Bill Moyers Journal: Bill Moyers asks...

I am a bit confused. It seems that Bob Kerrey is all for "ending the occupation," but was very unclear on what that means and how that would be different from "withdrawal." I think he is the Muddled One. He is unable to stop thinking about Saddam Hussein, even though he recognizes the fact that the "regime change" war is over. He also seems to espouse the preposterous notion that one must either be in bed with oppressive dictators or militarily over-throw them. How simplistic... and to be expected from partisans like Bush, but from high-minded academic types, not so much. All this muddles the real question, upon which we all (except the most partisan Republicans) agree. Lets move our soldiers as far out of harms way as possible as soon as possible. George Bush is the major obstruction to that. Bob Kerrey is right about a couple of things... We need a bi-partisan plan... I would say we need a Unity Government. Unfortunately, George Bush is too interested in maintaining a divisive Red vs Blue America. As the POTUS, he has power to define the terms of the game. Bob Kerrey is also right to quote Sen Webb: You...

Posted by: jaisatya | July 28, 2007 3:48 PM

Bob Kerrey scares me. 1. His defense for the Iraqi War is that it was good to remove a dictator. He neglects to mention that we attacked a sovereign nation that did not attack us. This appears to me as a war crime. 2. He happily says that we removed a dictator from Iraq, and that the people should be pleased about that. Later in the conversation, however, he admits that the probability of Iraq becoming a democratic government is slim and the odds favor another dictator. So, our troops are fighting and dying why? 3. He states that the votes of the 11/06 election voted "No", and that wasn't conclusive. However, I think what the American People voted for was NOT listed on any opinion polls as an option. When I voted this past election, I heard only one word in my head: IMPEACHMENT! 4. Lastly, this ties in with #3: Mr. Kerrey spoke of presented bills to President Bush only to have them vetoed. He says Dems made their point, so what else is there to do? The voice in my head screams at this pathetic man: IMPEACHMENT!!!!! Bob Kerrey was a waste of time, Bill...

Posted by: Tracy Yoder | July 20, 2007 12:24 AM

None. To delay the inevitable will only cost more lives.

Posted by: kid | June 29, 2007 6:49 PM

I suggest we win the war first. Win or lose, Moyers hands will be wrung dry, while his wallet fattens.

Posted by: Prospector | June 29, 2007 6:10 PM

I am sorry to post an off-topic comment, but this video requires your urgent attention. It proves beyond doubt that aeroplanes did not, I repeat DID NOT, hit the WTC towers on 9/11. Instead video bluescreen effects were use. I know, I know, tinfoil and all that, but please give this a chance. It is a video, 30minutes, and VERY VERY VERY well made, and it uses ONLY footage from that atrocious morning that you all have seen and some of you have on their VCRs. http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2007/06/september-clues-vcd-911-tv-fakery.html For the technically challenged there are links to ONLINE VIEW .. but download the VCD, burn it, and watch it with you compatriots on the TV... and discuss the veracity of the argument.

Posted by: u2r2h | June 10, 2007 3:22 AM

Despite the claims, I'm unconvinced that withdrawal of US forces from Iraq will necessarily result in an increase in violence much above what already exists. Where is the evidence that an increase will occur? To the extent that the presence of US forces and their activity is a significant cause of the violence, it stands to reason that their withdrawal removes at least part of the motivation for violence. One could make at least as good a case that withdrawal will cause a net decrease in violence as that it would cause a net increase. If this particular issue is in doubt, the logical rationale should be what is best for our troops and our legitimate interests in the region. Most people, including the experts, agree that our withdrawal must be made at some point. Why not now?

Posted by: Sam Thornton | June 8, 2007 12:48 PM

My ex-hero bill moyers capitulates to the corporatocracy. By allowing kerrey to retain the framing of the argument as ,'iraqiis must stand up/ addressing the (so-called) war on terrorism, etc; mr moyers in his own imagination, presented a 'hardhitting' interview. In reality, those few of us who concentrating on the big picture, understand that by allowing a conspirator in collusion with reugs to frame out the oil question, which explains the very basis of our need for bin laden. Who quotes bin laden more than anyone else? W. Whose best friends facilitated a 'le vant affair' style 'terrorist attack on the us [ 9-11]? W. (see bandar bush and family). By not attacking the dems collusion with repugs and exposing that the only benchmark anybody cares about is the psa's of the multinat'l oil companies that will confer 75% of IRAQS almost infinite oil reserves for thirty years at a minimal royalty scheme. All these repugs will end up working for exxon and halliburton in exchange for the attorney general's willful ignorance of the antitrust activities that are not going to be acknowledged. LETS FACE FACTS, in this totally (un)constitutional crisis that we are in , our corrupt congress WILL...

Posted by: christopher wentworth | June 7, 2007 8:32 PM

Instead of an inarticulate and confused man like John Kerrey, why not interview Chalmers Johnson, author of the trilogy on America's transformation into a corrupted imperial power?

Posted by: Alvin D Hofer | June 7, 2007 10:49 AM

Bill, I got this from the National Vaccine Awareness Center newsletter: China Sentences Former Drug Regulator to Death The New York Times Published: May 29, 2007 by David Barboza Andy Rooney said that if you want to clean up government you would make the job pay minimum wage. China's method would be a good start. Would the FDA/Congress being killing their citizens if they knew they would be accountable for it with their lives instead of getting promotions? China is being portrayed as a backwards nation. Being held accountable for the lives of citizens seems progressive to me. Why isn't this front page news to tear and compare with our broken system and pansy Ethics Reform?

Posted by: Patrick Jordan | June 7, 2007 10:12 AM

How many more lives do we sacrifice? Zero. The lives of others do not belong to me. They do not belong to you. There are no disposable people. There are no sacrificial lambs among us. That lives are lost is an inestimable tragedy. If we must go to war, we do so to save lives, NOT to sacrifice lives for a cause. Only in saving lives do we reach an equilibrium. Sacrificing lives drives us further from the equilibrium we seek. Life is balance, loss of life imbalance. The only real answer is to stop warring. One need not take life or sacrifice life to achieve victory in a conflict. Any life lost is failure, whether that life be that of one's comrades or of one's enemy. Success is only achieved when there is no further loss of life on either side.

Posted by: Ricky Barnes | June 7, 2007 2:30 AM

My last post wasn't published here. I accused people of being cowards. Looks like the censor was not exactly daring, either. here it is: If he was a real man, the least Kerry would have to say is: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" I just watched Moyers' BUYING THE WAR again... and I am shaking my head. It should be screened every week in prime time. Its crystal-clear conclusions: Americans are mostly cowards. This would have never happened in another country, bar NAZI Germany. Out of fear we can dismiss the following statement, too: "It becomes ever clearer now that 9/11 could well have been an inside job.." Why are we afraid? Do we need the Oil / cars / consumption more than we need decent lives?

Posted by: u2r2h | June 5, 2007 6:32 PM

All these comments must be sign of a great interview or a terrible one. How can we tell the difference? Actually, what I would really like to see is for Bill Moyers to bring in some people occasionally who can talk about alternatives to war. War doesn't work – it never has and we've given it our best shot. So what else is there? What are the alternatives? Who could possibly bring people on TV who could seriously discuss looking for another way? Bill Moyers is probably the only one I can think of. What about it? John.

Posted by: John Womack | June 4, 2007 11:40 PM

If he was a real man, the least Kerry would have to say is: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" I just watched Moyers' BUYING THE WAR again... and I am shaking my head. It should be screened every week in prime time. Its crystal-clear conclusions: Americans are mostly cowards. This would have never happened in another country, bar NAZI Germany. Out of fear we can dismiss the following statement, too: "It becomes ever clearer now that 9/11 could well have been an inside job.." Why are we afraid? Do we need the Oil / cars / consumption more than we need decent lives?

Posted by: u2r2h | June 4, 2007 7:04 PM

That so many people are absolutely convinced that a unilateral withdrawal would lead to more murder, more mayhem, is more a reflection of our collective ignorance and fear of global jihadism, than it is a reflection of the truth. In our most recent past, so many people thought that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11, that Iraq had WMDs that were posed to strike at our allies, that our invasion of Iraq would be a slam-dunk, a cakewalk, and that the rest of the world was in agreement with us that we should invade Iraq. How can we NOT consider the possibility that we are, again, wrong about a very fundamental premise behind our actions?

Posted by: Linda | June 4, 2007 4:54 PM

in response to Bill's interview with Bob Kerrey and the frustrating question as to how to get out of Iraq in a manner that is both ethical and moral, I think that Bill's viewers would be interested to know about the Network of Spiritual Progressives. NSP is a relatively new, national grass-roots organization that offers a solution to this issue that, while pure common sense, neither Left nor Right has come up with. Bill may know about NSP, since one of its co-founders is Sister Joan Chittister (along with Rabbi Michael Lerner and Dr. Cornel West). In a full-page ad that ran in the New York Times on Thursday, May 17, NSP delineated its unique 3-point plan for an ethical end to our occupation of Iraq. A copy of the ad is included as an attachment here. This plan consists basically in the 3 R's of: Repentance (apologizing for our mistake); Replacement (of U.S. and British forces with an International Peace Force acceptable to the Iraqi people); Reparations (through a Global Marshall Plan to rebuild Iraq and eliminate global poverty). A 5-minute video of Michael Lerner discussing this ethical plan can be viewed at www.spiritualprogressives.org . NSP believes that a...

Posted by: Stephanie Carrow | June 4, 2007 11:21 AM

The big muddle is in the prevailing notion of democracy in the US, and by "prevailing" I mean the elite's notion. Mr. Kerrey says the Vietnam war was Ho coming down from the north, which could have been handled by regional arrangements. So the 80% of the public which would have voted for Ho in a Vietnam-wide referendum (called for by the Geneva accord of 1954), which was cancelled by the South at the behest, according to Neil Sheehan ("A Bright Shining Lie"), of Eisenhower (because the CIA knew the communists would win), didn't deserve to have their votes counted. The mideast today would vote, as Kerrey said, to get the US out and I'll bet also to have Israel adopt a secular constitution that gave equal rights to non-Jews: to abolish the "Jewish state" in favor of "a state for all the citizens". Why don't we respect that? Why don't you accept that?

Posted by: Chris Rushlau | June 3, 2007 8:42 PM

Bill Moyers did an excellent job in interviewing Bob Kerry. One of Kerry's solutions could have been the redeployemnt of our troops to Afghanistan and find the person who planned the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., bin Laden. Kerry needs to read the late Senator Robert Taft's book " A Foreign Policy for Americans".The book gives a clear picture of the limits on Presidental powers and the duty of the Congress to keep the President from violating the Constiturion. Mr. Kerry and his fellow senators have failed all of us. "Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader".

Posted by: Brooks Euler | June 3, 2007 5:14 PM

We are exacerbating the conditions that are promoting civil war in Iraq; I think just to give us an excuse to stay on until we have their oil. The situation in Iraq is not much different than it was during the last "Crusades" in the "Holy Land." The Sunni and Shiites were at odds then, but would come together to defeat an outside or "infidel" invader. We (the crusaders) made deals with one side or the other to gain wealth and land, and just as readily broke the agreements if the other side made a better offer. The situation is about the same today, but the color of the wealth is black instead of gold. If we would announce a cease fire, save for self defense, and announce a withdrawal from Iraq, I think the region would start to cool down as soon as they determined that we were serious. I fail to understand the logic behind rejecting other Middle Eastern nation's offers to mediate or provide peace keepers. The argument that we are bringing "democracy" to Iraq or any other Middle Eastern country is specious. You cannot bring democracy to anyone at the point of a gun, or by...

Posted by: Steve Osborn | June 3, 2007 4:33 PM

The conversation that Bill Moyers had with Bob Kerrey on the war and his stance ended with the same note that many conversations of this kind end with, Kerrey's statement on focusing on what we "agree" on to reach an answer. The answer was in Kerrey's words, when the words, "national" or "strategic" were coupled with "interest." Kerrey is part of the colonizing gang that runs the corporate media, the government and the reason for this nightmare we call foreign policy. Kerrey a warrior from Vietnam is like many of his fellow warriors, trying to achieve victory based on the last war's premise. The war in Vietnam was aggression on our part and interference in that people's affairs, the war in Iraq is aggression and interference into that people's affairs. That is why we lost the Vietnam war and why we will lose this war. Whether we pull out tomorrow or in ten years, the Iraqi people will ultimately make those decisions important to the makeup of their future, not us. I wish Bill would have asked Kerrey if he agreed with the potential giveaway of 85% of the Iraqi's national treasure, its oil resources to six western oil companies...

Posted by: PR Saunders | June 3, 2007 3:10 PM

I think this debate of why we are in Iraq does lend itself to goint beyond the words and that we as a country need to look at our life style and how we consume. After all, we tolerate dicatators of all types with no problems. If Iraq exported carrots as a main stay to their economy, we would be be in Iraq. It's is all bout the Oil in my view. Young men and the poor Iraqi people are being killed so we can maintain a consumptive lifestyle beyond what is reasonalbe. I don't think dying to maintain a level of consumption is worth and amoutn of death. People will not pay attention until the monster arrives on their doorstep and then it will be too late cause it is alreay down the street

Posted by: Lamar Winters | June 3, 2007 12:40 PM

IT’S THE OIL STUPID! (This is not a hostile or derogatory comment but an oblique reference to Bill Clinton’s famous plaque that sat on his desk in the oval office.) “After about an hour of common sense questioning most Presidents engage in, the very intelligent neoconservatives would have been forced to state, with considerable patience, "Mr. President, this really is about our nation's interest -- you know, oil -- as it was for the British, but it would not be a very good idea to tell the American people that. They might ask you, in the rare chance that you ended up in an audience composed of citizens who are not necessarily 'our people,' 'Do we really have to trade the lives of our sons and daughters for oil, Mr. President?' And you know we don't want to have that kind of discussion." Gary Hart This is what we should be debating.

Posted by: James Vincent | June 3, 2007 10:30 AM

I'd answer that there are more options than just "stay" and "go." The Neo-cons have us all in such a polarized state of mind that we fail to consider other options. Withdrawing our troops doesn't have to mean leaving a vacuum. It's also racist and absurd for us to think we know better than they do how to conduct their government. I think we can finally close the coffin lid on our elitist, colonial aspirations. There will be no American empire, nor should there be. We need to face the reality that there is no foundation for a democratic Iraq. It won't happen unless someone finds a way to teach an entire country critical thinking. Don't hold your breath. In the mean time, we need to get the UN to coordinate sending multinational troops to stand in as we stand aside. In order to do that, we need to give up all claim on Iraqi oil, get all the "private contractors," a.k.a. merceneries, out of the country immediately and shut down Gitmo and any other torture palaces we have running whereever they are on the planet. Throw Halliburton out on their asses and make them leave all of their equipment...

Posted by: Morgaine Swann | June 3, 2007 1:41 AM

I registered a few hors ago. Yet, I get message my password is incorrect??

Posted by: Bill nagle | June 3, 2007 12:17 AM

Withdraw or stay the course? Another false, either one or the other choice. Can we hear about the McGovern, Kucinich, and Biden Peace Plans.There are actual, complete thought out peace plans no one seems to be talking about them. Kucinich for example, has us turning contracting work over to the Iraqis, convening a regional conference, preparing for international peace keeping, developing a process for Iraqi reconciliation, reparations, abandoning US plan to privitize Iraqi oil. Heard on C-Span- Iraq could have a national oil co-op. GIve A shares to all Iraqi citizens, B shares to all Iraqi refugees who return to Iraq, give shares to Iraqi families for each member killed since we invaded. This would unite them. Withdraw or stay the course is a false choice leading only to despair and death.

Posted by: Judy Jensvold | June 2, 2007 10:15 PM

I was disappointed that Bill didn't point out Bob Kerrey's Board membership in The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a primarily Republican neo-con organization that promotes aggressive foreign policy and was pivotal in pushing for the Iraq War in the first place. http://www.alternet.org/story/14547/ It was also highly disturbing that Bob Kerrey was not challenged on the false dichotomy: embrace dictators or bomb them - these are the only two unimaginative immoral options of self-serving jingoists. Another false crock of nonsense: Democrats and their constituents, especially "The Left" that isn't one, just want us to get out of Iraq and to hell with the Iraqi people we invaded. Nothing could be more false, evidenced by polls that say the majority of Americans want out of Iraq and do not want to just run out indiscriminately, and by the statements of Sen. Obama especially when he voted No for the continued funding. "My plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. And if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration itself...

Posted by: VCubed | June 2, 2007 8:48 PM

I was disappointed that Bill didn't point out Bob Kerrey's Board membership in The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a primarily Republican neo-con organization that promotes aggressive foreign policy and was pivotal in pushing for the Iraq War in the first place. http://www.alternet.org/story/14547/ It was also highly disturbing that Bob Kerrey was not challenged on the false dichotomy: embrace dictators or bomb them - these are the only two unimaginative immoral options of self-serving jingoists. Another false crock of nonsense: Democrats and their constituents, especially "The Left" that isn't one, just want us to get out of Iraq and to hell with the Iraqi people we invaded. Nothing could be more false, evidenced by the statements of Sen. Obama especially when he voted No for the continued funding. "My plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. And if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration itself, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have actually been met and...

Posted by: VCubed | June 2, 2007 8:45 PM

After watching your interview with Kerrey, I just want to thank you for pressing him on some of his answers. Although I don't agree with him on some positions, he is altogether an honest, articulate, and intelligent, more than just self-serving politician. Thanks again for this interview. I think you outdid yourself on this one. Nonetheless, he did not make a case for how our staying in Iraq will result in our capability to better confront global jihadism. I continue to think that Iraq is not the key to the problem of global jihadism. But the fact that he recognizes the problem as being global jihadism, instead of the Bush administration's undefined GWOT, is at least an improvement. Here are the two basic obstacles that I see as preventing the American people from being able to get behind Bush in his Iraq policy: (1) There is no military effort that will ever result in equilibrium in Iraq, or in the rest of the Middle East, or in other parts of the world where global jihadism is developing and growing; (2) the Bush administration is failing to show the proper recognition and respect for our troop sacrifices, by not attending funerals...

Posted by: Linda | June 2, 2007 8:06 PM

Bill Moyers introduced Kerry saying, "He was also a member of the independent, bipartisan 9-11 Commission that investigated the attacks and made recommendations for the future." Wow. Bipartisan and Independent, huh? When you have Zelikow (a Bush regime operative) chairing the commission (Kissinger had a conflict of interest since he is paid by the Saudis) with utter control over everything, and the only Dems are of Hamilton/Kerrey ilk, I would hardly qualify it as independent and it is only bipartisan in the sense that both branches of the War Party were included. Kerrey may have expressed remorse for the war crimes in which he personally participated in Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerrey#Thanh_Phong_Massacre), but he has not atoned - in fact, he seems to be continually justifying them by averring the righteousness of war-making. He is truly a troubling and and troubled individual and for him to call the Dems muddled is to suggest that somehow he is not? It's the kettle that's black and not the pot?

Posted by: Geoff H | June 2, 2007 6:42 PM

This war was conceived by policy wonks:wolfowitz,cheney and rice similar to the domino theory applied to our nation's intervention in Vietnam. Ill-conceived, and designed with the profit motive in mind for Haliburton and the Bush Crime Family. We must acknowledge the global war on terror and wage it where our enemies are not in Iraq

Posted by: John Eric Stein Veteran | June 2, 2007 6:23 PM

Thank you for this interview, Mr.Moyers. I disagree vehemently with Mr.Kerry. No American should be asked by our leaders to lay their life on the line for reasons based on political power and/or greed. Our military is first and foremost tasked with the defense of the US, not Iraq. Our servicepeople are not disposable toy soldiers and I wish Mr.Kerry had had a more coherent answer when you asked him 'what do you tell the mothers of the fallen?' I appreciate the fact that he understood that the nation needed to grieve, but I don't think he gets that burying our dead and moving on isn't the end of it. The questions by the families and nation won't stop until we have honest answers and at least some measure of justice for being taken to war under false pretenses. As far as the US leaving Iraq and there being a bloodbath...there is a bloodbath now in Iraq. We should only be staying if there were some realistic plan that has more than a snowball's chance of helping to make a positive difference. Since we have no creditablity because we invaded and set down bases I don't see that as a...

