TYT:New Bush Security Plan Admits John Kerry Was Right

[globalvillage]

Run time: 02:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDCrXIlyLt4   Posted on YouTube: August 09, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 10, 2008 By DU Member: globalvillage Views on DU: 2515

 
"the whole document reads as if John Kerry himself wrote it."

[Divine Discontent]

1. then in there lies the problem...

they didn't hit B*sh hard enough on this, I believe if I remember right, John didn't want to go so hard on the sitting president. Kerry won the election, barely, but it was stolen by Blackwell in Ohio, but it could have been such a non-issue if they had went after B*sh hard on the facts of his massive failures and windbag rhetoric. I will always admire John Kerry for his intelligence.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[blm]

9. Kerry was hitting hard on this issue but no bigname Dems would back him up on it because

most of them were SIDING WITH BUSH - especially Bill Clinton who used his summer2004 book tour to emphasize his support for Bush and boasted of defending Bush from the criticisms of the left - led at the time by the Dem nominee, John Kerry.

[karynnj]

15. Kerry had some very hard hits

What is harder than speaking of the decision not to guard known ammo dumps, resulting in them being the source of the IEDs that, as Kerry said were "wounding and killing our kids."?

You are conflating the largely Clinton allies charge that Kerry should have had a Bush bashing convention - although their convention in 1992 was positive and hopeful and Bush 1 was hit for having a negative campaign.

Kerry spoke of this in a University of PA speech that was labeled his "major" speech on non-state terrorism. It was extensively covered and called "naive" then. He also spoke extensively on it in the NYT magazine - which got extensive coverage. It was included in brief in every campaign stump speech.

The country was too traumatized then to accept the more hopeful possibility Kerry offered.

[Divine Discontent]

17. I spoke to John in 04 and saw him at 5 rallies

John did have some hard hits, but he didn't do as well as Barack has done so far in speaking to regular people. John Kerry is a brilliant warm human being, but not the best campaigner. There were jabs he took at McSame in the interview he gave to Olbermann recently, that were so biting that I was like, great slam John, tell it like it is - so, I didn't feel he spoke as well to the average joe in '04, and sounded too intellectual, and didn't dumb things down enough so everyone understood him, and that's an important quality if you want to win a 'red' state or two. I understood his graceful language and wit well enough, but I read repeatedly where people found him boorish and too wordy, despite my finding him eloquent and humble.

There were several times in the debate where he could have hit Dumya for being a failed leader who embarrassed our country's great history with his ridiculous march to war on false information, and I felt although he blew away Dumya (no shocker) in brains, and appearing presidential, that he still had a hard time breaking down the walls of appearing too rigidly high brow at times. I guess it's all a moot point when really, as he says, the Osama tape cost him the election, and that most likely is the case - I'm sad that such a ridiculous tape could stop a great man from ascending to a leadership position that a man who behaved like a monkey was currently in.

[Divine Discontent]

18. ps - I see Kerry speak and I think, what should/could have been... a great leader :( n/t

[Mugsy]

2. Gates on invading Iraq: Called it "a trap".(video)

One of my favorite clips:

Schwarzkopf & Gates on why we DIDN'T invade Baghdad in '91

[Voice for Peace]

3. jeez.. they nailed it more than ten years ago.

[CherylK]

4. K & R!

[gateley]

5. I love it! K&R nt

[pleah]

6. K&R But, I'm still pissed at Kerry and the

Dems. for not fighting back hard enough against Bushits attacks and the swift boaters. Or, challenging the election results. My fear now is that Obama may not fight back hard enough. He better.

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. It would of been nice

if he had Dems fighting for him as hard as he is fighting for Obama. It's so easy to say what you said but in the end you have no idea if it would have made any difference due to the simple-minded Americans in this country who believe whatever is pushed at them. Those few % points that still believe that Obama is a Muslim,for instance. Instead of being pissed, push the truth as hard as you can, every voice counts and the more the better.

[pleah]

10. It would have made a difference to me.

To see a democratic candidate who actually stood up to the thugs and their tactics.

And, I do try to get the truth out as much as possible. Obama better f'n fight for this job or he will lose.

[karynnj]

16. The problem is you wouldn't know standing up if it bit you on the nose

Kerry was standing up and continued to do it after he lost. He has been the mnost consistent person fighting for what he believes in.

Look at that report. There are lines that sound like they came straignt out of Kerry's 2004 NYT article. Do you think that is a coincidence or do you think that Kerry has consistently pushed his ideas? Do you know he is behind a bi-partisan national security think tank? Do you know that within months of 911, he had an article arguing that this was the approach needed to defeat terrorism?

Sometimes, you can fight as hard as you can - which Kerry did in 2004, and still lose. What is more significant is that he is still fighting. When looked at across all the key issues there is NO Democrat who has fought harder.

This is even truer when you consider he risked even having a polical career to fight to end the Vietnam war. He fought to end Reagan's illegal covert arming of the Contras. He fought against everone in both parties to close BCCI.

You should be glad that he is now there fighting to get Obama elected.

[politicasista]

22. Nah, that ain't good enough for some

:sarcasm:

[Historic NY]

7. Crime fighting Liberals, scare people because we think first..........

and shoot much later. Only now are many police depts around the country beginning to question the dumping of the government responsibliity of protection on them. Local police can be an asset but its up to the Federal agencies partnering with them to get the job done.
I would point to the NYPD Terrorist Task Force and multi-agency unit as an example.

[OhioChick]

11. K&R

:kick:

[happygoluckytoyou]

12. bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran...my name is John THE BUSH REPUBLICAN McCain and i forgot my message

please use his full name... it really pisses off the bullshit express people

[ProSense]

13. That was excellent. n/t

[20score]

14. It was part of their war on reality. They had half the dumbasses

in the country believing you could bomb all the terrorists away. A third still believe it.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

19. "Detectives not tanks" was exactly what I was advocating all along

But Bush and friends had to act like a nasty combination of Rambo and Joe McCarthy instead.

[blm]

20. Well, Bush had all the bigname Dems at the time siding with him. Remember Bill Clinton's booktour in

the summer of 2004? He spent a great deal of time during his high profile TV time not only supporting Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war, but boasted of DEFENDING Bush from the criticisms of the left - criticisms being led at the time by our Dem nominee. Clinton would in no way side with Kerry's view at that point or back him up or espouse Kerry's decades of work in tracking terror networks and their funding.

There wasn't a lawmaker in DC who had a firmer grasp of global terrorism than Kerry, and Clinton knew it. He sided with Bush.

[politicasista]

21. Kick

Already recommended. :kick:

[Plucketeer]

23. Kay & Arrrgggghhh!

:kick: