Did Kerry call out Bush on torture during the 2004 debates?

[mdmc]

According to Joe Klein in his new book (I haven't read it, I have just heard a couple interviews with him), Kerry wanted to go after Bush and the White House connection to the Abu Graib torture scandal. Joe Klein contends that Kerry didn't go after the torture issue because democratic advisers stressed that it was a vote loser for Kerry.

Did Kerry go really remain silent during the debates regarding torture?

[WilliamPitt]

1. Pretty much, yeah, and it was a bad mistake

in my opinion. I don't recall ever hearing him discuss it. I think his brain trust was worried it could be spun as Kerry being "against the troops." It was a big hanging fastball over the plate, and he watched it sail right by.

It wasn't just during the debates, by the way. I'm pretty sure they never touched the subject all throughout the campaign. I could be wrong, tho.

[mdmc]

2. I liked Primary Colors, and thought that this new book had promise

but most du'ers thought Klein was a sell-out (and were quite vocal about it). Perhaps I will take a look at his new book...

A DU'er mentioned that Kerry did address torture on some m$m program (O'liely?) as part of the anti-Klein rant.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Klein is an interesting character

He knows his stuff, but has staggered ever rightward over the last several years.

A good book of his to read is "The Natural," about Clinton. It has a lot of good background on why the health care plan exploded in a ball of shame and disgrace.

[mdmc]

5. Thanks... I've never read The Natural

I did think that Primary Colors was very kind to the Clintons. I thought that the Stantons were very much "the real deal" liberals, in the fight for the right, honorable reasons.

[charlie]

4. "Against the troops"

is exactly the response from the GOP the one time he raised it, that I know of:

One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is "playing politics" with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30_2.html

I also think it was a big mistake to let that issue go.

[mdmc]

6. thanks Charlie

I am often amazed at how little I know about the 2004 campaign. I pretty much left the national political scene after Dean dropped out. A buddy of mine was running for city judge, but I really didn't even work too much on that campaign. I am just now starting to get back in to the political swing of things. We have many good races in NYS this year.

I actually found DU through the Dean campaign. I heard about this "anti-Dean" political site. By the time I got familiar with DU, it was pretty much a pro dean site.

[charlie]

10. This place wasn't anti-Dean

What it was, was stuffed with factions who bared their teeth at any candidate who wasn't their guy. If you were a Deaner, it probably looked like a forum for whacking the Doctor, but it also looked the same to Kerryites, Clarkies, Kucinitzens...

[mdmc]

12. well it sure wasn't the progressive haven that the Dean supporters

made it out to be. I found it to be much more like you described it. I also think that there was a lot of Kucinich love, and that they only lack of support for Kucinich was due to the 'electability' factor.

By the time I got here, Dean had already agreed to the perception of being "anti - war", and the Graham, Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman DLC centrist (electability crowd) were in the minority. It came down to who could best beat Bush, Kerry or Dean. I was very comfortable with liberal John Kerry. While I voted for Kucinich in the NYS primary, I actually voted for Kerry in the general (this is big, because I voted for Nader in 96 and 2000). Kerry was a good, liberal candidate.

[charlie]

15. Heh

Yeah, there was a lotta love for Kucinich, right up until the minute he threw his hat into the ring. Then there was just a few of us wondering where everybody went. I appreciate your giving him your vote. blm downthread, probably our most ardent Kerry supporter, also did the same.

[mdmc]

17. by the time NYS got to vote, Dean had already screamed

I thought about voting for him, and I did vote for his delegates (in NY we got to vote for a candidate and for delegates). In my congressional district, the Dean delegates were all picked by Maurice Hinchey.

[blm]

9. You're wrong, Will. Kerry called for Rumsfeld's firing for Abu Ghraib

and laid it at the feet of George Bush to do it.

[mdmc]

13. during one of the debates?

really?

[charlie]

16. No, not during the debates

I'm pretty sure of that. It was many months earlier, when Abu Ghraib first erupted.

[blm]

18. Here's some info - he made two public calls, one earlier for incompetence

in Iraq and the second was for Abu Ghraib. Kerry did not shy away from the Abu Ghraib debate, but my guess is that the MODERATOR of the debate on Iraq and foreign policy crafted the questions asked in a way that kept it from being an issue discussed.


Had MANY Dem senators and congresspeople JOINED Kerry when he demanded Bush fire Rumsfeld, I think the issue would have BECOME more prominent. The way the media controlled the issues, the Dems really needed to mount more of a FULL TEAM BACKUP EFFORT that the party just didn't seem willing to provide.


http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/kerry.rumsfeld/


Kerry reiterates call for Rumsfeld to resign
Says command must pay the price for Abu Ghraib abuse

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Posted: 1657 GMT (0057 HKT)




PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Citing the conclusion of an independent panel that higher command was also responsible for abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, Sen. John Kerry Wednesday reiterated his call for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

"It's not just the little person at the bottom who ought to pay the price of responsibility," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a town hall meeting of Steamfitters Local 420 at a Philadelphia union hall.

Kerry said the Schlesinger report, which was released Tuesday, "said specifically that Secretary Rumsfeld set the climate in which these kinds of abuses were able to take place," he said.

>>>>>>>

Kerry -- who had previously called for Rumsfeld to resign over allegations of poor planning for the aftermath of the war in Iraq -- also recommended that President Bush appoint a commission "so that these abuses can never take place again. That's leadership and that's what ought to happen."

A second report on an investigation into Abu Ghraib -- the Fay report -- will recommend punitive action for those directly involved in the abuses.

"But what is missing from all these reports is accountability from the senior civilian leaders in the Pentagon and in the White House," Kerry said in a written statement.

"By failing to plan to win the peace, by failing to make sure our troops received the proper training, equipment, reinforcement and command guidance, and by failing to take corrective actions once all of this became apparent, Secretary Rumsfeld did not demonstrate the leadership required from a secretary of defense.

"That is why today I am calling on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign effective immediately."

>>>>>>>

[ProSense]

7. He did when he called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Here:

Kerry: Rumsfeld Should Quit

May 6, 2004

(CBS/AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has renewed his call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down amid the growing scandal over the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, reports CBS News' Steve Chaggaris.

"I called for Rumsfeld's resignation months ago over Iraq," Kerry told reporters Thursday. He said the abuse reports only compound the reason for Rumsfeld to quit.

"It's the way it was handled. The lack of information to the Congress, the lack of information to the country, not managing it, not dealing with it, recognizing it as an issue. But look this is, this is the frosting," Kerry said during a campaign appearance at a California high school.

"I think Iraq and the miscalculation and the overextension of the armed forces and the entire way in which they rushed the nation to war under these assumptions that he was making — which were incorrect — is a huge, historic miscalculation and I thought he should have resigned then."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/07/politics/main616272.shtml

Kerry: Rumsfeld 'accountable' for Abu Ghraib

Oakland Tribune, Aug 26, 2004 by Jodi Wilgoren, New York Times

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Teeing off two reports detailing abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday renewed his call for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, citing the need for "accountability that runs through the civilian command."

"It's not just the little person at the bottom who ought to pay the price of responsibility," Kerry told union members at a steamfitters hall in Philadelphia before heading to Green Bay. "Harry Truman had that sign on the desk and it said, 'The buck stops here.' The buck doesn't stop at the Pentagon. And in this case it doesn't just stop with any military personnel."

Speaking on the same day that the Army announced that 35 military intelligence soldiers had been implicated in prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, also called on President Bush to appoint another commission to probe the scandal, focused on the chain of command and the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040826/ai_n14580880

[karynnj]

8. Kerry was one of first to speak out on torture

In late 2003, when the Abu Ghraib story came out, Kerry called for the resignation of Rumsfeld over the issue. Dean followed suit the next day. Kerry also made many statements that criticized the fact that only very low level people were charged. Klein claims that the Kerry people polled this - Kerry dismissed that claim on MTP pointing out that he did mention Abu Ghraib when speaking of what Bush did wrong all the time on the campaign trail.

It is true that Kerry did not bring up Abu Ghraib directly in the debates. He did bring up the fact that violating international law (such as the Geneva Convention) was hurting our image with the rest of the world. The Republicans are considered smart when they use a coded message - they say Dred Scoot, their proponents hear "abortion". Kerry, of all people, when speaking about obeying the Geneva conventions has to have a bit of 1971 resonance. The RW reminded everyone that Kerry spoke out against VN war crimes. Of all possible Democrats, Kerry needed to say the least. With his history, his position was in no doubt. (Klein credits McCain - who said nothing till after the election.)

There was no question where mentioning torture was better than the answer he gave. Joe Klein is being very disingenuous here - he after all was the one who spoke of liberals hating America. Remember what happened when 6 months later, Durbin spoke about Gitmo.

The questions I would have for Klein are:
- Would the Abu Ghraib story have been better known if Kerry brought it up in the debates or had the story saturated the population? (Consider Kerry would not have time to say much more than a sentence or two.)
- Was there anyone who could reasonably question Kerry's opinion of torture. No other 2004 candidate was on the record any more and as Klein himself says this was an issue Kerry fought for his entire adult life?

I contend that intentionally working to bring it up would have gained no votes and could have resulted in the same backlash he was getting from the 1971 comments.

[mdmc]

14. I think that Kerry should have made it a central theme of the campaign

It is now armchair quarterbacking, I know. But a "moral high ground" campaign might have been more effective.

I must admit, I didn't think that Bush could be beat in 2004. I would have loved to run Kucinich or Sharpton, just to fucking stand for something. That being said, I thought that Kerry was a right, honorable liberal. I just wished... for... something... more...:shrug:

From listening to Joe Klein's interview, it sounded like he wanted the dems to talk more about what they care about, and less about what the polls tell them to talk about. He reminded me of Real Time with Bill Mahr's comment about Hillary Clinton: "It seems that she always answers a question with a 'What would undecided soccer moms think about this situation' response."

[karynnj]

19. It seems that Kerry himself agrees with

a lot of what your saying about speaking out. In the last year and a half, he has been out there on every issue I can think of. So, even if the complaint was true in 2004 - and I think he did speak out far more than he was given credit for - it's clearly not true now.

I don't think that something that negative could be the central theme of a winning campaign. It was part of doing things the right way. Early in the primary season, Russert asked Kerry about his testimony in 1971, concentrating, of course, on the list of atrocities. Kerry stood up for his testimony but said that he would have used different language than he did as a young man. Kerry's reason was that he said that he knew the words hurt some people when that was never the intent.

The difficulty with this can be seen by Kerry's comments in Nov/Dec, 2005. He was trying to explain how hard it was for soldiers in a place where they couldn't tell friend from foe having to open doors and not know what was behind them. This is incredibly dangerous. He also explained the fear it caused the Iraqis when foreigners were knocking on their doors at night. To me, Kerry seemed sympathetic to both the Iraqis and the soldiers. The problem is that when you talk about these issues enough to make people understand them, you are walking in a minefield.

Kerry played to win. Many of the advisers he put on his team after winning the nomination - were advising him how to win ..1992. It takes a lot to go against the advise of a large group of people who had won. He eventually did ignore their push to not speak about the war and gave his NYU speech.

I think he was too cautious, but I can well understand why. He did not want to do anything that would hand the election to Bush. The Iraq speech and the terrorism speech - both things his advisers weren't in favor of were given in September, after the media and the SBVT had pushed him down, They helped, then the debates really helped.

What was heartbreaking was how close it was at the end. (with no suppression he could have won.) If he would have won, I believe with 100% certainty, that the values of his entire life would be followed and among other things the US would not torture people. In fact, Kerry going to a summit in the ME would have the history to set things right on what we did and be believed.

Anyone wanting to vote against torturing people would vote for any random Democrat over Bush. In, Kerry's case they had more reason than with anyone else to know that this was against his values - and the RW helped make that clearer.

[blm]

20. One of the problems with Klein's word is that he's getting the info from

Clinton people who he's developed a relationship with over the years.

That "focus group" was from Arkansas and was a Dem party focus group that is getting pinned on Kerry.

The Clinton crowd, most notably MacAuliffe, is also responsible for choosing the early date of the 2004 convention which automatically assured Kerry would not be able to spend money at crucial points of the campaign.

MacAuliffe also didn't believe in machine fraud and did not move to secure the machines.

MacAuliffe and Clinton were the ones advising Dems as a party to not attack Bush at the convention.

It's also interesting to note that Dem insiders say MacAuliffe now blames the entire convention on Kerry, and that he and all his crowd are now advising Hillary Clinton.

[wisteria]

11. It wasn't discussed during the debates. Although,

Senator Kerry did mention the prison and the torture in his campaign speeches. Unfortunately, the situation in Abu Graib were being disputed as lies and distortions by the White House, and presented as necessary to fight the war on terror. Kerry may not of totally trusted the information he was receiving on this issue and decided he better have all his facts correct before calling out Bush in a presidential debate setting.
Senator Kerry has made his abhorrence of the abuses at Abu Graib known and he has introduced legislation to bring too light other such secrete prisons.