Kerry's response to Abu Ghraib: fire Rumsfeld

[marcologico]

A recent Alternet interview with Naomi Klein contains the interesting claim that "Kerry didn't once mention Abu Ghraib," interesting because it's completely wrong. Here's the full quotation:

"I think there was a lot of disdain in the Kerry campaign. The disdain that bothered me more was the disdain that they showed for the Iraqi people in their total unwillingness to condemn the basic violations of human rights and international law. He didn't mention Abu Ghraib. He didn't ever mention civilian deaths as one of the problems in Iraq. He was too busy showing how tough he was. They clearly made a decision that speaking about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would seem to be critical of the troops. And to speak about Iraqi civilians and international law would be to appear soft on the war on terror."

Klein also calls the Kerry campaign "morally bankrupt" because "it refused to speak about this issue."

source: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21099/

In point of fact, not only did Kerry speak to the Abu Ghraib issue, he spoke to it immediately and called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Here's a timeline from last May that I found on the web:

John Kerry, May 5th, at Colton High School in Los Angeles:
"The president of the United States needs to offer the world an explanation and needs to take appropriate responsibility. And if that includes apologizing for the behavior of those soldiers and what happened, we ought to do that."

President Bush, May 6th to reporters:
"Secretary Rumsfeld has been the secretary during two wars and he is an important part of my cabinet, and he will stay in my cabinet."

Kerry campaign, May 7th 2pm email:
"Over the past week we have all been shocked by the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But we have also been appalled at the slow and inept response by President Bush, which has further undermined America's credibility in the world and created new dangers for Americans in Iraq. George Bush must fire Donald Rumsfeld. http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rumsfeld.php"

Vice President Cheney, May 8th, prepared statement:
"People ought to get off his case and let him do his job."

source: http://civilities.net/AbuGhraibPetitionTimeline

[IrwinDC]

1. Rumsfeld should have been fired...

...for the pathetic planning for the war in Iraq.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Exactly

Iraq is his war. It's his baby. Bush is the CIC during a time of war. If he was any type of president he would've issued a public apology to the people of Iraq, to the prisioners, given the proper judgement to those soliders and higher officers incharged and fired Rumsfeld because he's in charge of that as well. But of course they don't care. As long as they get their PNAC plan done.

[blm]

18. The first time Kerry called for Rumsfeld to go was for incompetence. After

Abu Ghraib, Kerry called AGAIN for Rumsfeld's firing.

The media failed to cover this story with any significant discussion. Indeed, they let it pass with the minimum amount of attention.

Hey Naomi...do some real homework on the GOP control over most of the media instead of depending on the mainstream media for YOUR news.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Her statement isn't literally true, but I think her point is that Kerry

should have spoken more about torture.

[JonGarfunkel]

11. thanks for bringing this to my attention

I'm glad that my timeline was able to serve as some documentary evidence. I have no idea what Klein is talking about anywhere in this interview, such as:

"Yes, it's true that it's mostly minority soldiers who get the job of sitting on top of the tanks, where they're most vulnerable."

While I find that a USA Today article to be a little more authoritative:
"For example, although blacks account for 26% of Army troops, they make up a much smaller percentage of those in front-line combat units, the most likely to be killed or injured in a conventional war."

Jon

[marcologico]

13. It looks like Alternet has either switched to fiction

or hired Stephen Glass as its fact checker.

Anyway thanks for the great research Jon and welcome to DU!!

:toast:

[newyawker99]

17. Hi JonGarfunkel!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[flpoljunkie]

16. Is 'literally true" a euphemism for "lie?" Why not hold her accountable?

[LittleClarkie]

23. Seems like re-framing to me

It looks apparent what she really meant, because she and the interviewer both said it quite explicitly. They don't make the point that he didn't say it enough. They make the point that he didn't say it, at all. The word "never" is used.

If they can't even get their facts straight, even if they have a valid point to make, it's discredited at least by their overstatement, if not their outright lie.

[cestpaspossible]

33. The only question is whether Klein is being intentionally deceptive or

if she's merely ignorant.

[cestpaspossible]

32. Are you saying it's ok to use falsehoods to make a point?

:wtf: -- Don't false premises lead to false conclusions?

[paineinthearse]

3. Nominate Klein for "conservative idiot of the week" n/t

[marcologico]

4. LMAO n/t

[shraby]

5. Kerry gets criticized for not speaking out,

but Bush was having the torture done! WTF :crazy:

[LittleClarkie]

6. Oh you mean were were supposed to pay attention to him?

Why would we want to do that? We already know what that rich, bumbling, warmongering, corporate money taking, flip flopping, DLC lackey was going to say anyway, so why bother.

Actually, both Klein and the author both say it. The question that leads into that quote said "When you talk about moral language, it's remarkable that Kerry didn't once mention Abu Ghraib."

I disagree with the poster who says that the point was that Kerry should have talked about it more. They make it quite plain that they think he didn't mention it at all.

Well, hell. Everyone here had a different take on what he should be saying. So which direction should he have been facing really. Economics! Iraq! The Draft! Social Security! Outsourcing!

Is it any wonder they had trouble settling on just one message. They tried to include them all.

Sad. Even some who were supposed to be on our side barely paid attention to what Kerry was saying, and some even seemed to agree with half of what the Right were saying about him.

So who is Naomi Klein anyway. Did someone say a conservative. Is she rather like Pat Buchannan then. I finally realized Pat is psychotic. How can you be against the war and still vote for Bush because you want the Supreme Court Justices?

[FreedomAngel82]

9. Buchanan is a psycho

if he cared anything at all about people and all that and wanted to show a good example he would've done the right thing and did anything possible to get Bush out. There's always another republican president in the future. What's important is to get out of Iraq. Buchanan is a moron who only wants fame. :eyes:

[ginnyinWI]

12. The history-rewriters seem to be out in full force,

both in the media and here at DU.
I guess because John Kerry didn't bring a mob with lighted torches and confront Bush at the White House door, he didn't do enough about Abu Garaib to get the media to think it worth a mention or two. Argh!
At the time, I was thinking that he was being very mindful of any words he'd say on the subject that would tarnish American reputation, and that would put the troops in more danger. A very ticklish situation for him to be in, but I'm sure he placed priority on the troops' safety rather than political points against Bush.

[marcologico]

14. It appears that Klein is on Murdoch's payroll

by way of her publisher, Harper-Collins, as another DUer pointed out in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1571539

[zulchzulu]

8. I have SEVERAL speeches of Kerry ON VIDEO where he mentions Abu Ghraib

Part of the idiotic mythification of some on the "left" that would trash Kerry without even doing some homework is one of the more sickening things I find with the recent campaign season.

They are as bad as Karl Rove. I know some Kerry bashers hate to hear it, but it's goddamn true.

I saw Kerry speak about the issue several times. I have his statements about wanting to have Rummy resign and the torture on video that I recorded.

Dumbass bullshit artists like the myopic and predictable Naomi Klein need to get the fuck off the voice box until they grow up and do some journalism... Klein would never admit to a lie...just like Rummy and the rest of the OTHER assholes.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Not to mention Kerry 71

How perfect that the report on Abu and the Smear vet commercial about his testimony came out the same week. His testimony actually fits our current situation better than it did Vietnam.

Torture (even some of the same kind) -- check
With full knowledge of higher ups -- check
Who are now in the process of trying to abandon the perps, though they're at least partly responsible -- check.

Going through those few weeks with Kerry's words echoing in a few places in the media (like an NYT op/ed that asked "Who will be the last to die for THIS mistake?" or something similar) made me somewhat glad that Kerry had that bit in his past. It added to the debate on Iraq even more than anything Kerry could have said.

And let's face it. Some don't know what he said because

1. they weren't paying attention
2. the media wasn't covering it anyway.

[leesa]

15. This guy will never get it. Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes along

with Bush. Kerry STILL does not admit the invasion was wrong...just conducted badly.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Wrong war at the wrong time: It sounds like he thought it was wrong.

If Kerry had been prez after 9/11, we'd have never been in Iraq in the first place. He wouldn't have trumped up the intelligence that led us there. It wouldn't have been even close to his first priority, since Iraq wasn't even on the list of know terrorist havens.

Not to mention that Kerry knows how to use other means to get at terrorists, like cutting off their money supply ala BCCI. It's his field. Only Bush would be trying to fight terrorism by going after countries and not organizations. But then, fighting terrorism was never the point with Bush. "Cha-ching, bling, bling" and "Look at me, daddy" was. That's the difference.

The war that Kerry wanted to finish was Afghanistan, not Iraq. He wanted to find Bin Laden, badly. Tora Bora bugged the hell out of the guy. That's why he was always the one to bring it up during the primaries and during the debates. Ossama been forgotten.

So what part of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" says "The war was not wrong" to you?

[noamnety]

19. The Bush campaign accused Kerry of politicizing it

"According to the Washington Post, on May 12, Bush campaign chair Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry had suggested that all 150,000 soldiers in Iraq were 'somehow universally responsible' for the torture at Abu Ghraib. The Post follows up by noting that this charge simply isn't true"

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/06/bush-campaign-lie-62-john-kerry.html

He mentioned it too much! No, not enough! He never mentioned it!

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

"Kerry says Abu Ghraib extends to White House - Pentagon must also share the blame, he says" Aug 26, 2004
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595086802,00.html

[LittleClarkie]

20. Damn it, why didn't his campaign have focus!

And more importantly, why didn't he mention the issue that was most important! And that was the economy... or was it unemployment... maybe it was the environment... coulda been outsourcing... errr, gun control... how about health care... the draft, maybe... or my personal favorite, homeland insecurity...

Damn that Kerry. He should created one really big cohesive theme that would have satisfied all the important issues that Bush is currently fucking up. Maybe simply "Bush sucks."

I remember a woman coming into Kerry HQ and just freaking out that he wasn't mentioning the environment enough.

How do you unify us when we can't even agree most of the time here as one cohesive group? We all had our issues, and we all thought that issue should be uppermost. Kerry was strong on many of them, but you'd never know from the campaign. Part Shrum, part media, part the base not agreeing either.

[sandnsea]

24. "Bush sucks"

That kind of was the theme, for all the reasons that you stated, but that was proof people didn't really like Kerry. :eyes:

We are our own worst enemy.

[politicasista]

25. Well said, Little Clarkie!

:hi:

[karynnj]

27. Not to mention Bush &co probably expected this to match

the parallel charge of the SBVT people that ALL the Vietnam vets were quilt of war crimes.

Kerry blamed Rumsfeld, Bush and a few other high level people. He was clearly outraged by the actions and did speak out, but much of our media chose to cover only a small part of what Kerry said or did - I guess it would cut into their important coverage of Scott Peterson.

Kerry also was careful in attacking the Bush administration and NOT using the more emotional language he used in 1971. Aside from being more mature, he seemed very sensitive to anything that could imperil a soldier. His 1971 comments were spoken from the perspective of one of the soldiers and were incredibly brave and effective. Hearing the comments about "wanting a merciful god to erase the memories" and talking about soldiers dealing with things they were told to do
resonated with the Abu Grabeh situation (which as they were prisoners from whom the soldiers had nothing to fear was worse.)

Kerry wrote an op-ed (I think Boston Globe)dealing with the accusations of war crimes against Bob Kerrey that I read when someone posted it. (Warning: From memory, so may not be totally accurate) In some ways it was very consistent with his 1971 position, in that it criticized the free fire zones and atrocities and blamed the war policies that led to these situations. Where it differed was in more explicitly describing the nightmare of young men knowing that death could come at any moment and the difficulty of distinguishing between a real danger and an innocent situation.

From the Abu Grabeh statements, the 1971 testimony and the Kerrey thing, if Kerry had won and was CIC, he would have been uniquely positioned to change the tone and follow the steps he outlined to get us out of Iraq while restoring our position in the world. In the 1990s, Kerry was able to parlay his moral stance to get increased cooperation with the Vietnamese in his POW/MIA investigations. This background could have implicitly been used to give credibility to statements that we have no long term designs on Iraq.

[mod mom]

22. My response to Abu Ghraib: WAR CRIMES! nt

[UdoKier]

26. As usual with Kerry, too weak and missing the point.

Kerry shows his Bush-sycophant colors by calling for Rummy's resignation.

Why on Earth should Rummy be resigning for implementing the exact policies that BUSH AND CHENEY ordered? By making Rummy a scapegoat, Kerry and the other pink tutus are letting Bush & Cheney off the hook YET AGAIN.

Klein may be wrong on the details, but Kerry's campaign WAS PATHETIC in outlining the case against Bush, but what else could he do, since he gladly signed the Patriot Act without reading it and helped pass the indefensible IWR?

[blm]

28. Horsepoo. You're judging Kerry's response as weak because the media

is in control after any statement. They chose to ignore it. Had they used Kerry's call for Rumsfeld's firing as a BASIS for serious discussion, as deserved, then we all would have been applauding the news.

Kerry WAS working to get Bush fired throughout the campaign. That was an important part of his message.

[UdoKier]

36. I don't think Kerry really wanted to win.

He was so smart, right? So why did he never really counter the Swifty lies? Why did he NEVER clarify his $87 bil vote (or Bush's threat to veto it) in a simple way? Why, when asked whether he would sign the IWR if he had it to do over again, knowing there were no WMD's, did he say YES?

He went out of his way to appear to be the embodiment of the Bushies' taunts "flip-flopper", AND he failed to significantly differentiate himself from Bush on foreign policy.

Sorry, but he either threw the election, or he was a total moron to hire perennial loser Shrum to run his campaign.

And I still think Rummy is a red herring, since Abu Ghraib was 100% BUSH policy, stamped approved by his new AG thug Gonzalez.

[blm]

39. Your post proves you are a consumer of GOP controlled media.

Kerry really did a great job throwing all three debates to Bush, too.

[UdoKier]

40. Nonsense. I seldom look at any of it.

And watching the debates, I thought Kerry was adequate (which made him look spectacular next to the pathetic Bush) but he missed several opportunities, most notably to clarify what the $87 bil "flip-flop" was about. I screamed about it here and all the Kerryites said "Oh, cool off, he'll mention it in the next debate" (he never did) or "Oh, he addressed that already." (Which he did, but vaguely and weakly as usual - I believe he said "I may have spoken unclearly about the $87 bil, but that's better than not being candid about leading us into war." or some such rot)

Where was Kerry when they were still counting votes in Ohio? Conceding.

Where has he been for the last few months where it regards the CRUCIAL issue of voting without a paper trail? MIA.

Where was he when MY senator was standing up with the congressional Black Caucus, protesting the vote in Ohio? Over on a jaunt to Iraq.

I suppose I should be grateful that he voted against the nomination of mass-murder co-conspirator Kindasleezy Rice as Secretary of State, and I actually am, but the John Kerry of 2004 is NOT the john Kerry of 1971, a man of passion and principle.

He's an entrenched, risk-averse out of touch POLITICIAN.

And calling me a GOP kool-aid drinker? That's a laugh. I DESPISE everything about the GOP. Anytime I criticize Kerry, or a DINO like Clinton, I get this crap. No matter that the criticism is on target, the devotion to ANY prominent democrat on the part of some people is almost freerepublic-like.

The next election is well over three years away. I held my tongue for the most part on Kerry's shortcomings after he got the nomination, but the election is over, and if there is any time to take potshots at deserving democrats, this is it, and if more of us would DO THAT, and hold their feet to the flame, and EXPECT them to act like DEMOCRATS, instead of just being satisfied by a few no votes on thugs like Rice and Gonzales, we might just have an opposition party worth its salt.

But instead we have a bunch of sycophantic cowards, terrified that Karl Rove might say "Boo!" and take their seat away in the next election. Kerry's hardly the worst of them - Joementum has that honor, and I don't even consider Zell to be a pretend democrat. But he could have won, had he not hired perennial loser Bob Shrum, and if he had come out and talked plainly and clearly, and not let GOP mud just sit and fester, he could have won, even with the Diebold fraud.

[karynnj]

29. Patriot Act

contained some legislation - including some Kerry pushed for years to help control the ease with which terrorist and criminal groups could more money undetected (stuff he recommended after BCCI) - that Kerry felt needed to be in place. The bill had a date when it was suppose to be reviewed - because everyone realized they were doing this too quickly. They obviously felt they were racing the clock. Only Feingold voted against it. In hindsight Kerry and others want it amended.

If you were a Senator and could only vote yes or no, how would you vote if on one hand you felt certain things in the bill would greatly help fight the WOT and others might erode privacy rights? The Senators opted to go with the bill because of the former and put in a sunset clause because of the latter. Remember Kerry in the 90s looked into terrorist finacing and organization more than any other person in the Senate

[LittleClarkie]

31. True, and thank God for that sunset

It's Patriot II that makes me nervous. Is that going anywhere right now? I hope not. When last seen it had no sunset.

[karynnj]

34. Patriot II

Haven't heard any mention of it since the election. With any luck the more united Democrats will ally themselves with the real conservatives and libertarians.

[UdoKier]

37. I most certainly would have voted NO.

The Senate is supposed to be the DELIBERATIVE body, and I would have insisted on a carefully crafted bill that respected the fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights, not some piece of megalomania that had been sitting around since the Reagan administration.

I also would have mentioned, on the floor of the senate, that even with existing laws - had Bush & company been doing their JOBS in the weeks leading up to 9-11, it may have well been prevented.

But that's just me. I have a low tolerance for bullshit.

[cestpaspossible]

41. Sounds like time to declare your candidacy.

I'd vote for you.

[UdoKier]

43. A have a closetful of skeletons.

I could maybe run here in SF, but my past is too checkered for middle America...

[marcologico]

38. re "letting Bush & Cheney off the hook": I can't resist pointing out

that Kerry did express some interest in removing Bush and Cheney from office.

[cestpaspossible]

42. Again with the reality-based comments?!

What is up with that?

[cestpaspossible]

30. I'll be holding my breath waiting for a retraction from Klein.

NOT.

[noamnety]

35. I emailed alternet and mediamatters

but I'm not holding my breath either.