Time/Joe Klein: Tearing Kerry Down

The challengner's only hope is to get as nasty as the Bush campaign

(snip)

Actually, there were at least three choices: doing nothing about Saddam, going to war as Bush did or doubling down on the war against al-Qaeda, as Senator Bob Graham and others suggested at the time. Unfortunately, a serious discussion of the best way to fight Islamist radicalism isn't in the cards this election year. In any case, campaign politics isn't about details. It is about impressions: Bush conveys an impression of strength—and the Republicans tried very hard last week to convey the impression that Kerry is Fifi the French poodle. (Fifi debated Barney, the Bush family dog, in an allegedly comic film shown at the convention.)

The attacks on Kerry ranged from the reasonable—he certainly has empretzeled himself on Iraq—to the outrageous: Zell Miller's assertion that Kerry would take his orders from Paris. The Miller speech was the ugliest I've ever seen at a convention. It certainly trumped Pat Buchanan's 1992 "culture war" speech, in which the target was an abstract army of social liberals. This was a direct assault on the character and integrity of the Democratic nominee. And it followed a familiar G.O.P. attack pattern: like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Miller wasn't an official part of the Bush campaign. He claims to be a Democrat, and so, several Republicans told me, he was free to say anything he pleased. But Miller's speech wasn't the most disgraceful part of the G.O.P. show. That honor went to the Purple Heart Band-Aids ridiculing John Kerry's Vietnam wounds that were distributed by a past associate of Karl Rove's. It goes without saying that Rove had absolutely nothing to do with the idea—except perhaps for setting the scabrous tone of the Bush campaign.

After a week of gut-wound assaults on his character, Kerry finally fired back on Thursday night, assailing Bush and Cheney for having avoided service in Vietnam and for having "misled" us into Iraq. The latter may be an exaggeration, but after the G.O.P. assault, Kerry has a right to exaggerate with impunity. Indeed, if he hopes to win, Kerry will have to do much more of that. He will have to become a version of the young John Kerry not celebrated at the Democratic Convention—the eloquent, passionate, uncoached leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War who caused the Nixon White House serious heartburn. Where did that fabulous young politician ever go, anyway?

more…
(Time subscription required)
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,692821,00.html

nt

What happened to so many people from that generation? :(

exaggeration, it's an understatement.

Mr. Joe Klein:

In your most recent article you stated:

"After a week of gut-wound assaults on his character, Kerry finally fired back on Thursday night, assailing Bush and Cheney for having avoided service in Vietnam and for having "misled" us into Iraq. The latter may be an exaggeration........."

Are you saying that it would be an exxageration to say that Bush and Cheney misled us into Iraq? Huh? Have you had a chance to review the National Intelligence Estimate that was the basis for war? It is about 100 pages long and so it is not a long read.

It is still a question how the NIE changed so much in terms of the threat from Iraq in such a short period of time. The previous NIE on Iraq stated that Iraq had NO nuclear weapons and in a nutshell made it clear that Iraq was no threat at all to our homelend. How did this NIE on Iraq change so mcuh, so fast? Did Cheney and others in the White House put pressure on the CIA to give them the "evidence" they wanted? Democratis senators on the select Committee on Intelligence say that agents told them it was clear they had to reacha certain outcome. Please talk to Senator Levine and Rockefeller about this for confirmation.

But on top of the NIE being hyped, Bush and Cheney hyped the hype. Meaning, Bush and Cheney were telling our country, the world, and even congress (talk to Senator Nelson about this, he can confirm) that was not supported by any NIE or any other intelligence agency in our country or the world! Whether this is called exxageration or lies, who cares....it is just as bad.

There are so many examples I could give you it would take me the whole weekend to get it all down in this email. So for the sake of time, I will give you only a few examples of Bush and Cheney lies/exxagerations:

1. The famous October 2002 NIE stated that, "Iraq had a development program for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)." First of all, the agency that knows more about this issue than any other is the Air Force. The Air Force disagreed with the NIE. Did Bush ever tell us there was a question about this issue? No way. Bush and Cheney were telling us, congress, and the world that Saddam has a growing fleet of UAVs that could be used to disperse WMD across the United States. Do you not call this an exxageration? I don't. I call this a flat out lie by Mr. Bush and Cheney! In this instance Bush was telling us something that was made up, not supported by any facts/intelligence agency in the world. And you say in your article that Kerry would be exxagerating if he calls out Bush for misleading us into Iraq? Are you serious?

2. Many times over and over Bush and Cheney told the american people, with absolute certianty, that Iraq has reconstituted it nuclear weapons program. You must remember this.....it is all we heard from the White House for almost a year. Well there was more than a considerable amount of disagreement within the intelligence community on this. Mush of the disagreement came from Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Energy, and the INR (and dont forget the IAEA). But Bush and Cheney, who are so good at scaring people for political gain, were saying things like, "mushroom cloud," "Saddam will have a nuclear weapon in 6 months," we dont know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon." Now what was the truth of the matter? The NIE stated that Saddam "could have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade." (By the way, the 6 months statement was made in September 2002 ina joint press conference with Tony Blair). Anyway, as I stated above, many agencies disagreed with this assessment. So when Bush and Cheney tell the amrerican people about Saddam's threat of nuclear weapons that are not supported by the NIE and contradicts many other intelligence agencies, what do you call that? Anyone with a half of brain will say that Bush was misleading us, not mention scaring the you know what out of us, to get his war.

3. One of the most obvious lies by Bush and Cheney is the one where they jept telling the american people that Saddam was in some way connected to 911 and al Qaeda. This has gotten alot of attention and I dont think I need to go any further other than to say that Bush and Cheney misled our country on this issue. The Senate Select Commitee on Intelligence as we as the CIA and the 911 commission have confirmed this. Do you not agree that Bush misled us into Iraq in this regard? If you dont think so, please explain. I am interedted how you explain this one.

4. Another matter that gets very little attention these days are the statements by Bush and Cheney that Saddam would for some crazy reason decide to give his "WMD" to terrorist, who then in turn use it against us. It is very clear from even the hyped NIE that this was a lie. Just another lie by Bush and Cheney. The NIE stated that it was "unlikely that Saddam would cooperate with, or give WMD to terrorist." Previous assessment did not even mention this possibility. Wonder Why? As a matter of fact, the NIE stated that Saddam would only use his WMD against us if he was provoked. So Bush says Saddam could give his WMD to terrorist and the NIE and every intelligence says the opposite. What do you call that.....hmmmmm.....oh yeah....a lie!

I could go on and on through the weekend with many more examples of Bush and Cheney lies regarding the threat from Iraq. There is just so much information on this matter.

By the way, The Special Investigations Division, led by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, has organized a 36 page report and 237 statement database of misleading information from the Bush administration about the threat Iraq posed. The statements are those of the top 5 administration officials whom they felt were most responsible for the opinions of the Bush administration. The on-line database can be queried by speaker, subject, keywords, and date. I am having trouble finding the site but here is the report.....http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

My point is, why did you say that when Kerry said that Bush misled us into war it was an exxageration? Any journalist who does thre research can easily see that Bush and Cheney did in fact mislead us and lied to us to get their war they wanted since day one oif their administration. I would greatly appreciate a response to explain your position. I am curious to find out how you explain this one...The NIE was hyped and I would like to know how that happened. Unfortunately the mainstreeme media is taking a break from the hard hitting journalism we saw in the 1990, when their tag line was....ANYTHING GOES! On top of the NIE being hyped, Bush and Cheney hyped the hyped, and lied to all of the american people about the threat from Iraq before the war. That is obvious.

Thanks for your time.

Happy holiday weekend.

Take care,

Dennis

Bush said in a hundred different ways: "Trust me; if you could see the secret evidence on my desk you wouldn't hesitate to invade Iraq. He told us the evidence on his desk was compelling, certain, and indisputable".

We know that is not true. There was no such certainty, Just the opposite was true. The evidence on his desk of WMD in Iraq was thin, old, suspect, controversial within the intelligence community, and for all practical purposes, worthless. It had to be, for after all there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, were there.

In late December 2002, Bush himself said, "Is this all you've got?" Weeks later he launched the war.