Bob Woodward Interview With Kerry

[BPSCG]

I've been critical of Kerry here (please, don't argue with me on this point - you know I have), in particular about his refusal to state what he would do differently as Commander-in-Chief. When asked this kind of question on public forums, Kerry's answer generally starts with "One thing I wouldn't do is..." and then segues off into a denunciation of everything Bush has done, without ever answering what he would do differently.

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward wrote on October 22,

At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq.

He published Bush's replies in his book, "Plan of Attack."

Woodward contacted Kerry's people to arrange an interview with the senator. He "provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations."

Here's the result.

 

[Rob Lister]

I've been critical of Kerry here (please, don't argue with me on this point - you know I have), in particular about his refusal to state what he would do differently as Commander-in-Chief. When asked this kind of question on public forums, Kerry's answer generally starts with "One thing I wouldn't do is..." and then segues off into a denunciation of everything Bush has done, without ever answering what he would do differently.

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward wrote on October 22, He published Bush's replies in his book, "Plan of Attack."

Woodward contacted Kerry's people to arrange an interview with the senator. He "provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations."

Here's the result.

Well,

The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.

That pretty much says it all. At least that says all of what he has already said.

 

[Meadmaker]

I loved the article. That was really a good piece. Kerry's decision not to respond is quite telling, in my opinion. Woodward presented him with an ideal forum to discuss his Iraq policy, and Kerry chose not to respond. Why?

I just can't respect Kerry when he does things like this. Surely the Iraq war, its aftermath, and all the issues surrounding it are one of the most important issues in this campaign. Kerry decided that telling people what he would do in the same circumstances wouldn't get him any votes, so he begged off of it.

In my case, at least, he made a mistake. I don't like Bush, and I think he has done a lousy job. But I can't bring myself to vote for someone who would rather take cheap shots at the other guy than present his own position.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't like Bush, and I think he has done a lousy job. But I can't bring myself to vote for someone who would rather take cheap shots at the other guy than present his own position.

Exactly how I felt about Bush when he didn't want to testify before the 9-11 commission, and added all those provisos when he finally did.

 

[Mona]

I loved the article. That was really a good piece. Kerry's decision not to respond is quite telling, in my opinion. Woodward presented him with an ideal forum to discuss his Iraq policy, and Kerry chose not to respond. Why?

I just can't respect Kerry when he does things like this. Surely the Iraq war, its aftermath, and all the issues surrounding it are one of the most important issues in this campaign. Kerry decided that telling people what he would do in the same circumstances wouldn't get him any votes, so he begged off of it.

In my case, at least, he made a mistake. I don't like Bush, and I think he has done a lousy job. But I can't bring myself to vote for someone who would rather take cheap shots at the other guy than present his own position.

I have a love/hate relationship with Bush: I approve of his foreign policy and am not put off by tactical errors, or even poor planning in specific instances within the larger strategy, since these occur in all wars, including justified ones. But I'd prefer a POTUS who would endorse gay marriage, stop the drug war, and not spend money like a drunken sailor.

But Kerry? I honestly have no idea what he would do re: the WOT, because he has been all over the map on the issue, and declines, as he did w/Woodward, to get specific about his proposed policies. And, I can see who supports him -- anti-war doves, some of whom even opposed taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Further, there is ample evidence that Kerry tells complete falsehoods when he does or should know better. The "Bush lied!" crowd annoy me, because on the WMD issue EVERYONE thought Saddam had them, including John Forbes Kerry and other Dems, as reflected in their myriad statements in the late 90s and since '00.

I might have voted for Joe Lieberman. But as it is, I'm with Bush.

 

[BPSCG]

Exactly how I felt about Bush when he didn't want to testify before the 9-11 commission, and added all those provisos when he finally did.

Maybe because he knew he'd be getting "When did you stop beating your wife?"-type questions from political hacks like Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick while testifying before the commission, whereas he knew Woodward's questions might be tough, but fair. He talked to Woodward for 3-1/2 hours, answered hundreds of questions.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe because he knew he'd be getting "When did you stop beating your wife?"-type questions from political hacks like Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick while testifying before the commission, whereas he knew Woodward's questions might be tough, but fair. He talked to Woodward for 3-1/2 hours, answered hundreds of questions.