Posted by: Valarie Fletcher | June 2, 2007 6:08 PM

Mr. Moyers I think you missed a good chance to advance everyone's understanding by failing to challenge Senator Kerry's false dichotomy: either support dictators, or invade countries and have regime change. Saddam Hussein was a brutal and dangerous dictator, not unlike many others with whom the American government has friendly and supportive relationships. In fact, the US had friendly and supportive relations with Saddam at the very time he was committing some of his worst atrocities, which were well known to US government officials. It is certainly possible that the inspections and sanctions and increasing international pressure might have brought about change in Iraq. Indeed, we know it did, because there were no WMD's found, or being produced. Saddam was in his 70's. How much longer did he have? The point is to stop giving support and political cover to governments that routinely use state terror against their own citizens and others. Egypt certainly qualifies as a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, as well as Syria and Iran. And we continue to provide endless uncritical support for open defiance of UN resolutions, state terror and ethnic cleansing by the Israeli government in the West Bank. If an "ally" like Israel can detain...

Posted by: Howard Eaton | June 2, 2007 5:59 PM

Mr. Moyers... I truly appreciate your journalistic stances... However, when Sen.Kerrey stated that there was no one in the S. Carolina Rep debates that had (paraphrase) anything to say that was relevant to our being involved in the Iraq Occupation "not war"... I do believe that Dr. Ron Paul explained his position quite well... Do you think it is possible that I missed something? Or maybe the good Sen should be educated! If you find the time I would truly appreciate a response... A 68 year old patriot supporting the Constitution... I would find it a great event for the American people if you would invite Dr. Paul on your show... Thank you... Joel Lemieux

Posted by: Joel Lemieux | June 2, 2007 4:19 PM

It is very clear from the comments you have received that this subject troubles all of us. My contribution to the discussion would be this: Very early in the war and occupation, I read from Professor Juan Cole a commentary on the language being used in this confrontation with extreme violence that has been called 'War on Terror.' It may seem superficial, but language itself can be and is an important recruiting tool. Continually through the interview the terms that were being used included the words 'Islam' and 'jihad.' As Professor Cole has more eloquently explained, these are holy words to ALL Muslims, just as 'Christian' and even 'Fundamentalist' are holy words to those of my faith. Even as peaceful Islamists understand who is being meant by the terms "Radical Islamic jihadists", even if they are mature enough to overlook the implicit slurs, they - as I would do - inwardly cringe at the secularization and derogation of what for them are holy terms. We really have to take this into account and respect this honor accorded to words, and use them more carefully, rather than trampling on what is one of the great faiths, even in ignorance. This would...

Posted by: Juliania | June 2, 2007 4:09 PM

Without taking away from the excellent comments of others, I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with Moyers for not addressing the real, honest to God reason for the entire Iraq fiasco, and that, of course, is that Saddam began selling his oil for Euros. By taking a moment of your time and reading http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?PID=1181, an article published BEFORE the invasion, you will learn why the US invaded, why Britain is our lapdog, and that the French weren't really "cowards" at all. When Kerry says this is a war over "jihadists" I have to cringe. When Moyers asks "How do we get out of Iraq" I want to say, "Read this, Bill." The answer, unfortunately, is "When the US economy collapses." The US will never leave Iraq. Read for yourself why.

Posted by: true indigo | June 2, 2007 2:15 PM

Bill, I am a long time fan and supporter. However, it�s becoming more and more evident that interviews with ex-war heroes, ex-politicians, and ex-military officers only establishes the fact that opinions continue to be like noses, everyone has one! It appears that a majority of the previous posters came to the same conclusion after your interview with Bob Kerry. I became increasing impatient, as the interview proceeded, waiting for Mr. Kerry to say something of relevance. His concluding remarks defending the political establishment in Washington summarized this less than captivating discussion; �We don�t know who to listen to !�. Your previous interview with Ms. Claybrook illustrated that they apparently knew who to listen to when 43% of them abused the publics trust and used their elected positions to snag a very well paid job on K Street. Meanwhile, the Bush administration keeps this so-called war going while they twist the arms of the current Iraqi government to sign an agreement with multinational oil interests that cedes the bulk of their national wealth. May I suggest that you interview someone who you have consulted several times when you were affiliated with �Now�, Kevin Phillips. Despite his former association with the Republican...

Posted by: Richard | June 2, 2007 2:12 PM

If you were in Kerrey's seat, how would you answer this question? I think the question should be if you were in Moyer�s seat how would you ask the questions? I was very disappointed with Moyers interview with Kerrey. I found the entire interview confusing, superficial, incomplete and uninformative. Read the transcript. For example; Kerrey�s comment �Our mission should not be to occupy Iraq. Our mission should be to be a reliable ally of the Iraqi government in their effort to survive.� Moyer�s response �That�s a very specific point�. In my opinion that Kerry�s comment is as vague as they come. Another example, Kerrey� you begin by saying that global jihadism is a genuine threat� Moyers� I agree with that� I hoped that Moyer would follow Kerrey�s statement by asking him if he feels that global jihadism is a result of our occupation of Muslim land and our aggression or support of aggression of Muslims. Another example, Kerry- �No, it's not all about oil. But that's an important source of our energy and an important source of our jobs, and yeah, it becomes more important as a consequence.� Moyers- �You're saying we're fighting it the wrong way?� It seems to...

Posted by: Margaret | June 2, 2007 1:14 PM

As US Navy war ships hit Somali targets (June 2, 2007) the War on tERROR widens due to poor oversight by an Executive branch with little reality of purpose! Bob Kerry speaks from his heart and experiences, those thoughts are resonant with many Americans filled with contempt for the "Bush" plan as regards the mistakes that opened the War on tERROR to a broader stage. A reporter once said, just before Iraq was subjected to "Shock & Awe" and it sums up the mistake best: "you break it, you own it"! We 'the people' of the US own the problem because we let a maniac, clueless sitting President invade a nation when the real need was for the throttling back of an aready functioning global enemy taking refuge in the mountains in the Kush regions. Iraqi government may not have the full efforts of their own people to restore an orderly form of control. All indications are, too many factions feel a need to influence that goverment. Both inside and outside of Iraq. A long term contracted conflict (It is not a War) is not sustainable given the loss of people and equipment. The financial burden has been skillfully hidden...

