Would Kerry Have Done Things Differently?
The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president’s most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn’t an incumbent.
At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book “Plan of Attack.” Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry’s senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq — to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, “The short answer is yes, it’s going to happen.”
In August, I was talking with Kerry’s scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush’s decisions in the Iraq war, saying “I would’ve done almost everything differently.” A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush’s actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.
Another disturbing example of Kerry avoiding the questions we want him to answer. He constantly says, “I have a plan” and “I will win the peace”. What is the plan? How would he win the peace? Who? What? When? Where? Why? Can we get a straight answer to even one difficult question from this man? It would seem not.
Bob Woodward, the journalist who wrote the above, has included the twenty-two questions he would ask John Kerry. The twenty-two questions John Kerry has avoided answering. To read them click here.
American Girl- The liberals like to think of themselves as “open minded” but if you disagree with their agenda, that all seems to go out the window. They stomp their feet and cry and badmouth and victimize and degrade and so on….
So my money says that they won’t ever play it fair with you because thats not how Libs play.
But there will always be people like us to keep them in check:cool:
spending your time bad mouthing Kerry and Clinton while Iraq burns and America polarizes may not be the wisest course to take.
the current situation, if not to be laid at the Bush administration’s door, should be where?
shiloh, since when have you ever participated in reality? Oh, when you were scared shitless that I was showing up to expose you to the internet.
Shi, you double standard is tired and old.
In that case, Shiloh, if this is going to be discussed on your usually uneven playing field, perhaps it is time to start ignoring your typically one-sided arguments again.
That is, until you drop this one-sided, dictatorial attitude. I will either discuss this with you fairly or not at all, and you are making it quite clear that fair is not the way you want to play.
Which is too bad, because that is the only way I do, plain and simple.
So how about it, Shiloh? Will you allow me to even up this argument and mention the many that died in Waco and Oklahoma City (not to mention the non-UN sanctioned wars Clinton waged during his administration) in addition to the many that died on 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan? Or will you talk to yourself?
Another thing: if you have a problem with me “badmouthing” Clinton and Kerry, perhaps you should think about how often you badmouth Bush, and your justification for that. If you have a right to badmouth Bush, then I have a right to speak about the likes of Clinton and Kerry as I please, as I don’t know of any laws that suggest otherwise.
AG – i’ll listen to your views on the history of the 90′s if that’s what you want to discuss.
the president, his policies,plans and war appear to be off limits. so what the heck.
you go first.
I never said they were off-limits. I just said I wanted to discuss things on a more even level.
Anyway, I don’t have a lot of time at this very moment to go into gross detail, but here’s a start. There have been more than a few questions about the raid of Waco, and speculation that several FBI agents had been seen firing into the compound, not necessarily out of self-defense. And there has been speculation as to whether or not the members of the Branch Davidian were indeed armed, which I’m sure the Clinton Administration insisted that they were.
And then, of course, there was the bombing of Oklahoma City, which conveniently was placed on the shoulders of Tim McVeigh. Now of course, there were plenty of reports insisting that he didn’t act alone, and whether or not the accomplice was ever caught was anyone’s guess. Honestly, I don’t think anyone will ever know whether or not McVeigh was, in fact, guilty — he may have been, he may not have been. However, the Clinton Administration did such an effective job in villainizing him, to say nothing of raising controversy over the validity of the Second Amendment, that no one has ever thought to either a) question McVeigh’s innocence or b) point a bony finger at Clinton the same way bony fingers seem to be regularly pointed at Bush these days over everything from 9/11 to Enron.
Now, then…I suppose you could successfully argue that the reason the Clinton Administration has avoided the scrutiny of the Bush Administration was because they had more success in finding their proverbial scapegoats, if you will. Conveniently, McVeigh was found not twenty-four hours after the bombing of the Oklahoma City building. Osama Bin Ladin, on the other hand, is still at large. Never mind the fact that Saddam Hussein, persecutor and torturer of his own people, is in custody, and his sons are no more, which you would think would give some marks towards the Bush Administration and prove its effectiveness the same way the rapid retrieval of McVeigh did towards the Clinton Administration.
Anyway, I think that’s enough to chew on for one morning, at least for the time being. I would like to point out, however, the very words of DG, or at least a paraphrase thereof: those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Shiloh, if you hope to have a halfway-decent future, you can’t just brush off the convenient details of the past; how on earth would you ever be able to have anything to which to fairly compare the present?
For the record, the Oklahoma City bombing led to the legalized wiretapping of phones. A decided invasion of privacy, but no one seemed to think anything of it at the time.
And yes, that could easily be compared to 9/11 giving birth to the Patriot Act, which so many have ranted and raved about the invasion of privacy there.
For the record, I’m not saying that it wasn’t. But I can’t help but wonder how wiretapping is any less of an invasion, and how it could raise less of a fuss than the Patriot Act.
BTW, on a slightly different note, did you know that, at the time of 9/11, Clinton let out a rather interesting slip? He moaned that it was a shame that 9/11 didn’t occur on his watch. Now while I confess that I don’t really have a source at hand to confirm or deny this, and I personally wish that I did, I think I’ll leave that quote to allow others, including yourself, to draw their own conclusions as to the implications.
AG and Snatch- I give you credit for trying. I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the dems in this world feel that if we just keep talking and turing our head to terrorism, we will only lose 3000 a pop when they attack us whether it be here or abroad. It doesn’t really matter that ’93 was our actual wakeup call.
peejz #62,
Oh come on, you are smarter than that. Branding all “dems in the world (sic)” of turning their heads to terrorism seems especially silly while we are supposedly talking about the US’s failure to secure 380 tonnes of high explosives in Iraq. This discussion has not aged well in my absence. If you conservatives don’t want to blame Bush for anything, that’s fine. But it’s not healthy way to think about or practice politics. I have condemned both Kerry and Clinton a handful of times in the last two threads, and the only defense you guys can muster is that shiloh and I are being overbearing in condemning Bush for this? Letting Iraq’s biggest weapons dump be looted of a particularly heinous explosive is no way to fight a war on terrorism.
Why don’t you guys actually talk substantively about this story, rather than nitpick about Clinton and your right to badmouth Clinton (go for it, I’ll join in – I’ve always hated Clinton for his failure to intervene in Bosnia and Rwanda). We are, AG, talking about George Bush’s Administration’s (or if you prefer,which I’m sure you don’t, the American military’s) unwillingness to secure weapons that they knew about, were warned about, and at a site they had been planning to secure as a possible WMD site. I don’t see how Clinton fits into that.
Sandyb,
i would have thought that the right would have been satisfied with Ken Starr and the impeachment and the following disgrace and leave Clinton to the bin of history – but i think there might be a involuntary residual knee-jerk need to pile on. going back in history just far enough to satisfy paritsan point making.
anything before 1992, back to 1980, will not be used as a negatve example of presidential behaviour. nothing of illegal wars in Central America (following the proud tradition of Republican militaristic foreign policy), or felonious conduct in the early 70′s by Nixon and half his cabinet.
those memories have been magically removed by the ghost of Lee Attwater.
but Clinton – well Clinton is the devil’s own spawn. don’t fight it. pure evil. just ask Ann Coulter. followers agree.
Shiloh,
Your point about history is quite right. I do find it sadly interesting that even that semi-stable, racist, and vaguely murderous ex-president, Dick Nixon, looks liberal on economic issues compared to both Kerry and Bush (Bush is somewhere back in Hoover territory). I’m no Clinton fan, but this country remains the only one condemned by the World Court, and that under Ronald Reagan (for Nicaragua).
Okay, guys; since I’m obviously failing at my attempts to make my point, let’s look at this another way.
Let’s pretend that, instead of Clinton being president during the Oklahoma City bombing, it was the current Bush. And let’s pretend that events otherwise went the way they did: thousands of people died, Timothy McVeigh was promptly caught, and the wiretapping was enforced to ensure that it never happened again.
Now the questions I have are these: would people be biting at the bit to sentence McVeigh to death the way they did at the time? Or would they instead castigate Bush for, well, rushing to judgment the way they are now? Would they jump on his case for infringing on privacy? Would Michael Moore rush out to film a so-called “documentary” on the bombing, threatening to expose Bush’s ties to the very militia that McVeigh was a part of?
Personally, I think the answer would be yes to all. I think most of you, by and large, simply do not like Bush at all, and if Clinton was the one behind the Iraqi War, behind this decision and that decision, I don’t think you would think anything of it. In fact, I think you would demand that it was his right to start the war, and you would cut him a lot of slack regarding UN-approval, insisting that he needed none “just because.”
Now then, on that note, if it was Clinton behind the Iraqi War, would you find yourself making the same strong arguments that you are now?
AG – that’s an interesting bit a speculation and fantasy you’ve built around the central word of you thesis, “IF”.
of course the answer is “i don’t know”.
the reality is what we have before us and it happens not to be very pretty.
what would it be like “IF” it wasn’t the way it is?
kinda tough to answer.
re 65. Sandyb, to give the devil his due, i think Nixon was the last Republican president that believed that people had a right to a minimum of personal dignity and tried to help the poor. he even did some positive things on the enviornment.
true, overall he was a thug and a criminal, but still, as you say, was comparitively moderate.