True. Giving an interview to a reporter is so much more comfortable than testifying before another branch of the government on serious matters of national security.

 

[Brown]

Gee, Kerry did an interview with the New York Times, but expressed reservations that what he said would be taken out of context by the Bush camp.

And lo and behold, within a matter of days of publication of the Times piece, anti-Kerry ads appeared taking his quotes out of context, citing that very interview as a "source."

That sort of dirty trick basically smothers political discourse. It really isn't much of a surprise for Kerry to say, "no thanks," when asked whether he wants to go through that experience again.

 

[Ed]

Maybe because he knew he'd be getting "When did you stop beating your wife?"-type questions from political hacks like Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick while testifying before the commission, whereas he knew Woodward's questions might be tough, but fair. He talked to Woodward for 3-1/2 hours, answered hundreds of questions.

This seemed like a perfect venue for Kerry, erudite, respectful, questions in advance. It says something, something unpleasant.

 

[Ed]

Gee, Kerry did an interview with the New York Times, but expressed reservations that what he said would be taken out of context by the Bush camp.

And lo and behold, within a matter of days of publication of the Times piece, anti-Kerry ads appeared taking his quotes out of context, citing that very interview as a "source."

That sort of dirty trick basically smothers political discourse. It really isn't much of a surprise for Kerry to say, "no thanks," when asked whether he wants to go through that experience again.

So, as a result we are ignorant.

 

[BPSCG]

True. Giving an interview to a reporter is so much more comfortable than testifying before another branch of the government on serious matters of national security.

Ben-Veniste is a career prosecutor whose profession is not finding fact but rather, presenting the facts so as to win for his side. When he questioned Condoleeza Rice, he repeatedly attempted to cut her off the second she said "yes" or "no"; to her credit, Rice refused to allow him to play courtroom prosecutor and insisted on providing answers in their full context.

Bob Woodward is an investigative reporter. His business is getting facts and getting the story right. Ben-Veniste's business is playing "gotcha." I wouldn't want any president to testify before someone like that. I'd feel a lot more comfortable about him testifying before a commission of Bob Woodwards, whose business is finding out the truth, not scoring political points.

 

[BPSCG]

Gee, Kerry did an interview with the New York Times, but expressed reservations that what he said would be taken out of context by the Bush camp.

And lo and behold, within a matter of days of publication of the Times piece, anti-Kerry ads appeared taking his quotes out of context, citing that very interview as a "source."

That sort of dirty trick basically smothers political discourse. It really isn't much of a surprise for Kerry to say, "no thanks," when asked whether he wants to go through that experience again.

That's a pretty lame excuse. Anything can be twisted into unrecognizable shapes if taken out of proper context. I could probably mine quotes from this forum that would prove you shot Lincoln. Does that mean you should therefore shut up? Should Kerry?

Why can't he say what he would do differently from Bush? FWIW, does the New York Times interview say? I'd love to read it, if you could provide a link.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I wouldn't want any president to testify before someone like that. I'd feel a lot more comfortable about him testifying before a commission of Bob Woodwards, whose business is finding out the truth, not scoring political points.

I agree the commission was rude and political. But that doesn't mean the president can pack up his marbles and go home. It's the duty of public officials to do their jobs, whether it's difficult, unpleasant, or even unfair.

If someone can't stand tough questions, they have absolutely no business holding public positions. If the commission was shouting, shout back. Let everyone see that it's political partisan sniping, and not about getting the real truth. Refusing to go simply makes it look like there's something to fear and something to hide. Which seems politically foolish.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's a pretty lame excuse. Anything can be twisted into unrecognizable shapes if taken out of proper context. I could probably mine quotes from this forum that would prove you shot Lincoln. Does that mean you should therefore shut up? Should Kerry?

Lol. Exactly why Bush should have gone before the 911 commission at once. Silence allows the imagination to supply reasons for that silence.

 

[BPSCG]

Lol. Exactly why Bush should have gone before the 911 commission at once. Silence allows the imagination to supply reasons for that silence.

You don't need to imagine a damned thing; all you have to do is read Ben-Veniste's line of questioning. Joe McCarthy would have been proud.

And, no, you don't shout back. Childish.

 

[Ed]

If someone can't stand tough questions, they have absolutely no business holding public positions.

This holds for Kerry too.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This holds for Kerry too.

I didn't say it didn't. Sheesh. Not everyone is prepared to ignore their candidate's failings.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Further, there is ample evidence that Kerry tells complete falsehoods when he does or should know better. The "Bush lied!" crowd annoy me, because on the WMD issue EVERYONE thought Saddam had them, including John Forbes Kerry and other Dems, as reflected in their myriad statements in the late 90s and since '00.

That's nonsense. There were plenty of people including Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, the scientists at the International Atomic Energy Agency and Bob Graham that had clearly expressed their skepticism toward the administration's assertions regarding Iraq's weapons programs before the war. Oh, yeah, and I myself wasn't very convinced either.

The information Kerry based his decision on to authorize force was derived from a brief meeting he had with George Tenet in which the former C.I.A. head summarized all of the bullcrap propaganda that the Bush people had put out to persuade everyone to go along with the war. Bush was given a much ampler opportunity to review intelligence than Kerry, so to look at the convictions of the two as being comparable in terms of their honesty is a big mistake.

 

[Ed]

I didn't say it didn't. Sheesh. Not everyone is prepared to ignore their candidate's failings.

All that I am suggesting is that the major problem that I have with Kerry (and I think that I share with others) is that a "plan" tells me nothing. Nixon, rem,ember, had a "plan" to get us out of Vietnam. He didn't want to disclose it before the election and after we found that it was "Vietnamization", aka "bug-out".

As I recall from the book Pappililon, there was an object that prisoners had called a "plan de volent" or something like that. They commonly referred to it as a "plan". It was hidden in their colon. Unfortunately whenever Kerry talks about his "plan" that is the rather unsavory image that arises, unbidden, in my conciousness. Wonder if his planners )) thought of that one.

 

[Brown]

I have a love/hate relationship with Bush: I approve of his foreign policy and am not put off by tactical errors, or even poor planning in specific instances within the larger strategy, since these occur in all wars, including justified ones.

This trivializes the massive blundering of the Bush administration. Bush went to war under false pretenses, which is perhaps the greatest single error that a president can make. It is without a doubt the biggest presidential error in history.

And when he went to war in Iraq, he did it the wrong way. The campaign has been a disaster, and Bush, as commander-in-chief, is responsible, whether he accepts that responsibility or not.

But Kerry? I honestly have no idea what he would do re: the WOT, because he has been all over the map on the issue...

No, he hasn't. The Bush camp loves to say this, but the facts don't bear it out.

It is downright hypocritical to criticize Kerry for not having a coherent plan when Bush himself has no coherent plan for resolving the situation that he himself created. Things in Iraq are getting worse, not better. If Bush's plan is to "stay the course," then we have pretty good reason to think that his "plan" is a poor one.

Further, there is ample evidence that Kerry tells complete falsehoods when he does or should know better. The "Bush lied!" crowd annoy me, because on the WMD issue EVERYONE thought Saddam had them, including John Forbes Kerry and other Dems, as reflected in their myriad statements in the late 90s and since '00.

Oh, please, Kerry has not spread complete falsehoods. Get real. The one telling whoppers is Bush: "He [Kerry] talks about middle-class tax cuts. That's exactly where the tax cuts went. Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans." That was a big lie from the third debate.

Bush, again in the third debate: "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations." Bush emphasized the word "exaggerations" in a belittling fashion, but the fact is that Kerry was telling the truth, and Bush was not.

Bush again: "And the tax relief was important to spur consumption and investment to get us out of this recession." Baloney. When Bush pushed his tax cut, the rationale was to return projected surpluses.

More Bush bullcrap: "I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it exists — and we're making progress; three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice — but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account." The fact of the matter is that Bush does not know how many Al Qaida leaders there are (Condi Rice said it could be tens or hundreds), so this three-quarters figure is just pulled out of his presidential butt.

Bush, in the first debate, was asked: "Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?" Bush answered: "I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us." Wrong. The preemptive action against Iraq was not in response to an attack. Kerry of course respectfully pointed out Bush's obvious blunder, and Bush got peeved: "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that."

Whether you like it or not, Bush did not tell the truth about the threat posed by Iraq. His own people told him that there was no threat, but he decided to present the case that there was a threat. And he was wrong. Yet he refuses to take responsibility for this monumental error that has tarnished the reputation of the United States.