Posted by: J A Morris- VN vet -FOBK | June 2, 2007 12:52 PM

Thank you, Mr. Moyers, for all you do to help America through this devastating period in our history. When you stated that no sacrifice is being asked of anyone but the military, you are right. The only way to solve the problem of Iraq is for our legislators to demand the sacrifices needed to win in Iraq. First, restart the draft, so that we can send the numbers needed by the military, as they say they need: Shinseki stated a few hundred thousand, Petraeus, in his instructional on insurgency stated 25 (or was it 50?) soldiers per 1000 population of the country. Second, increase taxes, especially on capital gains, inheritance over $1million, war businesses and outsourcers, and raise the gas tax. The pain of these sacrifices will either be met, (and we will have a better chance of cleaning up the weapons and Alqaieda and foreign fighters in Irag, as well as improve the rebuilding effort), or there will be a massive outcry and more than likely an initiative to remove our presence in Iraq. If only our politicians had the guts to propose anything that does not directly benefit them or their re-election campaigns.

Posted by: Chris | June 2, 2007 12:51 PM

I wanted this separate from my other post. Again and again we hear that leaving Iraq would give Bin Laden a "psychological" victory, now Kerrey ratchets it up to a "real" victory. So friggin' what? It doesn't matter WHAT we do, he claims victory, and - surprise surprise! - no one CARES what he says. The choir he is speaking to is ALREADY singing along - his nebulous claim to any "victory" would not make, say, a Sufi suddenly change his ways to Wahabiism. The Shia's aren't going to suddenly convert to Sunniism and proclaim Bin Laden as their new leader - it is all smoke, no fire. The only time any politician brings up the words of Bin Laden is when they want to back a particular point they are pressing. Again, who cares one whit what Bin Laden says? Why do we insist on GIVING him the power to control America's actions?

Posted by: Medford Tim | June 2, 2007 12:46 PM

I have a lot of respect for Bob Kerrey, but he is in the same mindset as the politicians in office. Did you notice that he brings up the same straw-men about Iran, Syria, and Turkey "taking over" Iraq TWICE - yet none of us have EVER seen any proof that this is justified logic. He assumes, as do the War Hawks, that the population of Iraq WANT that to happen - that the Arab Shia would accept Persian Shia rule. Where's the proof? Even Bill seems to accept this as fact, simply because people have said so. Why doesn't he ask for and show us the PROOF of these claims? And, as usual, the words "Saudi Arabia" were not included as a place where terrorists cross the border, funding flows freely to Iraqi Sunni insurgents (AND Al Qaeda in Iraq), or would be players in any conflict should we "up and leave." Why is Saudi Arabia a non-entity when it shares as much border with Iraq as Iran - and, let us not forget, the homeland of 17 of the 9/11 hijackers. Why is so much of our focus on Iran - who HELPED us in the invasion of...

Posted by: Medford Tim | June 2, 2007 12:26 PM

It's Kerry who is "muddled". We can say that it is not an occupation all we want, but with an embassy bigger than the Vatican and 10 bases located there, its just words. And he says there is no military solution yet, still wants a prominent role for the military. How on earth will retreat to the bases in a failed state work? It will still be cheered as a victory by bin Ladin no matter what we do. Propaganda doesn't care what is true. Perhaps, Kerry's future polictical interests color his opinions.

Posted by: Dio | June 2, 2007 11:56 AM

My answer to the question is that like the lyrics to the Eagles song Hotel California "you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave". That loud CLICK we heard when we entered the war meant the door only opened one way. So any question about when and how to leave is moot, and anyone trying to answer seems to be talking in circles because hard as it is to swallow yes "we can never leave" and won't. War and quicksand have a lot in common too late to draft an exit plan after having entered either.

Posted by: david moxness | June 2, 2007 11:50 AM

We should withdraw from Iraq within 60 days, to be replaced by a multinational Muslim peacekeeping force. We have done enough damage there and we need to get out now. As far as the war on terror against the Islamic jihadists, I'm tired of Americans vilifying someone else when we have wreaked so much havoc. The official 9/11 story (Bob Kerrey was on the 9/11 commission) is a fraud. The Jersey Girls only had 30% of their questions answered and they demand a new investigation. The progressive left is still burying this issue and supporting the "War on Terror" and the Military Industrial Complex. At our Town Meeting in Lincoln, Vermont, I helped pass a resoution demanding a new, independent, forensic investigation of 9/11. We are the only town in the nation to demand this. The Demorcrats are divided and losing credibility. Bush and Cheney must be impeached now for stealing the elections and most likely, complicity in 9/11.

Posted by: Matthew Ennis | June 2, 2007 11:26 AM

My answer to the question is that like the lyrics to the Eagles song Hotel California "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave". That is not what any sane person wants to hear,but that loud CLICK meant the door into Iraq only opens one way,so questions about withdrawal from Iraq are moot,that is why anyone who gets sucked into the debate about when and how to "get out" come off as "confused" at best. War and quicksand have a lot in common, too late to try and draw up an exit plan after having entered either.

Posted by: david moxness | June 2, 2007 11:25 AM

And your show indicates, there is much to debate as to why and whether we should be in Iraq. But, from a practical view, our presence would be more tolerable if we weren't taking as many casualties. In my view Iraqi freedom is not worth the life of a single american, but if there was some way to combat the IED's --- high minded purposes such as freedom and stability for the iraqis can be entertained. Right now the price is too high. Solve the IED problem. It makes no sense to put men in harms way against a weapon for which you have no defense. Either defend against it or withdraw to a safer position.

Posted by: Walter Beattie | June 2, 2007 10:59 AM

I found this interview stunning. Really. Kerrey's logic seemed convoluted, pro neocolonialist, heavy on pronouncements, light on solutions. Seemed to me his primary point was that we simply redefine the terms of war. Groucho Marx would have loved it. "Say the magic word(s) and you win a hundred dollars..." The magic words? "We are no longer occupying your country." Presto change-o! We're the good guys again--no matter what we have done or what we do next. We can stay put because it's a good thing to invade a sovereign nation to topple a tyrant. I am no politician, no think tank policy wonk. I'm an ordinary woman with kids and grandkids who writes a weekly column down here in the South arguing for sanity in public policy. I am, however, smarter than this administration. I actually read--so I knew a little about the tortured history of a nation-that-wasn't-one until colonialist intervention early in the last century drew artificial lines in the sand and created it. Iraq was never a naturally evolved nation united by shared interests or common culture. Knocking off Saddam Hussein wasn't about to make it one. There has to be a better answer than Kerrey's. And, maybe...

Posted by: Linda Hansen | June 2, 2007 10:09 AM

Kerrey spoke like an idiot which is quite unexpected from a former congressman. I hope he’s not representative of the caliber of folks that work on our behalf of Capitol Hill. One side note; politicians and the Bush administration in particular like to bring up al-Qaeda and Osama bin-Laden all the time as a way to justify our presence in Iraq. Let’s get real, we are dealing with sectarian/ethnic violence there, that's enough. As for bin-Laden he’s been dead for years but he is being used like Elvis and is too convenient a prop to dismiss…

Posted by: JF Lanvers | June 2, 2007 9:53 AM

Thank you Bill for doing what you do so well. Your thoughtful, yet persistently critical questioning of Bob Kerrey last night was a great journalistic service. You gave Kerrey just enough rope to hang himself, and thereby helped to clarify the 'muddle' on the Iraq war debate that has been fostered by centrist and conservative Democrats seeking, as Russ Feingold recently noted, "political comfort...over real action." To listen to Bob Kerry's evasive answers, elisions, and downright sophistry as he fell all over himself trying to re-frame Bush's disastrous policies in terms of some kind of high-minded realpolitik was truly revealing. Kerrey, of course, is no stranger to the kind of DLC doublespeak that we were treated to in last night's interview. Clearly, this intervention by Kerrey is meant to pave the way for Hillary et al. to triangulate a new 'moderate' version of continuing Bush's imperial war and occupation. I suppose we can expect to see Kerrey featured quite prominently in the corporate media in coming weeks. I hope that some other brave journalists might take up the critical line of argument that you have opened up against this DLC-inspired flapdoodle. But, I'm afraid I'm not very hopeful about that...

Posted by: Mark Marino | June 2, 2007 9:44 AM

Perhaps Bob Kerrey knows the politics of ancient military empires, but nothing about Living Things. Every living thing on earth will defend it's offspring from EVERY ATTACKER, regardless of nationality, religion, race or even species. EVERY Living thing will defend the future of Creation from EVERY attacker. Who in America would NOT shoot the soldiers of an invading army? Who in America would NOT try to bomb the invading Gestapo's ''Green zone'' ? Who in America would NOT shoot the traitors who sided with that foreign invader ? Who in America would NOT sacrifice their lives to save their children from a horde of invading, murdering barbarians ? Who in America would simply hand America over to a lying, invading, murdering foreign dictator like Bush ? I wouldn't, and neither would the citizens of Iraq.

Posted by: Thomas T. Panto - Veteran | June 2, 2007 8:50 AM

Dear Mr. Moyers I feel indebted to you for what you have added to our national debate about politics and morality. Though I have to say I am flabbergasted after watching your lengthy discussion with Bob Kerry about Iraq that included absolutely no discussion about the real reason we are there--oil. Oil is why we are there and why we will not leave. This fact explains every action taken by the Bush Administration and every action not taken--like creating a genuine self-governing political system in Iraq. It explains the size of our new embassy and the significance of our role in helping Iraqis develop their constitution. Apparently we simply cannot allow Iraqis to control their own resources and work out a way of sharing them without having multi-national companies call the shots. Once Iraqis realized we were not there simply top liberate them and set them on the path to democracy, the insurgency began. Iraqis know us better than we know ourselves. America’s motives are not what we say they are. If Americans had an honest discussion about Iraq, Iran, oil and gas, pipeline routs, and all of the competing interests fighting for control of them, then maybe we could...

Posted by: James Vincent | June 2, 2007 7:38 AM

Hello again Bill. Great discussion with Sen. Kerry - we need more like it. When he asked you rhetorically "what could the Democrats do?" in response to your comment about Congress capitulating on war supplemental, I had to share the letter I sent to several members of Congress about what they could and should do. I sent it shortly after the President vetoed their �timeline� bill. It is a long read but I hope Congress will gain some courage and use such ideas when the Defense budget comes up for debate this summer. This is my answer to Sen. Kerry. Subject: A decisive win-win Democrat supplemental funding bill that ends the Iraq war regardless of the actions of Bush and Republican Congressmen. Introduction: I am an active-duty intelligence officer with over 12 years experience including tours to support operations to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and to the Mideast to first restrain Sadaam Hussein and then again to deal with the conflagration that ensued following his toppling. I am currently stationed in Korea a few miles from an unstable, budding nuclear power. I willingly took an oath to support and defend our Constitution and have been utterly horrified to see...

Posted by: Dan | June 2, 2007 6:12 AM

Wow, Bob Kerrey has really made me see the error of my far-left ways. I never realized before this interview that overthrowing Middle East dictators or supporting them are our only two options as a nation. What a fool I've been!

Posted by: Don Kuhns | June 2, 2007 3:09 AM

(Just found your blog -- how cool!) First of all, Mr. Moyers, I just want to say this was your best interview/discussion since your first Journal show looking at the press leading up to the war. In your earlier discussions -- I'm thinking particularly of the one with Bruce Bawer -- it felt more like a platform for that person to rant without any gentle but firm questioning for which I so admire you. This was a lively exchange between you and Bob Kerry in which you both asked some of the difficult questions that we desperately need to ask on this issue, and I look forward to more robust dialogue in the future. As a former academic specializing in the Middle East, I was not only opposed to the war but could not envision a scenario this war would lead to other than the current catastrophe that today is Iraq. Yet, despite my disagreement with Kerry regarding the threat of "global jihad", I do agree that the Democrats are not looking at the whole picture here. When the President or John McCain say that if we pull out, ethnic cleansing will increase, they are -- as uncomfortable as it...

Posted by: Michelle | June 2, 2007 3:09 AM

I have not heard anyone mention: Moqtada al Sadr recently resurfaced and stated that he wanted to make peace with the Sunis. I am assuming that the Iranians would not be in favor of hosting terrorists in either Iran or Iraq, if al Sadr were the leader of Iraq. Why have we not sent out feelers on the diplomatic front to see if some kind of agreement can be reached with al Sadr if he can make peace with the sunis?

Posted by: Ron Hohn | June 2, 2007 2:29 AM

Hi Bill, I'm writing because I'm a fan of you and your new show and I'm really disappointed in the time I feel was wasted interviewing Bob Kerrey. (I loved the first half of the show!) Bob Kerrey said virtually nothing that made sense for a half an hour. Bob Kerrey either doesn't understand the Iraq situation, or is a propogandist with a mission of further confusing the issue. From what I observed tonight I believe he may be using his position as president of The New School to pose as a voice of "left". Thanks for your good work.

Posted by: Dana Lyons | June 2, 2007 1:48 AM

It absolutely dumbfounds me how we have let one single megalomaniac begin to bankrupt the US Treasury, deplete the National Guard into almost total uselessness, lie and lie and lie again to the American Public and then demand a further escalation of the �Biggest Mistake Ever Made by an American President� and get away with it! Why on earth isn�t everybody in America screaming at the top of their lungs � STOP THIS INSANITY! A major point of Osama bin Laden�s argument for 9/11 is that America had consistently meddled in the affairs of the Middle East for the last 80 years (buying off sheikdoms, gunboat diplomacy, installing crooked figureheads like the Shah of Iran, etc�) � So, what do we do, we roll into the Middle East, overthrow a government and can�t understand why we�re not being welcomed with open arms, how come all the neighbors are agitating unrest and why is there suddenly a civil war going on! Duh! Is the entire Bush Administration on a Valium drip? Did no one bother to read the history of Iraq before we launched Viet Nam II? Bill Moyer�s frequently asked question to Bob Kerrey �how do we get out...

Posted by: Richard J. Tafilaw | June 2, 2007 1:34 AM

I need a answer to the following question " why Iraq that has been established as an entity for even far before the pharaohs of Egypt , would need either a Sadam Hussein or an American flag in order to survive and flourish ??????

Posted by: A. Elgendy | June 2, 2007 1:15 AM

Kerry seemed to rely on war as a valid means to bring peace to the world. Yet war has never brought peace in spite of dedicated efforts by masters of that art. I would like to see thoughtful enquiries on programs like Bill Moyer's about other ways to handle the world's problems instead of war, threats and economic domination. Now would be a good time to build such a new world. A new century is here and new opportunities may be present. If we could build such a new world what are some of the ways we might begin? Bill Moyers can bring some of the people with these ideas to his program and help share their insights with a larger audience. I would love to see some of that. John

Posted by: John Womack | June 2, 2007 1:13 AM

The people have spoken, and they have been ignored. Why does Congress have to send any further funding legislation to the President?

Posted by: John D. Beck | June 2, 2007 1:12 AM

Bob Kerrey has always been a Democrat who's made me uncomfortable. Not because he's not thoughtful, but because his positions always want to be the ones that 'split the difference intelligently'. Too often they just sound like straddle. He retains what much of the current discussion doesn't -- a healthy respect for Bin Laden. That has gotten lost in much of the Iraq talk. But what he doesn't seem to buy into is that Bin Laden has ALREADY won his arguing points. Our Iraq policy has been so wrong, so very wrong, that nothing is going to save the anti-America backlash. We will continue to eat off the plate being served our way for many years. Kerry's one contribution was legalistic: remove our 'official'UN status as 'Occupying Force'. Okay. But remain there as de facto occupying force -- onsite, but not as 'police'? We all would like this to be resolved reasonably, but a withdrawal from the country -- hey, the 'redeployment' mentioned by Murtha and others -- would serve well. We'd be out of harm's way, but close enough to protect what seriously may need protecting. There is no really good solution and there has been much long-lasting damage...

Posted by: farouet | June 2, 2007 1:12 AM

The people have spoken, and they have been ignored. Why does Congress have to send any further funding legislation to the President?

Posted by: John D. Beck | June 2, 2007 1:12 AM

The interview with Kerrey was disappointing. Not at all up to Moyer's standard. The simplest remark about the Iraq government being stooges of the US, thus disintegrating Kerrey's thesis about responding to its "requests," was not even posed. Moyer's assertion of his "disagreement" with Kerrey was feeble. Why was this "disagreement" not brought out in the questions.

Posted by: Seth Zimmerman | June 2, 2007 1:07 AM

I am puzzled by why Bob Kerrey, and indeed, everyone else I've heard weigh in on Iraq, fails to consider an obvious solution: let the Iraqi people themselves decide whether we go or stay. After all, aren't we there (presumably) to establish a democracy? Then let's quit trying to decide what these people can and can't do in their own sovereign nation. I would love to see Mr. Moyers do a program based on this question. At first blush, the question may be rejected as being naive, BUT WHY? Because the country may descend into civil war if we leave? It's already there. Because terrorists may get a permanent foothold? So what do they have now? Letting the Iraqi people make the decision is a simple, logical solution. It lets the U.S. save face -- or help, if indeed help is requested. It's non-political, which lets politicians of both parties off the hook. What do you think?

Posted by: Carolyn Buan | June 2, 2007 1:07 AM

Yes, a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would lead to an expansion of the civil war, with the accompanying end of al Qaeda in Iraq. The Shiites, controlling the military and police, will together with the militias attack and defeat the Sunnis' and al Qaeda. Sunnis' who elect not to fight will flee the country or assist the Shiites by going after al Qaeda. We should not for one more day prop up this Shiite government with American blood and treasure. By doing so we are only delaying the inevitable expansion of the civil war. If the Shiite government wanted peace in Iraq they would be making more of an effort to reach an accord with the Sunnis' by sharing oil resources, etc. The govt is more than happy to let our troops do the fighting and dying, while taking billions in dollars, much of what no doubt ends up in Swiss bank accounts. Bring our troops home now.

Posted by: Tom Lynch | June 2, 2007 1:06 AM

Bob Kerrey represents the Council on Foreign Relations view on things, since he is a member. It seems he was very disingenuous when talking about what to say to mothers of fallen soldiers. You can tell by his body language he doesn't care about their sacrifice. He wants the American Empire. and he knows if America withdraws from Iraq, China and India win not OBL. Notion that Democrats represent the Left is so funny it embarrassing. Bill Moyers kept letting him get away with fallacy after fallacy.

Posted by: babu | June 2, 2007 1:05 AM

Once again another politician (ex) misses the point. The Middle East has no history of democracy or even viable attempts to institute it. Democracy must begin from within, from the people. It has never been successfully instituted or forced into a region; it has only arisen from within and Iraq had no viable, internal movement that was strong enough to establish a democratic government. There was no overwhelming desire by the people to establish a democracy. Kerry, like Bush, simply does not understand that. So to show USAMA BIN LADEN our resolve, we send thousands of Americans to die and tens of thousands to be maimed and hundreds to be turned into inhumane people who attack and torture the innocent as well as the guilty. All that to prove a point to Bin Laden. That is the weakest of reasons. The long term damage that the Iraq war has done and will do to this country (USA) is not worth this expenditure of lives, resources and our humanity. There is another way to deal with the Jihadists. It is an enormous mistake to occupy a country. Strategically attacking, destroying or weakening the havens of the jihadists in the countries and...

Posted by: David H Braxton | June 2, 2007 1:00 AM

If Bill Moyers continues to have interviewees of the quality of Kerrey, I will not look forward to the show as I always have. Please, please, this is far too critical and dangerous a time. Give us top quality people such as Chalmers Johnson. Kerrey didn't say anything except that "we" should end the occupation. Good start. After that he danced around and remained superficial.

Posted by: Ellen Murphy | June 2, 2007 12:55 AM

I highly respect Bob Kerrey for his service in Vietnam but I believe he's all wrong about Iraq and "handing" Bin Laden a "victory" if we just withdraw. International diplomacy is no different than any other human interaction. If you error (as clearly we did by invading Iraq in the first place) you admit your transgression to those effected by it, apologize and then work with them to drive the best result. I heard the discussion about taking out a dictator and how a person needs to choose between "dealing with dictators or taking them out". If I didn't know better I would have thought Dick Cheney was on the show. What the Iraq war was about was the U.S. invading a sovereign nation without provocation. If I didn't know better I would have thought we were going after the Spanish for sinking the Maine all over again. The U.S. needs to gain the high ground and we do that by setting a clear departure date and then engaging the key players in the region on arranging a diplomatic solution that likely breaks Iraq into three clear states that share the oil reserves.

Posted by: Tom | June 2, 2007 12:53 AM

As a supposed Democrat, Bob Kerry should know he's on the wrong side on the Iraq war when Rush Limbaugh agrees with him. I love your show, Bill but feel that the right wingers, no matter what party they are affiliated with, have the only voice in the corporate media. On your independent show, lets hear more from the people that represent the 70% of Americans that think the Iraq war was a mistake. We have little, if any voice.

Posted by: Joan Whitney | June 2, 2007 12:52 AM

A second comment to answer the question, what to do now: When ventures ends in defeat, as our meddling in Iraq and war against terror have, then withdrawals to positions from which we can regroup are necessary. Sometimes, in warfare, this require a deep withdrawal to defensible lines and allies. It may require the sacrifice of positions that were too far extended and all that lies between them and our most secure line of manoeuvre. Our withdrawal may expose allies to danger, but we cannot continue to bleed on their account, even if they warned us and suffer on our account. We must think of ourselves, first. We must decide what are our national interests (not the interests of favored industries!) and defend those. The safest and most productive policies are not those that cause "collateral damage" to others. There is always blowback from that. They are diplomatic efforts in preference to military ones. I think that is now clear to almost everyone.

Posted by: Alvin D Hofer | June 2, 2007 12:47 AM

Bill - I don't believe in foolish consistency. I may be a fool, but I'm not consistent. So much for me - Bob Kerrey is a fairly consistent fool in that he is inconsistent in his analysis vs. his recommendations for action. He points out all of the policy failures, leading up to the current debacle, then posits that we stay there to - I don't know what. And neither does he. Good to see you back. I was about ready to give up on PBS. Do us all a favor, though, and find somebody more useful than Kerrey.

Posted by: paul spencer | June 2, 2007 12:47 AM

The Moyers - Kerrey dialog was very good. It clearly showed the difference between leftist and liberal. Moyers has learned nothing from history, recent or past. Kerrey understands global dynamics as Democrats once did until those like Moyers kidnapped liberalism.

Posted by: Bert | June 2, 2007 12:10 AM

"If you were in Kerrey's seat, how would you answer this question?" What a bizarre question. As a former senator, he no longer has any "seat" that I know of. From my own equivalent position as a private citizen, my answer is NONE. No more lives. Zero. Stop now, this minute, since it's the best we can do, given that the madness wasn't stopped years ago (or, far better, never begun). Damn shame for the Irqis that some misguided people with a lot more power than sense chose to stir up a hornets' nest in their country, but we can't set it right for them. We're only making things worse. Of course Shrub and His Thugs want it to continue, because every day transfuses more millions from the American people into the war contractors' coffers. They'll drag it out as long as they can. Good for business. Hell for everyone else.

Posted by: (The Other) Katherine Harris | June 1, 2007 11:16 PM

It burns me up. The PBS station in my area, KNME, Albuquerque, has censored Mr. Moyers show - we the viewers are being treated to a stale rerererun of folk music instead! I would love to comment but unfortunately my rights as a citizen are being drastically curtailed. This does not feel like a democracy to me. And I have no reservations saying that our troops should not be in Iraq, should not have ever been there. A local show earlier this evening revealed that a contingent of New Mexico National Guard troops are about to deploy for the first time in several years - with only thirty percent of the equipment they need. What is that we are doing to our servicepeople? And in Santa Fe I hear that the police force is so understaffed because of the drain of young New Mexicans who would normally be recruited that they are considering hiring Mexicans. And still, it is the censorship that most oppresses me. What have we become?

Posted by: Juliania | June 1, 2007 11:13 PM

Thank you Bill for your passionate opposition to this war. Kerrey was not very consistent and did not answer what to tell parents of soldiers killed in this war. The Democrats should be ashamed for caving in instead of opposing any more funds for combat activities.

Posted by: joan botwinick | June 1, 2007 11:05 PM

The Moyers interview of Bob Kerry was a waste of time. Kerry is muddled. He supported the Us military deposing of Saddam Hussein, because Kerry forgot the noblest of our founders, George Washington, who is alive today in his warning: do not meddle in the affairs of foreign nations. Why don't you interview Chalmers Johnson, author of "Nemesis", part of his trilogy on America's imperialism from which we suffer "Blowback".

Posted by: Alvin D Hofer | June 1, 2007 11:03 PM

The citizens of Iraq know that Bush is a liar and that Iraq has no government of it's own. It has a Gestapo that was installed, armed and funded by our ruthless dictator in Washington. If Bush invaded MY TOWN, then the democrats, republicans, independants, christians, muslims and jews would all band together to kick him and his gestapo out of our capitol city. We would not only be killing Bush's soldiers, but also any traitors siding with his installed gestapo. There are 27 million people defending Iraq. We have less than 200,000 Americans trying to murder them all. Each person that we murder has a family. Do the numbers. It is only a matter of time before the citizens of Iraq take back their country, or else we have created another Israeli-Palistinian styled stand off.

Posted by: Thomas T. Panto - Veteran | June 1, 2007 11:01 PM

The minimum possible. And, Iraq could help us by giving all Iraq citizens a stake in the success of their country. What if each adult Iraq Citizen had a significant share of the profits from their oil. They would have to have that for their lifetime, without being able to sell it. Then, the whole country and those that left, would be helping themselves and us, to do the right and wise things.

Posted by: Robert Michael Foster, MA | June 1, 2007 10:58 PM

Bill Moyers asked an excellent and relevant question to Bob Kerry and of course he fumbled. It was not "the Left's Iraq Muddle" as Bill Moyers mentioned. Left did not start the Iraq war.If at all anything only about 20 to 25% of the country (probably people like me)opposed the war from the beginning. Again, when Bill Moyers asked Bob Kerry about what his answer will be to the mothers of the young men and women who were killed in this unwanted and unwarranted war Bob Kerry did not answer the question.Nearly 600,000 Irquis and about 3500 American lives have been lost. Anybody who still supports George Bush must be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: bhanu | June 1, 2007 10:48 PM

Bill Moyers asks...

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives