Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How the media muted Kerry's attacks on Bush in 2002.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 03:45 PM
Original message
How the media muted Kerry's attacks on Bush in 2002.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-04 03:56 PM by blm
As Conason points out, NONE of the media reported the substance of Kerry's attacks on Bush. IMO, they were TOO substantive and damaging for Bush.

Dean and other Dems would not back up Kerry's attacks on Bush then and publicly sided with Bush.


Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader. The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.
>>>>>>>
He is, however, no nave internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.

And he sought to connect the trouble America encounters abroad to the oil-dominated energy policy of this oilmen's government. "We must search for clean, renewable resources," he said, "not just because it is in the interests of our environment, but because it is a demand of national security." Liberating the nation from oil "can liberate our foreign policy and empower the United States to tell the truth throughout the Middle East."
>>>>>
According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.
>>>>>>>

There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.
>>>>>>
Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.
******************************************************************


How Dean stuck up for Bush while Kerry was attacking Bush's failed strategies in Afghanistan that allowed Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda to escape:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?

GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.

MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?

GOV. DEAN: Ive seen others criticize the president. I think its very easy to second-guess the
commander-in-chief at a time of war. I dont choose to engage in doing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do I hear scampering feet?
It's very lonely in here. Where'd everybody go? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Busy posting that Dean was the ONLY one who would stand up to Bush.
He was the FIRST and ONLY.

Just media attention. Dean's jabs didn't hurt Bush. Kerry's did and they needed to be muted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schmendrick54 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Seems like a pretty broad brush to me.
Hello sandnsea,

I think the original post raises a good point about Kerry's early criticism of Bush's managment of the war in Afghanistan. And I think it is eminently fair to point out that Dean chose not to be critical of it back in 2002. Fair enough. Kudos to the original poster.

I am not sure what the point of your reply is, other than perhaps to be insulting to supporters of a particular candidate. If that is NOT what you intended, I apologize for suggesting it. If that is what you intended, then I am disappointed. I expected better from you.

Sincerely,
Schemndrick (who is not scampering anywhere)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. nope...
you are NO scamperer.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. OK, I don't get it.
Kerry objected to Bush's unilateralist approach to foreign policy, then voted to give Bush full responsibility for making the decision about attacking Iraq.

Oh, and he supported removing Hussein from power in 2002.

I fail to see the glory in that. Wouldn't it have been more sensible, if you believed Bush was acting irresponsibly and unilaterally, to keep him on a tighter leash by denying him the ability to attack a country unilaterally?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Bush did not follow the resolution.
The resolution requires that Bush show that he has determined:

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=...


And that determination was a lie. Iraq actually was complying and allowing inspections when Bush launched the war. So Bush is in clear violation of the resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. You skipped the relevant portions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

------------------------------
He left EVERYTHING up to Bush. They didn't say "report back to us and we'll decide if action is warranted." They said "if, in your opinion, that's the way to go, then tell us no later than 2 days after you start the war."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isbister Donating Member (902 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. You skipped the relevant portions
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (Bush's claim)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (Bush's claim)

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (Bush's claim - )

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (Bush's claim)

(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (Bush's claim)

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (Bush's claim)

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (Bush's claim, until September when he finally admitted there was never a connection...which makes the first act of the claim a crime, I believe)

#1 - This isn't a multiple choice test (although bush probably thought it was until someone explained it to him :-))

#2 bush claimed in writing that these conditions were met http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/2003031...

#3 They weren't met and his buddies were minding the candy store....and were going to let bush do as he pleased.

#4 Since the republicans chose to put their party over the good of their country, the only sure way to find "justice" is to have them removed by the American people... for the good of the country.

#5 Kerry, Clark, Dean, Edwards, or my dog didn't make those determinations, bush did. If you find where Kerry did make all of these determinations at the time then please send me the links... I'd love to read them. Otherwise let's put the blame at the feet of those it belongs, the republican party (and Zell)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. You could've just stopped right here.
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--"

He.

Not Congress. Not Bush but only after consulting with Congress.

They left it TOTALLY to his determination.

Nothing anywhere in the IWR forces Bush to provide proof, perform specific actions, or anything else, aside from reporting back to Congress after the war has started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You could have, but then you wouldn't be interperting the resolution
that Kerry voted on. You would be interpreting a truncated version, edited in order to make your false argument.


Lets talk about the actual resolution. As pointed out above, it requires the President to make the determination and report it to Congress. Since the determination consists of lies instead of fact, Bush did not fulfill the resolution, just as someone who commits felonies while on parole did not fulfill the terms of their parole.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yep.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. This is sophistry
If you give the paroled felon a gun, you should be held responsible when he uses it to commit a crime.

Who challenged Bush's determination in Congress?

Once it became clear that he planned to invade Iraq regardless of any resolution who proposed the revocation of that blanket authorisation?

And why would anyone believe George Bush in the first place?

They stole the Presidency. Why trust anything they do while in possession of stolen property?

That may sound simplistic but by the time the IWR rolled out it was clear to almost everyone that this was not an administration that could be trusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. It's ridiculous arguing with you over this.
"to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--"

OK, so the resolution says the President MUST report to Congress HIS determination, no later than 48 hours after the war has started.

What then? Does it say Congress can then stop the war or something? The resolution doesn't give Congress the power to do a goddamned thing. It gives the President FULL latitude to use HIS discretion, his determination, HIS analysis of the situation to make the determination of whether or not to use force.

It's like me telling you "here, YOU make the decision", then later whining that you lied about why you made the decision. It's a complete abdication of responsibility and a cop-out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Yet, Biden-Lugar allowed the same and that did not effect
your support for Dean.

Fair is fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Oh hogwash.
Bush sounded rejected Biden-Lugar because it would have tied his hands. He would have had to report to Congress BEFORE commencing hostilities and either get UN approval or provide concrete proof that Saddam was a threat.

If that had passed and Bush still went to war, he'd be getting impeached right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Wrong.
The only extra step was Bush had to write a letter to Speaker of house and Pres pro tem of the Senate saying he made the determination. Dear sirs: I have made the determination force is necessary. GWB



The end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. If Bush implemented IWR as written, we wouldn't have gone to war.
Blame Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Bush lied. But Congress permitted it.
Where is the accountability? Can you find me anything in the resolution saying he has to prove anything to Congress? Is there anything in there saying that anything concrete must be proven?

No. It's all 'his determination'. They left it ALL up to his discretion.

You've got to face facts. Kerry was pro-war. He wanted to get rid of Saddam. He said so in the article.

Bush implemented the IWR EXACTLY as written. It didn't require him to prove anything. It just said 'if in the President's determination, force is the only way to go, then go.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
isbister Donating Member (902 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Can you find me anything in the resolution
Yes. It spells it out... These are the circumstances in which authorization is granted and in addition to that you, Mr President, must report to us.

When the republicans gained control of both houses of Congress the month following the IWR, that's when the "Congress permitting" began... they chose their strange notion of the good of their party over the good of America, they covered for bush, blocked Dem efforts to bring the matter back before Congress before the war, and covered up again when bush violated the IWR... and they either really think they're going to find massive amounts of WMD soon or they are continuing to cover up for bush.

Kerry did want Saddam out but not at all costs. Articles and tv's are nice but read what he said at the time of the vote for yourself... its long but you'll understand his position if you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Just as in Biden-Lugar.
yep...but, Bush did not allow the full implementation of weapons inspections and diplomacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
27. That is the process
I just don't understand why this is so hard. How can Kerry know Bush was going to lie before he lied? How could he know Bush was going to attack unilaterally before Bush had even went to the UN and gotten 1441?

This is like Howard Dean tonight saying Saddam was contained. Well back in 2002 he said give him 30-60 days and go in unilaterally. Nobody finds that inconsistent. Weird.

People just keep twisting this thing in so many different ways that have nothing to do with the facts at the time.

People are exploiting the war vote for campaign purposes. I thought maybe we'd seen the last of it based on the fact the general population is more concerned about how we're going to fix it than the vote itself. They seem to get it. I guess I can be glad for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
16. Morning bump.
Truth matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
17. Is it Conason's writing or Kerry's talking that this article demonstrates?
"What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy."

Wow! That's a barn burner.

I hope that was Joe but it is typical of John, which is a major problem. He ordinarily speaks like an Oxford don lecturing a class full of disruptive students. That may do it for the tea-and-ladyfinger types but the people who come out to vote aren't looking to elect the head-master (no Clinton jokes please) but someone they can understand and relate to.

Dubya, like that famous actor's quote puts it, has learned how to fake the most important characteristic: sincerity.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Well, he certainly has been able to express himself in simpler terms
and connected with the people of Iowa.

So, I'd say we are most fortunate that we have a candidate who naturally speaks with a great depth of knowledge and an elegance of language, but will still be able to connect with the people who value a simpler expression of thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. blm
Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
25. Funny how people react to "When the media attacks"
in different ways depending on who is being attacked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
26. Gee. It's odd how the punidtry doesn't bring this up at all.
Kerry has been going after the BFEE since he got to the Senate in 1985.

Fast Kerry Fact: The guy voted against confirming Rehnquist Chief Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC