commitment to solve global warming.

Thankfully, people are finally waking up, and the result is a new face of a new environmentalism. For anyone who ever once ridiculed environmentalists as elitist ''tree huggers,'' it's time to meet the new face of the environmental movement: ranchers out West, CEOs of ten major companies urging mandatory carbon-emissions caps, evangelicals who believe in ''creation care'' and parents wondering what's in the water that their kids drink.

The new environmentalists reject the lazy dodge that caring about the environment means caring less about security or the economy because they understand that, in the long run, these issues are inseparable.

To put it simply, this is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of keeping our children safe and of respecting God's creation. It is a matter of preserving species and protecting the bottom line.

• Yet U.S. oil use over the past decade has increased by nearly 2.7 million barrels a day -- more than India and Pakistan together use daily. By 2025 we will depend on imports for 70 percent of our oil use.

• Yet we are allowing carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to rocket past levels that are safe and sustainable.

• Yet we have allowed the Earth's average surface temperature to increase 1.4 degrees since 1920. The Earth is hotter today than at any time in at least the past thousand years.

Talk is not enough: We must lead the worldwide race for new energy sources that do not empower our enemies, pollute our skies and waters and imperil our future.

We need to take bold steps -- massive investment in renewable fuels, a carbon emissions cap and a dramatic hike in fuel-efficiency standards -- if we hope to contain this growing threat.

The future of Florida is at stake. Earlier, we mentioned that Florida's population grew the second-most in the nation. You might be wondering which state grew more. It was Texas -- and the tragic reason was the flood of people displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

Florida cannot afford the stronger hurricanes and damaged coastlines that unchecked global warming threatens to unleash.

The time to act is now.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is a former Democratic nominee for president. Teresa Heinz Kerry is the president of the Heinz Family Philanthropies.

There's video of Kerry's visit to Florida here and here... and more on the book event at the Blog on JohnKerry.com.

Cross posted on The Democratic Daily.

John Kerry and what he did for me

2007-05-03T11:52:00.000-07:00

I got to thinking, and wondered about how I got to where I am now. I have quite a few people to thank for it, but among them, is Senator John F. Kerry. Many have taken Kerry for granted, but I never lost sight of how he was part of me turning into what I am now. I was not, and am still not used to eating your own. I could never understand it! When I first showed up at The Democratic Daily, it was not a very nice scene I started with. I came out with much hatred and spew. Pamela talked to me via email, and stated the purpose of the blog. I responded, and it started there. I was a confessed republican, and they took me in after Katrina. They let me post, knowing I was a republican! They did not turn me away, because of that, but let me have a voice for that reason. Now I'm not going to say that the transformation was right away, not by a long shot! For less than a month, I posted there and got to knowing the people, and got to knowing who JK really was. I really got impressed when I found out the truth about him. The more I learned, the more I liked.

During all this, Rita came along, and the last of the blinders came off. I rebuked the Party, and declared myself to be done with them. The name Katrinacrat came to be in one of the comments, and just stuck after. I became a part of the Kerry community after that. Senator John Kerry was a part of making a former Marine and a republican, a new member of the democratic fold. I will be forever in the debt of Senator Kerry and The Democratic Daily.

In honor of the Senator, I would like to introduce you to the man I have come to know and trust. I give you Senator John F. Kerry, the man that Went Upriver! Please watch the whole thing, and you will know why I admire this man.

John Kerry on 2007 Trustee Report on Social Security and Medicare

2007-04-24T19:36:00.000-07:00

Today, the Social Security Administration released their annual Report on Social Security and Medicare.

John Kerry, Chair of the Finance Subcommittee on Social Security, Pension and Family Policy, released the following statement on the 2007 Trustee’s Report on Social Security and Medicare:

The Trustee’s projections show that the Social Security Fund will be exhausted in 2041 and the Medicare Trust Fund in 2019 – each one year later than the projections in last year’s reports. Both reports prove the continued need for bipartisan moves in Congress to strengthen these vitally important programs in the long-term. The report also shows that Social Security remains sound for decades and proves there is no need to privatize Social Security.

“The Trustee’s report is a crystal clear message that any moves to privatize social security wouldn’t just hurt this program for our seniors, but are also completely unnecessary,” Senator Kerry said. “The report shows that Medicare’s long-term viability is an urgent priority, but doesn’t justify the arbitrary cuts to the program designed by the previous Republican Congress. We must not make reckless cuts to the program, but instead combat skyrocketing costs throughout our health care system and make responsible investments in Medicare. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve broader prevention and disease management services that increase quality for patients and decrease costs over time.

“We will work in our new Democratic Congress in a bipartisan manner to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, invest in their long term strength, and fight any moves to privatize and endanger these compacts with seniors who have worked a lifetime,” Kerry added. “Social Security and Medicare have for decades kept faith with our bedrock American values by protecting our seniors from falling into poverty and keeping retired Americans and their families healthy and secure.”

The full report from the SSA is available here.

Senator Kerry in Live Chat on Slate Wednesday

2007-04-23T08:44:00.000-07:00

Slate magazine has set up a page full of special features in honor of Small Business Week, and the Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will be the guest for a live chat on small business-related issues at 12:30 PM EDT this Wednesday. Questions for the Senator can be submitted now. You can find all the details at this page.

Teresa Heinz Kerry Blog Tour: Day 9

2007-04-22T06:51:00.000-07:00

We here at the Unofficial Kerry Blog are honored to participate in this blog tour in support of the Conference on Women's Health and the Environment held in Pittsburgh on Friday and sponsored by the Heinz Family Philanthropies. This year's conference was covered by energetic livebloggers at The Democratic Daily , Democracy Cell Project and DailyKos -- which had one diary for liveblogging the morning sessions and another for the afternoon sessions. Check out those posts and their comments threads for links to valuable information about the environment, our health and the concrete actions we can take.

Before moving to the interview, I want to mention that there is now also a dedicated website, Women's Health and the Environment, at which you can find many of the materials that were given to conference attendees and other tools and resources designed to enable both conference attendees and those of us who could not attend to take action in our own lives and to continue the conversation that was begun at the conference.

And now for the interview! As I blogged in some detail here last month, I especially admire Teresa Heinz Kerry's passionate determination to bring people together: fostering collaborations, bringing everyone to the table, and giving the public access to the latest information from the experts, so that together we can take action on these issues and make informed and enlightened choices in our own lives. I decided to focus on that aspect of her work in my 3 questions, and THK's answers were, as expected, thoughtful and down to earth.

KVH: You’ve been sponsoring conferences on Women’s Health and the Environment since 1996. Are there any particular success stories you want to share?

THK: I am so proud of the fact that what began as a conference with 700+ women attending, is now averaging close to 2,000. In addition, we know that at least 40%+ of the attendees come back year after year. The fact that women and the men who attend are that interested every year is, by itself, a success story.

Second, the conferences have spurred a number of professional collaborations that assist those from the research community and ensure that they are both not reinventing the wheel, as well as maximizing the use of their grant dollars. This occurred because speakers at the conference compare notes, and in some cases, create new collaborative efforts to maximize their impact.

Third, our conference has helped launch a number of speakers into the mainstream, where the media finds out about them and helps increase their visibility – and, more important, their message. In the end, women learn more and we are able to increase the number of women we can reach.

Finally, we added the Pittsburgh conference this year, and I hope we will add more in the future!

KVH: What one issue concerning health and the environment should women especially educate themselves about?

THK: It is hard to pick one issue, but toxins would have to be the one I would encourage all women to focus on. The thought that we have toxins in food, cosmetics, water, and air can be overwhelming, but we do have some control over what goes into or onto our bodies.

Several organizations have set up online resource centers for consumer awareness. The Safe Cosmetics Campaign has a linked page, put together by the Environmental Working Group, where you can check out the products we all use, to see what toxins they contain.

Food concerns are on all our minds lately. Check out the Center for Science in the Public Interest; they maintain up-to-the-minute information on food toxins. The first rule about food: the more processed the food is, the greater the possibility it is dangerous. When you can, eat as much locally grown and organic food as possible.

I am told that almost all freshwater fish is contaminated in some ways, but eating fish is still healthier than an all-meat diet. Keep up with the latest on which fish are better and which are worse for you at: OceansAlive.org

In general, the lower on the food chain a fish is, the safer it is to eat. Those fish at the top of food chain (swordfish is a good example) have fewer predators and therefore accumulate toxins over time.

KVH: In the first issue of your newsletter Women’s Health and Environment News, you talk about the need to move towards collaborative solutions to the problem of managing chemicals – bringing all interested parties to the table instead of relying on post-exposure litigation as the main mechanism for regulating chemicals. Do you have any more specific thoughts or proposals for how we can move forward in that direction?

THK: A number of years ago, the Heinz Center was created to focus on issues that are likely to confront policymakers within two to five years. The Center creates and fosters collaboration among industry, environmental organizations, academia, and government in each of its program areas and projects. The active involvement of these four sectors in all aspects of environmental policymaking—from identification of a problem through the crafting of recommendations to implementation of a policy—produces robust solutions to the environmental challenges that face the Nation. This philosophy, and its implementation in the Center’s everyday operations, means that leading policymakers and practitioners from government, industry, environmental organizations, and universities are able to work together to identify pressing environmental challenges and to agree upon ways of meeting those challenges. This is a model that has a proven track record – and one that allows all parties, whether they agree or not, to come together to seek solutions.

I'd like to thank Teresa Heinz Kerry for making a blog tour stop here. Be sure to tune in tomorrow when the blog tour comes to Culture Kitchen!

Teresa Heinz Kerry Blog Tour Progress

2007-04-19T19:14:00.000-07:00

Teresa Heinz Kerry's blog tour in support of the Conference on Women's Health and The Environment made its 6th stop today with a lovely post at the blog John Kerry Is My Hero.

Check out the blog tour schedule to see all the stops so far, and be sure to check it out tomorrow when the tour comes to The Democratic Daily.

Climate Change Called a Security Threat, Kerry Calls for Congress to Act

2007-04-17T12:56:00.000-07:00

A panel of retired generals and admirals warned yesterday that "Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the military should act now to minimize the destabilizing consequences of rising temperatures."

Shortages of food and water could cause weak governments to collapse, increasingly severe natural disasters could draw U.S. forces into humanitarian missions in volatile areas, and melting Arctic ice could spark territorial disputes over shipping routes and natural resources.

Even the effectiveness of sonar used by American submarines could be at risk if parts of the oceans become less salty.

The 63-page report describes climate change as a "threat multiplier" that makes dangerous situations around the world all the more menacing.

"We will pay for this one way or another," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who commanded U.S. forces in the Middle East. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today … or we'll pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives."

Senator John Kerry wrote to the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) today, requesting that the Committee hold a hearing on the implications that the growing threat of global climate change has on our national security. Kerry's letter comes in the wake of the report noted above that called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” that found that global warming presents a serious national security threat. Below is text of Kerry’s letter:

April 17, 2007

The Honorable Joseph Biden
Chairman
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Biden:

I know that you and I share a commitment to addressing global climate change, and I appreciate every opportunity to work together to combat this pressing issue.

As you know, a blue-ribbon panel of retired three- and four-star admirals and generals released a report earlier this week entitled “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.” The report found that global warming presents a serious national security threat that could affect Americans at home, impact U.S. military operations and heighten global tensions.

Specifically, the report warns that the effects of global warming could lead to large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water – all of which could eventually lead to direct US military involvement. The report recommends that climate change be integrated into the nation’s security strategies and says the United States “should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.”

Given these clear implications for United States foreign policy, I respectfully request that the Foreign Relations Committee hold a hearing on this issue, with the specific goal of exploring the implications of climate change – including rising ocean levels, droughts and violent weather – on our national security.

I look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

Science Daily notes that the "full report will be available on SecurityAndClimate.cna.org." Jonathan Powers weighs in on the issue on the HuffPo. And, Environmental News Service has more here.

Inspired Readers Line Up to Greet Kerry at Santa Fe Bookstore

2007-04-15T23:33:00.000-07:00

More news on John Kerry's visit Saturday to Santa Fe, NM...

The New Mexican reports that a group of 350 "inspired readers" lined up to greet Kerry at the bookstore in Santa Fe where he was scheduled for a booksigning for "This Moment On Earth," with wife and co-author, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., showed up, as did Gilbert Armenta and Tweeti and Linn Blancett, New Mexico ranchers featured in Kerry's book.

Kerry said he and his wife wrote the book because they were frustrated about the way many people inaccurately perceived the environmental movement.

Udall said he has read several excerpts from the work and thinks it is great. Through sales of the book, Udall said, Kerry is helping to put together a broad coalition to fight environmental problems.

Armenta said Kerry featured his story in the book because he has fought an oil company that he said polluted a river on his ranch near Bloomfield.

Linn Blancett said oil and gas companies have also polluted land where he grazes his cattle north of Aztec. The companies have made some efforts to clean up the land, he said, but they haven't done a thorough job.

His wife often says the job they've done is similar to putting on clean clothes without taking a shower, Linn Blancett said...

Lara Martinez, district manager for Borders, said sales of the book were "fast and furious" all day.

Every Little Bit Counts: Kerry Headlines Bulb-swapping Event

2007-04-15T23:31:00.000-07:00

John Kerry was in Santa Fe, NM on Saturday to promote his new book "This Moment On Earth," which he co-wrote with his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry. The NewMexican.com reports that "hundreds of people showed up at a Santa Fe city park Saturday to get energy-efficient light bulbs and to hear the Democratic Party's 2004 presidential nominee talk about global warming."

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told the crowd at Franklin Miles Park that he wants voters to elect politicians in 2008 who are going to make a difference on the issue.

"I'm sick and tired of these people talking about families and values when they're not willing to protect them in this most fundamental way," Kerry said.

The 6-foot-4 senator arrived at the event in the back seat of a green 2007 Toyota Prius, eating a chocolate-covered ice-cream bar on a stick. He made the stop while on his way to join his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, at a Santa Fe bookstore to promote their newly published This Moment on Earth.

Before Kerry arrived at the park, Carol Oldham, regional representative for the Sierra Club and an organizer of the event, said so many people showed up to swap old incandescent light bulbs for energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs that the organizers gave away all of the 1,500 light bulbs they had on hand.

The event in Santa Fe was part of a national effort by Step-It-Up, "a national organization dedicated to reducing the global warming problem."

Jill St. Thomas, a Step-It-Up participant in Santa Fe, said the group held 1,300 similar events all over the country Saturday.

Originally, organizers planned to give away five light bulbs per household. About a half-hour into the event, however, they realized they were going to run out of new bulbs if they didn't cut that household limit to three. By the end, organizers were giving away only two bulbs at a time, Oldham said.

But everyone who came -- about 350 people -- received bulbs, Oldham said. Organizers also circulated a sign-up sheet for people interested in learning about future light-bulb exchanges.

Initial thoughts of donating the used bulbs to Habitat for Humanity were scrapped, Oldham said. Because the idea is to reduce energy consumption, Oldham said, organizers decided they would take the used bulbs to the local landfill after the event.

John Kerry told the group at the event that "he and politicians like former Vice President Al Gore started talking about global warming 15 years ago." And he noted that "Just two years ago, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich told University of Vermont students that he didn't believe global warming was a problem." Things have changed in two years, Kerry said, referencing the Global Warming Debate he had with Newt Gingrich last week, in which "Gingrich told Kerry that he now believes there is evidence it is a problem."

"So we're moving forward and making a difference," Kerry told the crowd, "and I'll tell you what's making a difference. You are."

In an interview after he addressed the crowd, Kerry said he had not yet made up his mind about who to support for president in 2008. He said it would have to be someone who supported the environmental values described in his new book.

Kerry stumped for Gore in New Hampshire during that state's 2000 first-in-the-nation presidential primary season.

Gore, who accepted an Oscar this year for his role in An Inconvenient Truth, a movie about global warming, isn't a declared candidate. But one vehicle parked at the scene of Saturday's event sported a 4ALGORE New Mexico license plate.

Kerry said he had to be in Denver by Saturday night and had no plans during his Santa Fe visit to contact Gov. Bill Richardson, a current presidential contender.

As for himself, Kerry said he has no immediate plans to run for president but wouldn't rule it out in the future.

On a personal note, I'm happy to see the Senator found himself a "chocolate-covered ice-cream bar on a stick" without nuts and crunchies. Readers of The Dem Daily may remember that last June after the infamous Los Angeles "Bloogers Meeting" with John Kerry, the Senator couldn't find an ice cream without nut and crunchies.

Kerry and Gingrich Face Off on Climate Change

2007-04-10T16:45:00.000-07:00

John Kerry and Newt Gingrich faced off this morning "in a friendly exchange" on the issue of Global Warming in a debate on Capitol Hill.

They began by promoting each other's books. Gingrich said Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future," is "a very interesting read" and said he agrees with 60 percent of it. Kerry hasn't read Gingrich's new book on the environment, due out later this year, but said he has always enjoyed their exchanges.

Then the two argued for nearly two hours about whether the government should cap emissions of greenhouse gases or whether tax breaks will encourage businesses to do so.

Kerry said no environmental crisis has ever been solved voluntarily, without government intervention. "That's like saying, 'Barry Bonds, go investigate steroids,' or letting Enron take control of pensions," said the Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee.

Libby Quaid reports for AP News, "The arguments were typical for their political parties, although Gingrich is farther to the left of some Republicans who dispute the science behind climate change."

Kerry asked what Gingrich would say to Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who calls global warming a hoax.

"My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere," Gingrich replied.

He explained that conservatives often worry that the prescription for environmental problems will be bigger government and higher taxes.

Continue reading about the debate here.

'This Week' with George Stephanopoulos: John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry Take on Environmental Issues

2007-04-09T00:45:00.000-07:00

John and Teresa Heinz Kerry were on 'This Week' with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday talking about their new book, "This Moment on Earth," which I have posted quite a bit about here on The Dem Daily. John Kerry, as George Stephanopoulos noted on the show, had decided in January, not to make a another run for the White House. Now, "the Kerrys are campaigning for the cause that first brought them together — the environment."

The couple's new book, "This Moment on Earth," highlights ordinary people from a New Mexico rancher to an artist raised in the South Bronx who are confronting the challenge. The couple is out to prove that environmentalism is not elitist.

WATCH THE INTERVIEW HERE:

The transcript of the interview is as follows:

"This Week"'s George Stephanopoulos met them at their Washington home.

John Kerry: The environment movement's been viewed by a lot of Americans as not being "about me." What this book tries to do is point out the ways in which it's about everybody and that it's not sort of a small group and some niche in some community where you have the time or the money to care about it. This is about everyday America. This is about moms and pops in North Carolina and Mississippi and places where people may be breathing bad air or getting sick from wells that are polluted or losing their fish in their lakes and their backyard playground because of what's happening.

Stephanopoulos: You've gone out and found individuals all across the country who've made this their fight. How did you find them?

Teresa Kerry: We've met a lot of people during the campaign, of course, in a variety of fields. I particularly, because of my interests, I was mostly in health, environment and health, cancer, et cetera, toxins, water, as well as some green building spaces, indoor design, as well as outdoor, meaning indoor health, as well as outdoor health.

Read the full transcript here.

RELATED POSTS:

The Importance of Being Green

John and Teresa Heinz Kerry on the Tavis Smiley Show

In The Green Room with John Kerry at the Tavis Smiley Show

Kerrys Go Over the Heads of Political Elite

John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry: ‘Too Much Hot Air on Global Warming’

John and Teresa Heinz Kerry Talk with Bill O’Reilly on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’

Chatting With John and Teresa Heinz Kerry about ‘This Moment On Earth’

Quote of the Day: “How to Stop Bitching and Start a Green Revolution”

John Kerry on The Daily Show

‘This Moment On Earth’ Momentum

John and Teresa Heinz Kerry Discuss ‘This Moment On Earth’ on ‘The Today Show’

The Kerry’s Discuss ‘This Moment On Earth’ on ‘Imus In The Morning’

John Kerry Addresses Global Climate Change Conference

This Moment On Earth

IPCC Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ - Kerry Says Report Shows It Is Time To Take Action

Kerry, Gore and the Environment

The Importance of Being Green

2007-04-08T13:10:00.000-07:00

Vanity Fair's new 2nd annual Green Issue is available at newstands and online:

It's all about "The Importance of Being Green," which is still a concept that some folks don't get. But, as I have noted here recently, these folks do and thank goodness for that. Take some time and start being part of the change that is neccessary, because the "Earth faces a grim future if global warming isn't slowed."

On Friday, the Bush Administration tried to whitewash the latest international reports warning of climate change repercussions. John Kerry shot back with this statement:

“This is the latest example of the Bush Administration trying to change the science to fit their ideological agenda. It’s an embarrassment. Restoring American leadership in the world means we should be the world's leading advocate, not the world's leading denier of climate change. We should lead the world to address climate change rather than joining with Saudi Arabia as the leader of the flat earth caucus. This is the latest chapter in the Bush Administration story of diplomacy at its worst -- ducking the difficult choices, substituting words for deeds, postponing the reckoning until the day after tomorrow. The world is changing and now the reckoning is real. Here's the bottom line: within the next decade, if we don't deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren will have to deal with global catastrophe. It is time to start leading, not retreating from our responsibility.”

Today’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns of the global effects of climate change, including extreme weather patterns, increasing droughts that lead to famine and disease, massive floods and avalanches in Asia, and species extinction unless significant action is taken on a global level to abate climate change.

During the past six years, the Bush Administration has made several attempts to block or censure government employees or reports that warn of global warming. The United States, Saudi Arabia and China worked to tone down the panel’s report, leading many of the report’s most alarming projections to be generalized."

The bottomline is we've all got to start doing the little things that add up to change, because we've only got "This Moment On Earth," and if we blow it... among other things, the worst effects of climate change "would be felt in regions that are mainly poor and already facing dangers from existing climate and coastal hazards."

We can all make a difference in little ways and that difference will add up to an important change. That's the message of the Kerry's new book, "This Moment On Earth," it's all about "The Importance of Being Green."

Would The Enemy Follow Us Here?

2007-04-08T13:08:00.000-07:00

Bush loves to proclaim we're fighting them over there so they don't follow us here. But the question is, would they really follow us here? Probably not... Bush's favorite line, which he "repeated Wednesday in a speech to troops at California's Fort Irwin, suggests a chilling picture of warfare on American streets." William Douglas asks in an in a McClatchy Newspapers piece, "But is it true?"

Military and diplomatic analysts say it isn't. They accuse Bush of exaggerating the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland.

“The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature,” said James Jay Carafano, a homeland security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. “It’s a poor choice of words that doesn’t convey the essence of the problem - that walking away from a problem doesn’t solve anything.”

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

Foreign-born jihadists are present in Iraq, but they're believed to number only between 4 percent and 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgent fighters - 1,200 to 3,000 terrorists - according to the Defense Intelligence Agency and a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right research center.

“Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence,” said a February DIA report.

While acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time - whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not - the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say.

James Lewis, a U.S. foreign policy analyst at CSIS, called Bush’s assertion oversimplistic, but added that there’s a slight chance a few enemy combatants could make their way to the United States after a U.S. troop withdrawal.

“There’s a grain of truth in Bush saying it’s better to fight them there rather than here, but it’s also overstated,” Lewis said. “It’s not like there’s going to be gun battles in the United States.”

Daniel Benjamin, the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at The Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, agreed.

“There are very few foreign fighters who are going to be leaving the area because they don’t have the skills or languages that would give them access to the United States,” said Benjamin, who served as the National Security Council’s director for transnational threats from 1998 to 1999. “I’m not saying events in Iraq aren’t going to embolden jihadists. But I think the president’s formulations call for a leap of faith.”

One U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, takes it a step further saying, "The war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America. If anything, that - along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy."

John Kerry has said time and time again that Bush's policies are emboldening the terrorists. Once again we see that "Kerry is right." It's time to bring the troops home. Politics are colliding with the reality in Iraq. A military victory is not possible in Iraq.

John and Teresa Heinz Kerry on the Tavis Smiley Show

2007-04-08T13:06:00.000-07:00

As I wrote here yesterday, I was the guest of the Kerry's on Wednesday, for the taping of their interview on the Tavis Smiley Show which aired last night on KCET in Los Angeles. I took notes while the show was taping, but had been asked not to blog about the show until it aired. Respectful of that request, now that the show has aired, I know that folks who aren't in the L.A. area couldn't watch the show and have been dying to know what was said in the interview.

Tavis started the interview off with a bang by asking Kerry a few political questions including about the "Kerry Was Right" admission from Matthew Dowd in Sunday's N.Y. Times. Here's a brief part of the interchange:

TS: Is it just me or are you like the most vindicated man in America right now?

JK: Well, that's up for other people to decide, not me... I think it's just inappropriate for me to be running around talking vindication, but I am concerned about getting the policy right in Iraq and this administration is still on the wrong track. And, I'm deeply concerned about as you know, Teresa and I about the lack of adequate response on a host of domestic issues, environment, healthcare, education and others... We're going backwards my friend.

TS: Matt Dowd in the NY Times on Sunday... Kerry was right...

Smiley also noted the who asked who about McCain as a possible VP for Kerry dustup that originated in the blogosphere the day before the interview was taped. In a nutshell, Kerry's response was this, "The who did what is not a great use of time, Tavis to be honest with you. The more important question is John McCain's position on Iraq. I believe it is fundamentally flawed."

I think the Kerry's would rather be talking about their book right now that past politics and other isses, as pertinent as they may be. But as Smiley noted in the beginning of the interview, it's hard to have John Kerry on show and not ask political questions. Tavis Smiley did manage to devote far more time discussing the Kerry's book, "This Moment On Earth," than some of the other recent interviews have.

The interview is far batter than I can do justice with quips and quotes... So, rather than post my notes, the audio is up now and I encourage readers to listen here. Note also, there's a very important admission from Tavis Smiley in the interview, that I was told from one his producers that he has never admitted to on air so take the time to listen to the interview.

Finally it was my impression that the Tavis Smiley Show would be providing a video at some point, if and when it becomes available I will post it here. And... I still have more to come on the the Kerry's west coast stops on their book, so stay tuned...

UPDATE: WATCH THE INTERVIEW HERE.

The Smackdown: Kerry and Gingrich to Debate Global Warming

2007-04-08T13:04:00.000-07:00

Prepare for the smackdown... John Kerry and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich are scheduled to go a few rounds next Tuesday in a debate on Global Warming.

The debate is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. from from 10:00 am to 12:oo pm on April 1o. It is "part of the Brademas Center exploratory series, “Legislating for the Future,” which is cosponsored by The Brookings Institution and RAND Corporation."

John Kerry said in a statement, "We need a real debate. It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually talk about how to address global climate change."

"Newt’s a guy who has spent a lot of time wrestling with climate change and the environment. He reads about it, he teaches about it, he writes about it,” Kerry said Thursday. “We don’t see eye to eye about everything, obviously, but that’s what makes for a good debate.

“As a father, when someone tells me that within the next decade, if we don't deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren may deal with global catastrophe, that tells me I damn well better do whatever I can to help make Washington deal with this responsibly,” Kerry added. “We need these good old-fashioned debates and forums and discussions to get everyone thinking creatively on both sides of the aisle.”

CNN reports:

On his Web site, Gingrich wrote he believes that the world's climate has changed suddenly. He encouraged the federal government to establish environmental standards and he favors new technology to find alternative energy sources. But he still remains a little skeptical on what is actually causing the climate change.

"The history and science of climate change is far more complex and uncertain than the politically driven mass hysteria of scientists who sign on to ads about a topic for which they have no scientific proof," Gingrich wrote on his website.

On the WaPo's The Sleuth Blog, MaryAnn Akers notes:

Gingrich, who still hasn't ruled out a presidential run, and Kerry are both skilled orators and debaters. (They're practically poster children for the National Forensic League, aka the high school speech and debate club.) And both, perhaps Gingrich more than Kerry, are convinced they know best...

Kerry deputy chief of staff David Wade says, "but maybe debating the fragile future of our planet is reason enough to come early for a ringside seat."

No word yet as whether this will be picked up by C-SPAN or any of the news media. I'd love to be able to fly in for one of those ringside seats David Wade mentions, but I have a busy week a head next week. Regardless, look for Kerry, who has long advocated for change on the Global Warming issue to issue a righteous smackdown to Newt in the first round and then keep it coming.

John and Teresa Heinz Kerry Talk with Bill O’Reilly on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’

2007-04-03T09:43:00.000-07:00

John and Teresa Heniz Kerry were on 'The O'Reilly Factor' to discuss their new book, "This Moment On Earth" last night. O'Reilly veered off course for the first half of the interview and pulled the Senator into a discussion on the situation with Iran. It's surprising, but not, that O'Reilly failed to touch on the subject of yesterday's Supreme Court decision that in effect "gave new momentum to Congressional efforts to control heat-trapping gases linked to climate change." John Kerry's response to the Supreme Court decision yesterday is here.

I've just started reading "This Moment On Earth" and the one thing I'd like to see is folks like Bill O'Reilly and Meredith Vieira actually give the Kerry's the chance to discuss their book on these interviews, instead of other current events. This is a great book that is both inspiring and enlightening. It's no small wonder it's ranked the #1 bestseller on Amazon.com in non-fiction books!

WATCH THE INTERVIEW HERE:

The transcript of the interview is available here.

John Kerry Joins Reid as Co-Sponsor of Feingold Measure to Change Course in Iraq

2007-04-02T16:07:00.000-07:00

Today, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that they are introducing new legislation that will "effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces."

The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced a short time ago that he will cosponsor the legislation introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to enforce a deadline for the redeployment of US troops. Kerry said in a statement:

“President Bush has once again decided to ignore reality and ignore the will of Congress by pledging to veto a new policy for Iraq,” said Kerry. “In the face of the Administration’s stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course. Our brave American troops deserve nothing less than a policy that is equal to their sacrifice.

“I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of legislation that Senator Feingold plans to introduce which will change the military mission and enforce the Senate’s one year deadline for redeploying most U.S. troops from Iraq. The message it sends is simple: no more open ended commitment, no more putting American troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The American mission in Iraq will be to train Iraqis and chase Al Qaeda, not do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves. With this legislation, the Senate makes it clear we mean business.

“There is no military solution to the violence in Iraq, and a meaningful deadline is necessary to get Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and start making tough political compromises. I look forward to continuing the fight for a policy that can work in Iraq.”

AP News offered an exclusive with Henry Kissinger today, as noted here earlier, in which Kissinger echoed Kerry and said that "military victory not possible in Iraq." John Kerry was an original co-sponsor with Senator Feingold in June of 2006 of legislation to set a one year deadline for the redeployment of most American combat troops. The original Kerry-Feingold legislation garnered 13 votes, and last week a similar bill earned a majority.

The language of the Feingold legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Henry Kissinger: Military Victory Not Possible in Iraq

2007-04-02T16:04:00.000-07:00

Henry Kissinger, "who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam" broke with the Bush Administration on Sunday and said, "the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible."

In an AP News exclusive, Kissinger noted that "A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible."

The faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex, he said.

"It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."

But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam War who has also advised Bush on Iraq, warned that a sudden pullout of U.S. troops or loss of influence could unleash chaos.

"I am basically sympathetic to President Bush," he said. "I am partly sympathetic to it because I have seen comparable situations."

During his tenure under President Richard Nixon, first as national security adviser and then as secretary of state, Kissinger faced a similar challenge in formulating policy for a Vietnam War that was increasingly unpopular at home.

He oversaw a gradual U.S. pullout from Vietnam through a strategy also planned for Iraq, where U.S. troops are training their Iraqi counterparts to take fuller control of security. He also negotiated directly with North Vietnamese leaders on ending the conflict.

Kissinger said in the interview, echoing what John Kerry has been saying for a very long time that, "the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries." He also "applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors, "including bringing Iran to the table, as Kerry has suggested.

"That is the sort of framework out of which it is conceivable that an agreement should emerge," Kissinger said. "One needs to be prepared to negotiate with adversaries."

Saying that the "fighting in Iraq is likely to continue for years," Kissinger also said, "that America's national interest requires an end to partisan bickering at home over war policy."

"The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action."

It's doubtful that the Bush Administration will heed Kissinger's comments, but they would be wise to do so. It's painfully obvious that they are on the wrong course and with more and more prominent Republican coming forward and breaking with the Bush Adminstration on Iraq, we can only hope that the Bush Administration will begin to listen.

John Kerry on the Supreme Court Rebuke of Bush Administration on MA vs. EPA

2007-04-02T13:06:00.000-07:00

In an environmental victory, the Supreme Court ruled today that "Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles."

The decision was a sharp rebuke to the Bush Administration on their Global Warming policy, as the Supreme Court ordered the federal government "to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars."

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

The court's four conservative justices _ Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas _ dissented.

John Kerry made the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars:

“It’s an historic moment when the Supreme Court has to step in to protect the environment from the Bush Administration. Now that the White House must go back and take a fresh look at regulating greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, they must take the challenge seriously.

“Science tells us we have a 10 year window in which to avoid a climate change catastrophe. The time to act is now. Massachusetts has led the way, the Supreme Court has spoken, Americans are making themselves heard, and we’re going to keep fighting until a serious solution to climate change is enacted.”

Mark Sherman, reporting for AP News noted that "The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case."

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 13 environmental groups, and 11 other states all claimed a victory today, in their law suit against the EPA from last year. The Supreme Court weighed three questions in their decision:

_Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

_Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

_Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention that it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Former Bush Strategist Dowd: “Kerry Was Right” on Iraq

2007-04-01T11:45:00.000-07:00

Ouch! Matthew Dowd has had a wake up call since leaving the Bush Administration and it's a real slap in the face to Dubya. Dowd, in 1999, became the poster child of "Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal." Now he's looking back and he says "his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced." Talk about your understatements... Dowd told the N.Y. Times in a "wide-ranging" interview that "he hoped in part that by coming forward he would be able to get a message through to a presidential inner sanctum that he views as increasingly isolated."

But, he said, he holds out no great hope.

Evidently he's learned the hard way...

In the last several years, as he has gradually broken his ties with the Bush camp, one of Mr. Dowd’s premature twin daughters died, he was divorced, and he watched his oldest son prepare for deployment to Iraq as an Army intelligence specialist fluent in Arabic. Mr. Dowd said he had become so disillusioned with the war that he had considered joining street demonstrations against it, but that his continued personal affection for the president had kept him from joining protests whose anti-Bush fervor is so central.

Dowd claims to be a "big believer that in part what we’re called to do," he says, "to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have." We could all sound the "too little - too late" rally cry here -- but the truth is we can't change the past.

Now, claiming exposing his feelings about Bush did not "come easily," Dowd was able to get to the realization that so many have shared, "Kerry Was Right" on Iraq and he told the N.Y. Times that his "disappointment in Mr. Bush’s presidency is so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Mr. Bush gain and keep power."

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

And yes, he admits he had doubts even in '04:

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing “a weak defense,” and that the voters “trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq.”

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but “missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice.”

He was dumbfounded when Mr. Bush did not fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld after revelations that American soldiers had tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

So, we'll see what he does now with his Karmic wake up call that is causing him to call "for “gentleness” in politics."

He said that while he tried to keep his own conduct respectful during political combat, he wanted to “do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been part of.”

His views against the war began to harden last spring when, in a personal exercise, he wrote a draft opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor.

He said the president’s announcement last fall that he was re-nominating the former United Nations ambassador John R. Bolton, whose confirmation Democrats had already refused, was further proof to him that Mr. Bush was not seeking consensus with Democrats.

He said he came to believe Mr. Bush’s views were hardening, with the reinforcement of his inner circle. But, he said, the person “who is ultimately responsible is the president.” And he gradually ventured out with criticism, going so far as declaring last month in a short essay in Texas Monthly magazine that Mr. Bush was losing “his gut-level bond with the American people,” and breaking more fully in this week’s interview.

“If the American public says they’re done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want,” Mr. Dowd said. “They’re saying, ‘Get out of Iraq.’ ”

Some how I doubt Dowd will pick up the phone and call the good Senator from Massachusetts with an apology and an affirmation that he was wrong in supporting Bush in '04 and wrong in the way he portrayed Kerry. The revelation in the N.Y. Times is perhaps as far as he'll take it, but on that, I could be wrong. Regardless it's sweet vindication in my opinion for John Kerry, that one who labored so hard against his campaign can now look back and admit "Kerry Was Right." Because the truth is, "Kerry Was Right" on Iraq and so many issues since '04, as chronicled here on the Dem Daily over the past year and half.

So Dowd, feels a "calling of trying to re-establish a level of gentleness in the world.” Good for him. I hope he sticks with it, because we've seen enough ugliness under the Bush Administration to last a few generations. I know that's something John Kerry would agree on for as he's said so many times, quoting the great poet Langston Hughes, "It's time to 'Let America be America again.'" On that count too, Kerry is right.

Chatting With John and Teresa Heinz Kerry about ‘This Moment On Earth’

2007-04-01T11:42:00.000-07:00

John and Teresa Heinz Kerry have been busy, busy, busy the past few days promoting their new environmental book, 'This Moment On Earth,' and included in their interviews was a great little chat with Amanda Griscom Little of Grist.

Little starts out her interview with a nice little quip about how John and Teresa met, and the fact that the "environment brought them together." Both John and Teresa have a rich history as environmentalists and now, Little notes, the "the political power couple has refocused on the issue that inspires them both."

The book is emphatically optimistic about the green movement: "environmentalism isn't dead," they write, "it's just being reborn -- the very idea of what it means to be an 'environmentalist' is being revolutionized. People from all walks of life, without concern for party or ideological lines, are coming together in unprecedented numbers across the globe."

The duo introduce readers to people like Ellen Parker, a social worker from Cape Cod who battles cancer-linked pollutants, and Helen Reddout, an orchard owner in Washington state who struggles against fecal runoff from nearby dairy farms. Better-known figures like attorney and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and green architect and designer Bill McDonough also make appearances. Throughout, the authors weave in their own experiences with the natural world -- from Heinz Kerry's childhood in the wilds of Mozambique to Sen. Kerry's environmental advocacy on Capitol Hill.

Last week they spoke with me from their home in Washington, D.C., about the characters in their book, their 2004 campaign experience, and the role the environment will play in the next presidential election.

The complete Grist interview is available here.

The Kerry’s also took some time out today to do a conference call with a few bloggers in conjunction with their book tour and their upcoming book signing event on Monday, April 2, at the Bagdad Theatre in Portland, OR. Sandy at LightUpTheDarkness.org has a wonderful post on the conference call here and the Rev. Chuck Currie has a post here with a Podcast of the call here. And Rick Albertson of DCP throws in his 2 cents here. Great stuff from all the bloggers!

'This Moment on Earth' has gained some serious momentum in book sales on Amazon.com since it's release on Monday, as of this posting it's ranked #32 in books and is the #1 bestseller on the Amazon.com in Outdoors & Nature books.

The Kerry's book tour will bring them to Seattle, WA on April 3, Los Angeles on April 4, San Francisco on April 5, Austin, TX on April 6, Santa Fe, NM on April 14, Denver, CO on April 15, and Cambridge, MA on April 21.

I just received my copy of 'This Moment On Earth,' today and I plan on digging into it, as soon as this is posted. I'll be at the Los Angeles book event on April 4th and will have a full report here after the event.

I'm thrilled to see the book great such wonderful reviews and happy to see the Kerry's out making the rounds to promote such an important book with such a powerful message. As John Kerry said in a post on the Daily Kos yesterday, referencing the Bush administration, "that even more dangerous about this administration’s assault on the environment is the assumption on which that assault relies: they think people don’t care...

That’s why Teresa and I spent the last year working on our new book. We want to show the true face of the new environmentalism. We talked to a ton of people who are fighting for a clean, safe, healthy environment. They may not label themselves environmentalists or activists but labels aren’t important. What is important is that we’re all fighting for the same thing: a clean, safe healthy environment.

Finally, I want to remind everyone about Teresa Heinz Kerry's upcoming 11th Annual Conference on Women’s Health and the Environment in Pittsburgh on April 20. The Democratic Daily will be featuring an interview with Teresa Heinz Kerry in conjunction with the conference on April 20.

Every moment on this earth is precious. I learned that as a young child growing up in rural Massachusetts decades ago. My parents, children of the depression era had a great love and respect for the earth, our Mother, that they instilled in each of their four daughters and I in turn have managed to instill in my daughter, living here in Los Angeles. Take the time to treat her well, because truly it is the earth that sustains us.

Teresa Heinz Kerry: "We're all in this together"

2007-03-12T11:04:00.000-07:00

Upcoming conference, newsletter, book tour to promote environmental activism

Long-time environmental activist Teresa Heinz Kerry believes passionately that the only way to solve our environmental problems is to get everyone involved, from stay-at-home moms to research scientists to business leaders. Central to her vision is breaking down divisions and bringing people together: helping cutting-edge researchers to share their expertise with the public; forging collaborations between unlikely allies.

Her deeply-held belief that “all relevant parties must be involved" in resolving environmental problems forms the guiding philosophy of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, which she founded in 1995 for the express purpose of bringing together business, government, scientists and environmental activists to collaborate on environmental policy issues. Other projects in the same spirit have included helping to launch the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning and the Green Building Alliance, in which environmental activists work together with allies in the business community.

The other side of the coin is education: Heinz Kerry is equally passionate about giving the public the information and tools they need to get involved. She’s pioneered an array of public service campaigns, conferences, and publications, and helped to found a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the development of “an environmentally literate citizenry.” “With our right to know comes our responsibility to understand,” she writes, touching on the unifying theme of her environmental work: that we are all in this together, and have not only the right but the responsibility to come together and aid the search for solutions.

Heinz Kerry has several exciting new projects to further her vision of increasing environmental literacy and collaboration: a conference on Women's Health and the Environment, a new monthly newsletter Women's Health and Environment News, and a national tour in support of the book which Heinz Kerry co-authored with her husband John Kerry, This Moment On Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future.

11th Annual Conference on Women's Health and the Environment

Since 1996, Teresa Heinz Kerry has sponsored an annual conference in Boston designed "to arm women with information about the relationship between the environment and their health." Conference speakers have included prominent figures in the fields of public policy, science, medicine and environmental activism. In Heinz Kerry's words, the conferences "have been able to offer participants the freshest research available, along with the best thinking of experts in health, public policy and advocacy." This year's conference, Women's Health and the Environment: New Science, New Solutions, will feature presentations on topics ranging from Contaminated Without Consent: How Pollutants in Air, Food and Water Violate Human Rights to Paradigm Change in Environmental Health Science. The conference website states, "This day-long conference will empower and inform you to take actions that can improve your life and the lives of the women - and men - you love." The conference will be held on April 20, 2007, in Pittsburgh. Registration for the conference is free; a post-conference reception featuring a performance by the Indigo Girls costs $50. Conference presentations will be archived for viewing on the web after the conference. See the conference website for details.

Online Newsletter: Women's Health and Environment News

Teresa Heinz Kerry's new online newsletter debuts with its February 2007 issue, a four-page article authored by Heinz Kerry on the dangers posed by "Our 'Body Burden' of Chemicals." The article highlights several disturbing reports which suggest that startlingly high concentrations of chemicals are commonplace not only in the bodies of adults, but also in very young children. Of our response to these unsettling facts, Heinz Kerry asks, "Are we listening and understanding? And then acting on those understandings?" Noting that "We're all in this chemical mix -- the good, the bad and the ugly -- together," she calls on all of us to take practical actions at the same time that we insist that government and manufacturers do their part. Most of all, she stresses that a piecemeal or litigation-based approach to the management of toxic chemicals has already proven utterly inadequate, and calls for a fundamental shift to a paradigm in which ecologically responsible behavior benefits a company's bottom line at the same time that it benefits society. "Our next era of sound environmentalism must be based, like other good public policy efforts, on increased collaboration among a growing cadre of informed and enlightened interests," she writes. In the spirit of fostering dialogue, she provides a personal e-mail address for readers to send her their thoughts.

Nationwide Book Tour for This Moment on Earth

The power of individual initiative and collaborative, solutions-based environmental action is celebrated in the forthcoming book by John and Teresa Heinz Kerry, This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future. It promises to be a different kind of environmental book: not a doom-and-gloom report nor merely a prescription for new policies, but a series of encounters with real people from all walks of life who are taking action and making a difference -- many of whom, according to this excerpt from the preface, "do not consider themselves part of a 'movement,' or, for that matter, even want to be called 'environmentalists.' They're more down to earth than that: pragmatic people who have set out to solve a problem, often in the face of great opposition from vested interests, and largely unsupported by government." Their journeys into activism are an example and a call to action for all of us, and a reminder that "one of the privileges of living in a democracy is that if enough people want to change the way things are done, change is bound to happen."

John and Teresa Heinz Kerry are embarking on a book tour to discuss the book, the issues that drew them to write it, and the insights they've gained through their encounters with citizens across the country who, as they put it, "expand our sense of what can be accomplished, providing tangible hope that real achievements are within our reach." You can check the tour schedule and order tickets to an event through this website. You will also find information there about their upcoming television appearances; they are currently scheduled to appear on Imus in the Morning on March 23rd, NBC's Today Show on March 26th, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on March 26th.

UPDATE: A blogger who attended the first event on the book tour last night (3/12) has posted an interesting and informative recap at the official Kerry Blog.

Kerry: Senate Democrats United Behind Iraq Deadline Plan

2007-03-08T23:39:00.000-08:00

John Kerry praised the move by Senate Democrats toward setting a deadline for redeploying combat troops today. In a press conference today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined "Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer, Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray, Senator Russ Feingold, and Senator Evan Bayh to announce a new Joint Resolution to revise U.S. policy on Iraq. Iraq has fallen into a bloody civil war, and as conditions on the ground have changed so must U.S. policy change to meet them."

The Reid Joint Resolution builds on the longstanding Democratic position on Iraq and the Levin-Reed Amendment: the current conflict in Iraq requires a political solution, Iraq must take responsibility for its own future, and our troops should not be policing a civil war. It contains binding language to direct the President to transition the mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and begin their phased redeployment within one-hundred twenty days with a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008. A limited number of troops would remain for the purposes of force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter-terror options.

Kerry's statement in response to the announcement from Democratic leaders that they are offering legislation that sets a deadline for the deployment of US troops from Iraq, is as follows:

“This plan is a critical step forward for our country, and the brave men and women of our armed forces who have been waiting for Washington to provide a clear plan forward in Iraq. Last June, 12 senators joined me in voting to set a deadline for redeployment of American combat troops from Iraq.

Now we can all stand united behind an exit strategy that includes the deadline we need to get the Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring American combat troops home. I’m pleased that today’s solution is built on the premise of the legislation we offered last year: that there is no military solution to this conflict and any successful strategy must include a deadline combined with diplomatic, political and economic steps that get Iraqis to make the compromises needed for stability.”

The Senate announcement came in the wake of a similar announcement from the House today, which Kerry also supports.

Kerry Responds to Blair's Redeployment Plan for British Troops Out of Bush's Iraq War

2007-02-20T22:30:00.000-08:00

Tony Blair is preparing to cut out of Bush's war. The BBC reported today that Blair will announce a "timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks," on Wednesday.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. and The Sun newspaper said, quoting government officials who weren’t further identified.

The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain’s forces would leave Iraq. Currently, Britain has about 7,100 soldiers there.

John Kerry issued the following statement today, in response to Blair’s expected announcement that he would be withdrawing British troops on a fixed timetable, including the redeployment of 1,500 soldiers in the coming weeks and 3,000 troops home by Christmas:

“America’s leading ally in Iraq has decided that a timetable for the phased redeployment of troops is the only responsible policy to help force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq,” said Kerry. “After years of touting Prime Minister Blair’s resolve, the Administration should now pay attention to his new policy. This announcement makes it all the more inexplicable that the President and leading Republicans actually want to send more American troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war.”

Blair's announcement comes on the heels of Bush's push to escalate the Iraq war with "an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq." As Bush's plan to escalate the war, "some of the other coalition partners are pulling out: The Italians and Slovaks have left, and the Danes and the South Koreans want to start withdrawing."

NBC reported that Blair and President Bush spoke about the timetable on Tuesday morning.

The Guardian UK calls the plan, "the British endgame."

John Kerry Joins Obama, McCaskill To Improve Conditions At Walter Reed Hospital

2007-02-20T22:27:00.000-08:00

Senator John Kerry announced today that he will co-sponsor the legislation proposed by Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to improve the lives of recovering veterans at Walter Reed and other medical centers by eliminating paperwork and improving physical conditions. The Obama - McCaskill proposed legislation comes in the wake of the WaPo's reports by reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull documenting "dismal conditions that wounded soldiers endure at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C."

Considered the premier medical institution for the Army, Walter Reed is so crowded that some wounded soldiers are cared for in Building 18, which The Post reported has broken elevators, ice-covered walkways that confined soldiers to their rooms and other problems. (The Pentagon announced yesterday that repairs are underway for Building 18.)

Kerry also said today that he would explore other options for "directing new funding to Walter Reed and to make immediate improvements to the buildings where veterans are housed." He said that he was “saddened” by a recent Washington Post series exposing the poor sanitary conditions and other hurdles faced by injured veterans returning to the states after service in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he noted the recent story in the Army Times about 15 month delays facing vets seeking a physical evaluation.

“We owe our returning veterans a debt of gratitude, not sub-standard treatment at an overcrowded medical facility,” said Kerry. “The Administration has consistently talked a big game but shortchanged the needs of veterans. How can the president talk about a troop escalation in Iraq while failing to keep faith with the Iraq War veterans we’ve already brought home? Brave men who have been blinded or lost a limb in Iraq should not be sitting in moldy, mouse-infested buildings. Period. It’s unacceptable and this Congress needs to do something about it.”

The Obama - McCaskill legislation that Kerry is co-sponsoring would do the following:

Simplify the paperwork process for recovering soldiers;

Improve the ratio of caseworkers to recovering soldiers;

Increase the training of caseworkers;

Require more frequent IG inspections of hospital facilities and standards of care;

Establish timelines and benchmarks for repairs to substandard facilities;

Provide recovering soldiers with psychological counseling; and

Require regular reporting to Congress on: the total number of recovering soldiers at military hospitals; the number of caseworkers; the average waiting time for treatment; and the number of suicide attempts, accidental deaths or drug overdoses.

Hardball had Dana Priest on tonight talking about the series. The transcript of Hardball is here. And Paul Rieckoff has a post on the HuffPo about the situation at Walter Reed, that I highly recommend reading.

I'm not at all surprised to see Kerry jumping right in to co-sponsor the legislation from Obama and McCaskill. Fighting for veteran's rights has been an issue for him since day one in the Senate. Anyone who thinks otherswise doesn't know John Kerry.

John Kerry’s Input To Be Valued

2007-02-19T19:10:00.000-08:00

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily:

There was on OP/ED in the Boston Herald today that is so worth the read for Kerry supporters here on the Dem Daily. The OP/ED was written by Jeffrey R. Lewis, president of Heinz Family Philanthropies, who served as Republican staff director to the late Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.).

One of the key points Lewis makes, as a moderate Republican, is that "on a variety of key and core issues," John Kerry "has been right on the merits and he has gotten to these positions long before the rest of the pack." That's a point we've made here many times here on the Dem Daily -- Kerry was right. (Emphasis added below is mine.)

Kerry’s input to be valued
By Jeffrey R. Lewis
Monday, February 19, 2007

Two years from now, when George Bush leaves office, he will leave behind a tattered domestic policy and a severely frayed foreign policy that in some places of the world is broken, embittered, violent and organized into very different camps whose only common denominator is a raging anti-American sentiment.

On Sept. 11, the world was at our feet, understanding our anguish and offering a hand of friendship. Today, much of the world is after our throat, burning our flag, and using foreign trade and oil as weapons of economic destruction against us.

The question that engages many of us - not as Democrats or Republicans but as human beings - is how to approach the project of restoring America’s place in the world.

America must find a path out of Iraq, rebuild our military, re-engage the fight in Afghanistan, restore our diplomacy - especially in the Middle East - and suture together the security coalitions that this administration tore apart with its preference for unilateral action and its disdain for our allies.

Our role, our responsibility, is to engage our allies - and our adversaries - on the problems that can no longer be confined behind borders. We need a fair trade policy with China and India that stops driving Americans’ jobs from our country. We need to keep our doors open to visitors without alienating our neighbors and further eroding simple common decency toward migrants.

We must lead, not follow, other nations in limiting carbon emissions to fight global warming. We must stop global trafficking in drugs and sex slaves in ways that honor the dignity of its victims and the sovereignty of the nations involved.

How do you accomplish all of these things in a world threatened by the proliferation of dangerous weapons and divisive ideologies, especially when our White House flexes its political muscle by declaring anyone unpatriotic when he or she dares to disagree?

The neo-conservatives led us into a morass because they saw the world as they wanted it to be, not as it was. The people who will help lead us out will be both more realistic and more idealistic. These internationalists, these patriots, are in short-supply, which is what brings me to John Kerry.

It’s convenient now to kick Kerry.

The New York Times [NYT] did in a nasty news story just a few days ago; some snarky references to his hangdog face, to his emotional reaction to the death of a serviceman in Iraq (what is wrong with that anyway?), his shift in attention to his Senate seat (an office and a responsibility he has always loved) now that the 2008 presidential campaign will take place without him.

Kerry has faced a difficult two years. Like any candidate who ran and lost a close election, he has been the subject of second-guessing and buck-passing. His honor was impugned unfairly by his political opponents. His character was lampooned by a White House trying to change the subject from a failed war and a failed presidency, and some of his own colleagues have thrown knives.

Hear then an inconvenient truth: At a national moment where foreign policy expertise is needed more urgently than ever before, Kerry offers this country a perspective on the world that is more sharply aligned with America’s interests than that offered by many of his Senate colleagues.

On a variety of key and core issues, he has been right on the merits and he has gotten to these positions long before the rest of the pack.

For example, long before the Baker-Hamilton Commission Report, Kerry had a plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq and forcing the Iraqis to fight for their own democracy.

We would like to see a man, or woman, on a white horse to lead us out of the morass in which we’ve been driven. But the task is too great for one leader.

We simply can’t wait for January 2009 for the leadership we need. There’s an important role for Kerry to play, now. For those of us who still hold on as moderate Republicans of the past, Kerry’s is the only voice making sense, presenting a strategy and talking honestly and openly about the challenges we face and the country he loves.

As a liberal Democrat, I'll reiterate what Lewis says in his last paragraph, "Kerry’s is the only voice making sense." We can't wait until January '09, we need leadership now. In many ways over the past couple of years I have viewed John Kerry as the shadow president... the leader we should have gotten in the last election, who just keeps on fighting for us, just as he said he would during the '04 campaign. He's been right on so many issues and so many levels, I've lost track, but I know many are chronicled here on the Dem Daily.

Election '08 may be starting of with a bang, but in my opinion John Kerry is "more realistic and more idealistic" as Lewis notes about him, than any candidate has shown to date. Those Democrats on the stump, I've said here in recent weeks, more than a few times, will be wise to look to Kerry's stance on the issues and give credit where credit is do. Thank you, Jeffrey Lewis for saying what so many of us here at the Dem Daily feel and believe.

John Kerry: ‘The Guy Who Put the “Entrepreneurship” in the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship’

2007-02-19T10:49:00.000-08:00

As a small business owner, I've long appreciated John Kerry's advocacy for small business owners and entrepreneurs. It's tough for the little folks like myself to compete with big business and it's even tougher if you're a women in business. Kerry's done a lot to fight for small business over the years as the interview below from Inc.com points out:

He's the guy who put the "entrepreneurship" in the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. As committee chairman in 2001, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., had the name extended to reflect its broader sense of mission. Now, with the Democratic takeover of Congress, he returns to the helm, pledging to strengthen capital programs and other opportunities for small-business owners, while fighting to give them a fair shot at federal contracts — largely by preventing Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Wal-Mart and other large corporations from scooping them up.

Kerry, a former entrepreneur himself, surprised colleagues 22 years ago for seeking a post on the low-profile committee, yet was pilloried as anti-business during his 2004 presidential bid campaign, over his support of a minimum-wage increase and curbing tax incentives for corporations. Kerry recently spoke to Inc.com staff reporter Angus Loten about raising the federal minimum wage, taming employer health-care costs, and other key issues the committee expects to take up in the year ahead.

Inc.com: What's your impression of the minimum-wage bill that was recently sent back to the House with more than $8 billion in tax breaks for small-business owners?

Kerry: Obviously, if they were free-standing, some of our colleagues would embrace the larger portion of the tax pieces. But I think there was a feeling that it should've been a clean bill. I can't predict the outcome. We'll have to see what happens in committee. That's where it will be resolved. Some of the small-business measures in the bill we've advocated in the committee and we're supportive of them.

Inc.com: Opponents have said President Bush's proposed tax cuts for employees who buy their own health insurance are a threat to the employer-based system of coverage. Are they?

Kerry: They are. But what's happening in the health-care industry today is there's a rush to push away from defined benefits to defined contributions. So, the fact is, it's already threatened to some degree. There are decreasing numbers of people within the private sector who are carrying employer-based coverage. It's just the nature of the cost increases and pressures. The problem with the president's plan is that it really only affects a very small number of people who have enough money to be able to have the tax benefits make a difference. As a macro approach to the problem, it doesn't do enough. It doesn't really get at it. We have 27 million Americans who are working for small businesses who do not have health insurance. I think you have to have a much larger approach that helps bring down the cost of health care itself and reduces the cost of premiums.

I've always supported a plan to give a 50 percent tax credit for premiums to all small businesses, which would make the premiums much more affordable. I've also suggested an insurance pool with a cap on the costs for all businesses. You would reduce the premiums on every single health-insurance plan in America by about $1,500, which would have a profound impact. If you couple that with the tax benefit, it really starts to become affordable.

Inc.com: Where do employer cost-pooling initiatives like Health Saving Accounts fit in?

Kerry: I'm trying to find a way to thread that needle. It would be good to be able to do it. The first problem is, what's the extent of the pool, what's the makeup of the pool. The second issue is what are the standards for pools that might reach across state lines where you might have a difference in the quality of mandates currently required.

Those are the two biggest hurdles to that, and we're trying to figure out how you can create a pool that broadens participation without affecting the quality of care.

Inc.com: What's the state of Small Business Administration? There were reports in January that its disaster-loan program was running out of money.

Kerry: The SBA has been cannibalized. Morale is low. It's had a 37 percent budget cut. It's the most cut agency in the federal government right now. What we need to do is push legislation to provide short-term relief to the businesses that need it, while giving the SBA the tools it needs to deliver.

Inc.com: Seven months ago, Steven Preston became the agency's new administrator. How's he doing so far?

Kerry: I think he's honest and sincere about what he wants to achieve, but I don't know if he'll be permitted to. Part of that will play out in the budget fight next week, and we'll see what happens. I think he's moved continually to try to address some of the reform and accountability concerns, but has a long way to go.

We can give him a little time to grab the reins and implement the things he's said he'll implement. We'll have him up at the appropriate time and take a look at those issues.

Inc.com: Small-business federal contractors will soon have to recertify their size every five years to prevent large corporations from netting those contracts. Is five years too broad?

Kerry: We need to review it and figure out an appropriate timeframe. I want to hear from participants and I want to hear from lenders. We'll get a sense of that and we'll move on it very quickly. We'll have a hearing and evaluate it in the coming months.

Inc.com: What else can the government do to foster entrepreneurship?

Kerry: The most important thing is start-up facilitation. That can be in the form of capital programs, networking, mentoring, and other opportunities. Another way is through micro-lending. It's a shame to see that program under so much stress with this administration.

Massachusetts Fire Fighters Endorse John Kerry for Senate

2007-02-18T23:13:00.000-08:00

On Friday, the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts (PFFM) endorsed Senator John Kerry for United States Senate. The PFFM, at their state meeting in Hyannis, overwhelmingly endorsed Senator Kerry in his reelection for his fifth term serving Massachusetts in the United States Senate.

PFFM President Robert McCarthy said, “I’m proud today to announce the support for John Kerry in his reelection for the United State Senate. There’s no greater friend to Massachusetts’ firefighters than John Kerry. From fighting for fair pay for our firefighters to improving technology for first responders to making sure our men and women have the best equipment out there, John Kerry has led the fight. I look forward to continuing to work with him in the years to come.”

“I am deeply honored to be endorsed today by my good friend Bob McCarthy and the Fire Fighters,” Senator John Kerry said. “Our firefighters are the most trusted, loyal, heroic Americans out there who wake up everyday willing to put their lives on the line to protect ours. I’m running again for the Senate so I can continue to work for a policy that honors our firefighters and their service.

“I’ll never forget standing with these men and women the day we lost six of our own in Worcester. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t think of those heroes, their families and that sacrifice. We owe our firefighters an incredible debt of gratitude. But beyond that, we owe them leadership that honors this sacrifice. I’m humbled and profoundly thankful for their support,” Kerry added.

Kerry has consistently been supported by the men and women of the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts. Kerry also won the endorsement of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) early in his race for president in 2004.

On February 5, Kerry sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services calling for an investigation into the "'deeply" troubling' information in an MSNBC.com special report indicating that the federal unit charged with probing firefighter deaths ignored a warning in 2000 that personal alarms used at fire scenes might be failing.”

Kerry to Bow Out of '08 Presidential Race - Say It Ain't So John

2007-01-24T12:18:00.000-08:00

It's with a very heavy heart that I write here on The Democratic Daily that John Kerry will announce today that he will not run for president in '08. Many of our readers are staunch Kerry supporters who have given their all to the hope that Kerry would run. I respect John Kerry's decision, but simply have to say... Please, say it ain't so John.

The word came a short time ago via Kerry's press office forwarding this article from Rick Klein of the Boston Globe:

Kerry to bow out of '08 presidential race
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | January 24, 2007

WASHINGTON --Senator John F. Kerry plans to announce today that he is bowing out of the 2008 presidential race, and will instead remain in Congress and seek reelection to his Senate seat next year, according to senior Democratic officials.

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, plans to say he will remain in the Senate to recommit himself to efforts to extricate the United States from the war in Iraq. His decision to stay out of the presidential race reflects a realization that he would have had an uphill climb in capturing the Democratic nomination, given the other party heavyweights who are already in the race, according to the officials, who spoke to the Globe on condition of anonymity.

Kerry plans to make his plans known with a speech on the Senate floor this afternoon, and is taping a message to e-mail his supporters to explain his decision.

Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, has been acting like a 2008 candidate virtually since he lost to President Bush -- traveling the country, spreading money to other Democratic candidates, and keeping in place a campaign infrastructure that was ready for another presidential bid.

But according to Kerry associates, the senator's plans changed dramatically in the fallout of his election-eve "botched joke" about the education levels of US troops. The harsh reaction to that incident -- from many Democrats as well as Republicans -- displayed to Kerry the extreme skepticism within his own party about whether he should mount another run.

And, with polls giving front-runner status to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Kerry realized that he would face formidable adversaries in the quest for the Democratic nomination. Clinton, Obama, and a host of other candidates have been busily hiring campaign operatives and signing up key fund-raisers in recent weeks.

On Iraq, Kerry has emerged as a fierce war critic after initially supporting the invasion of Iraq. He has spoken of his war opposition in a similar vein to his efforts to bring the Vietnam War to a conclusion in the early 1970s.

Kerry's announcement freezes in place the various Democratic aspirants to his Senate seat. Massachusetts hasn't had a vacant Senate seat since 1984 -- when Kerry himself won his first six-year-term -- and several members of the state's all-Democratic congressional delegation have expressed interest in running for the Senate if Kerry retired.

Kerry Says Bush Address Ignores America’s Priorities

2007-01-23T19:57:00.000-08:00

Our embattled leader, George W. Bush challenged members of Congress tonight to ""show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory" and warned that the consequences of failure in Iraq "would be grievous and far-reaching.""

"I respect you and the arguments you have made," Bush told skeptical lawmakers from both parties in his sixth State of the Union address and the fourth since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "We went into this largely united -- in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq and I ask you to give it a chance to work."

With new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sitting behind him in a sign of the power shift on Capitol Hill, Bush congratulated Democrats on their victory in the November midterm elections and reached out to them with ideas to expand health-care coverage, overhaul immigration laws and improve education performance. In his most ambitious new proposal, he laid out a plan to reduce projected gasoline consumption in the United States by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

John Kerry tonight issued the following statement on President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address this evening:

“The President missed a golden opportunity tonight to admit that he made a mistake in Iraq and to share with the American people a plan for gradually removing our troops and allowing the Iraqis to solve the political crisis in Iraq. Instead, he glossed over the disastrous war and its multi-billion-dollar price tag and implied again that our presence in Iraq is somehow improving the situation in that chaotic and turbulent country. The Congress must stand up against Bush’s plan to escalate the war with a new surge of troops and I will be introducing legislation shortly to demand that the Administration set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq. The President’s address came up short in other areas as well – like his idea to tax worker health benefits and his failure to seriously address the challenge of global climate change. Our economy is headed in the wrong way; wages are barely keeping up with inflation and family income is on the way down,” Kerry said.

More specifically, the President missed the mark on several fronts:

ENERGY: Once again the President only paid lip service to a meaningful energy agenda that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. His record speaks for itself – we’re more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. Tonight the President failed to embrace bold policies to break our oil dependence. The President says the nation should reduce U.S. gas usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years, but a goal without a roadmap for getting there is useless. The President should have included more funding for hybrids and battery technology.

HEALTH CARE: Providing more people with meaningful, affordable health care is a laudable goal, but taxing worker health benefits to get there is a terrible idea. We need to increase the number of insured Americans, not play a shell game that risks coverage for those who have coverage today. As many as 35 million people could face higher taxes under the President’s plan while many millions more will face a choice of higher taxes or inadequate coverage in future. The President’s plan could actually increase the number of uninsured if employers decide to shift the entire premium cost to workers or offer only high-deductible plans.

IMMIGRATION: Once again the President called for immigration reform that includes a guest worker program. I support comprehensive immigration reform and I’m disappointed that President Bush walked away from the issue last congress in the heat of the midterm elections. I hope that he’ll work with the Democratic-led congress to make comprehensive reform a reality.

*MSNBC graphic