New Pentagon Report Uses Language Kerry Used in 2004 that Bush-Cheney Called “Dangerous” and “Naive”

timing is the issue, At the time Kerry said it he was talking then to turn it to a police action.
Since under Bush we did a great job weakening them and Gates is talking about using everything not just law enforcement

Senator Kerry had the right approach in 2004- period. If the senator would have been given the credibitity he deserved in 2004 we would all be much better off now. People allowed themselve to be manipulated by the press and the Rove machine. They allowed the lying and scheming Rove to do their thinking for them.
I said this before, but it deserves repeating, We lost the chance to have a a true man of the people and a great president in 2004 when a slight majority were frightened into allowing Bush four more years. Our contry is worse off for this decision four years ago. Lets not make the same mistake again.

Another signal from the state that the Bush presidency has weakened the nation enough that the ruling class will accept a Democrat to try to put it back together again.

I remember reading that article – a Matt Bai piece, I believe. I thought two things at the time: (1) Finally, Kerry comes across as the kind of thoughtful, intelligent leader that I would like as my President, and (2) They’re going to skewer him with that quote about terrorism being a nuisance. The man doesn’t stand a prayer.
This cycle, I think three things are different:
1. McCain will not consistently go for the jugular like that – at least in a way that’s at all believable.
2. Obama throws a better counter-punch than Kerry did, which is to say he throws one at all.
3. Fear still motivates voters, but probably 10 ppts less now.

Gates may well hate America. You should consider this possibility Spock.

My fellow Americans are so naive and gullible. Everytime Kerry would move up in the polls bush and co. would produce another bin laden tape and everyone would scurry under their beds with plans to vote for bush/cheney. In doing so they re elected the most insane and criminal adminstration in the history of the U.S.
Now Mcsame is doing the same thing with his claims of inexperience and comparing Obama with Britney and Paris.
All I could think of when McBush did that was “HOW STUPID DOES HE THINK WE ARE???”
Oh! That’s right! Some of you voted bush and co. in not once BUT TWICE!!!!

Third alternative: the President and Vice President don’t read anything their Secretary of Defense writes. They don’t listen to him, either.

Thank God the Pentagon has finally rid itself of the Office of Special Plans, and the handful of neo-cons that hijacked the institution for the past 7 years. They almost destroyed the military and the country in the process. I for one am glad the common sense ‘kerry-isms’ are back in favor.

“Do the President and Vice President think their Secretary of Defense has a view of the world that’s dangerous and naïve?”
=======================================
The answer is yes.

Just a few more days to bash Bush. Better hurry.

Mike: Just a few more days to bash Bush. Better hurry.
Bush will be bashed long after he leaves office as he should be. He’s the biggest idiot that has ever served as Commander In Chief. What a Failure his Administration has been. If today’s Republican Party is about the likes of Bush, Cheney and pretty much the entire Bush Administration then I think it’s time to look at other options. Obviously the current one is not the correct answer.
McCain will represent pretty much the same except will be a little worse if that’s possible.

For Bush to question human rights violations in China is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Touche! Excellent article. Maybe with the rise of Obama they are finding that Americans appeal to an intelligent man. Why they didn’t appeal to Kerry< I dont know, Jealously I think. Honestly. Kerry was well educated, well spoken a nd rich. I guess to red necks that was just too much to handle. I don't know why. In the past, way back when, even uneducated poor people knew that the most intelligent guy should be president, they looked at intelligence and someone who was well spoken as t he good thing. With bush, they started votingfor someone they could relate to, why? i don't know. Silly me, I'd like someone is much much smarter than me as president and I'm pretty damn smart. Kerry is a very intelligent man and on the right side of just about every issue. If you think he wasn't, mostl likely, you didn't do your homework to find out what he did say or believe in. Examples, voting to give authorization for the iraq war, he said point blank he would give bush power to go to war IF NEEDED however, Kerry's quote on the floor of the senate that day " there is no immiment threat. There i s no need to attack now…" on body armor, he wrote the original bill with no pork, voted for it, the republicans did not vote for it. whe n it failed , teh republicans took kerry's bill, added a bout 300 billion in pork then put it up for vote again, kerry said no, strip offthe pork first, kerry voted against it. Republicans passed it. Hence the "i voted for itbefore I didn't vote for it" …republicans made fun of that quote, however, it was actually 100% accurate AND the bill he did vote for was BETTER tha n the one the republicans pushed through. how many republicans know this????? I'm sure every republican who made adds making fun of that quote knew t he truth too. they knew they were being dishonest but thye did it anyway. to be a republican is to be dishonest.

i think that Kerry meant what he said literally. He would use the court system to prosecute and set up committees that would try to understand the roots of terrorism. Gates may have used words that are similar but I think Gates would use bombs, missiles and every other tool he could to disrupt and dismantle terrorist groups and also the court system when necessary. To be fair, I think that Bush and Cheney have shown that they can eliminate the terrorist threat. We’ve been safe so far. They’ve “connected the dots”. Bush and Cheney have proven that they know better than their “betters”, JR, by liberating Iraq and WINNING. We are in the process of bringing our troops home now that we’ve won. The “betters” you refer to WERE WRONG. The “ruling class”, Mike? Where do you think you live? In Russia? You wish!
As far as the other leftist comments are concerned, I am not surprised at the hatred and ignorance. The left is intolerant of political thought different from their own; a characteristic of fascism; real fascism, not the hyperbolic stuff they throw around.

now there’s an oxymoron:
republican political thought
We ‘won’ in Iraq. LOL. what didwe ‘win’? An Islamic theocracy. gee, great. that sooooo much better. I especially like the part where women’s rights are worse than in Saddam days.
Iraq never was a terrorist threat. So what did bush accomplish, really???? He took a country that was of no terrorist threat, turned it into one and is in the process of trying to turn it back. How stupid is that? And you think this is some great accomplishment?
beat your head against the wall till you bleed, then get stiches in your head, a nd tell yourself that getting those stitches really was a super smart thing to do!!!!

I don’t think anyone who actually really KNOWS anyone in their 70s would consider electing one president. It’s one thing to think about in theory, it’s anotherto have this person in their 70s who you KNOW and you take them to their doctor’s appointment and see other 70′s folksand you actually have a feeling for what that means. I’ve seen tapes ofMcCain being confused about many many things. Not at all surprising. and he’s not even under a fraction of as much stress as he would be as president. No, no way. I w ould never ever consider voting for someone my gramps age. no matter the party.

Wade opines: “I think what stood out about Kerry’s comment at the time, at the height of the world conflict was that he made a sort of comparison between terrorism “prostitution” and “illegal gambling.” At the time, and still, it is much more deadly. Of course, reducing terror to the level it exists in say, Ireland, would be good, I don’t think anyone can deny that. However, Kerry’s cavalier comparison indicated that he didn’t understand the danger…”
Kerry understood what the danger was——and wasn’t——and he wasn’t being “cavalier” in his comment. What he was being, was prescient——and hey, he wasn’t alone. A lot of us could see, already in the immediate days after 9/11, the direction this was sure to head, as Bush began to trot out expressions like “crusade,” with announcements of establishing facilities for extra-judicial internment without even a fig leaf of habeas corpus or Geneva Conventions.
The fear we all felt in the face of terrorists’ indiscriminate acts was being used to justify structural dangers to the republic; we allowed the Bush administration to gin up the fear level for purposes of gaining greater political control and reducing our American liberties. There never was a “world conflict” against terror. Terrorists have been performing their despicable acts around the globe for a long time, but it seems that only when our ox is gored do we claim we’re in the midst of some kind of cosmic battle. Terror isn’t a nation or even a group (“them”) you can fight, nor is it new; it’s merely the tactic of “asymmetric warfare” used by the powerless against the powerful. But it’s a sure sign there are much deeper issues involved than “they hate us for our freedoms” (Chalmers Johnson’s *Blowback* comes to mind).
And terror is “far more deadly” than prostitution or gambling you say? Whoda thunk it? You honestly think Kerry didn’t understand that? What he understood back then was that the “tactic” can never be entirely eliminated from our world, but that doesn’t mean we should allow fear to rule our lives. Kerry wasn’t alone in understanding that the fear of terror itself could be more fundamentally damaging to us as a nation than the actual incidents involving terrorist warfare, precisely because, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, it could lead us to sign over “essential liberties” to government in exchange for “temporary security.” What was cavalier was not Kerry’s cautious defense of American freedoms, but the Bush administration’s abuse of the trust of the American people in his advance toward aggrandizing the powers of an imperial presidency.

From a European point of view, the USA is fighting a losing battle in “defeating” terrorism. It is imposible to defeat, since new generations are trained and brainwashed from very young age. Since under Bush the USA just lost a lot of credibility, and are nowhere near to ending the war on terror – it is not a war, but a constant longstanding battle. Not to mention the lives that the USA lost in some desert or a road bomb, to no avail. The USA should have a leadership which promotes cooperation over power/oil politics. Was very refreshing to read such a good retrospective political analisys – Bush and his team are now coming to what Kerry was talking about 4 years ago. That does not speak very clever words about them, by the way.

Just because they used the same word doesn’t mean they meant the same thing. The context is completely different – but, of course, little things like that aren’t important to journalists.

It is amazing how the voters were duped twice by this administration and then you still have around 44% of the population willing to vote for another republican for President in 2008. As the old saying goes “the masses are as$%s”.

Most comments are now supporting Kerry, but back then and now what you wanted to hear was bomb this bomb that, presto your votes are won.
same thing happening now
People should think with their brains and know that peace is never ever achieved through war or bullying

If this was the other way around you would have linked it to Obama. WHAT WAS MCCAIN SAYING AT THE TIME?

“From a European point of view, the USA is fighting a losing battle in “defeating” terrorism.”
Which the Europeans have been losing for far longer so I guess they know what losing is. They tolerate the elements that train the young and then are shocked when the lumpen terrorists rise up among them and strike.
Where have the most Western terrorists attacks occurred and suceeded? Europe.
I don’t think your insights carry a lot of weight when it comes to reducing the threats or the reality.
It is a law enforcement problem. It is a military problem. It is a financial problem. It is a social problem with support from the narco-states that fund it. But it is a war nonetheless and unless we fight it, the strikes continue. Whatever you think of Bush and I’m not a fan either, he did take it straight to the terrorists on their home ground in Afghanistan. Iraq was a blunder but in the long run, it may work out because it seems that a democratic Arab nation is rising and given that the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and Pakistani intelligence supports binLaden, perhaps having one of those might not be such a bad thing after all.
Your presumption of superiority matches Obama’s arrogance. Your methods didn’t work. We do need cooperation but we need allies with guts, smarts and loyalty. So far the Europeans aren’t long on any of these.

But no coach ever inspired a team to win by asking them to be sensitive. You go for broke to win and sort it out later.
Egret57
—————————————
A president is NOT a coach, and leading a country is not a football game. Otherwise we could have chosen Brett Favres for Prez.
The president of the most powerful nation in the world does not gain anything by trying to be as radical as the extremism forces he wants to fight. No one thinks that spreading democracy around the world is wrong. But to many extents, the Bush-Cheney approach was wishful thinking. No one with a real understanding of the world would have every adopted such an approach. You really have to look down on the rest of the world to think that this could have worked.
There are more people around the world that hate America today than when the war in Irak started. So the question is what have we gain despite the thousands of lost lives as well as thousands of billions?

Anyone else getting really sick of the John Wayne re-runs this last 8 years?
JohnWayneMen – will NEVER ask for directions. OR listen unless the idea originated from them.
And they change their names because their original ones are ‘feminine’ (Marion)
This genepool is the weakest link moving into the 21st Century.
Along with the Retro Rat Pack…
“I did it myyyyyyyyyy waaaaayyyy”
Yeah, you sure did, “daddy-o”, and look where we are today.
“Are YOU better off than you were 4 years ago?”
Back atcha….

Obviously, any Republican pol with enough skill to be elected to a high position doesn’t believe what they say. It’s purely for the consumption of their ignorant unthinking base. It’s obvious on brief reflection that terrorism can never be “defeated”. You can’t win, or even wage, a “war” against a tactic. This kind of ignorance is why we’re in Iraq. But the Republican base will never learn this lesson.

President Bush has a great vision for the Middle East. But the Liberal Left hate Bush and the Republicans so much that they will never understand his vision.
A study was conducted recently which asked what people thought of certain ideals. Interestingly they approved of these ideals overwhelming. That is until they were told that these were Republican ideals. Then they overwhelmingly changed their minds.
President Bush envisions Iraq and Afghanistan becoming vibrant democracies with thriving economies and being incredible role models for their neighbors. That one day their neighbors will demand that their governments become democratic as well. But democracy alone will not work. The root of the problem–the Israeli-Palistinian conflict–must be solved. And the two-state solution, with both Israel and Palestine being democracies living side-by-side, is the only solution. But there is one additional step, one that is probably even more difficult than the other two. And that is ending the Muslim schools’ indoctrination of their youth with their curricula of hatred towards Israel and Western Civilization.
For this vision to come to fruition, it will require incredible patience and determination and unfortunately much sacrifice. A peaceful Middle East cannot be achieved overnight…in a few weeks or even months. In fact it will not come to fruition in a few years. This will take at least TWO GENERATIONS to achieve. That’s because there is a mindset of hatred that must be overcome.

>>James Danley ripostes: “You are ignoring two incredibly important items: 1) The U. S. Supreme Court RULED just after WWII that habeas corpus did NOT cover foreign captives held under American command outside the United States;
As you know, that decision (Johnson v. Eisentrager) was effectively overturned just this June by the Supreme Court in
Boumediene v. Bush; namely, “all prisoners detained at Guantánamo Bay are constitutionally entitled to bring habeas corpus in federal court to challenge the legality of their detention.” Although it took five years to get there, the point is that it was possible, if one looked at it historically, to see that things like torture and Abu Ghraib would be *inherent* in this extra-legal process of detentions. As we know now (e.g., via Jane Mayer’s *The Dark Side*), those “few bad apples” at Abu Ghraib were just the terminus of a process that began at the very top. (It’s kind of ironic: they call this a “war on terror,” yet no war has been declared, and all the combatants on the other side are “illegal.” So who are the “legal” ones?)
James Danley>> 2) These Islamic extremists do NOT fit the Geneva Convention’s definition of “prisoner of war.” ”
You’re joking, surely. You should also know by now that Yoo’s memoranda have been roundly recognized as “tortured” attempts to change the interpretation of the Conventions universally held for the past half century; even the Pentagon acknowledges that all detainees held by the US military are covered by the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions apply to *all*, not just some detainees. To wit,
“For more than half a century the conventions have laid out clear and inflexible standards on the detention and interrogation of prisoners and detainees in a war. Geneva’s guidelines have long been interpreted as covering any detainee, whether combatant or civilian. As the International Committee of the Red Cross’s commentary on the convention states: ‘There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be considered outside the law.’”
>>James Danley: 3: “The Islamic extremists are not just a few oppressed individuals in a struggle against their oppressor. The Islamic extremists (i.e., Abu Sayyaf, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc.) are ARMIES of well-trained individuals with a desire to turn the entire world into their own caliphate. ”
Wow, you mean they *all* want a caliphate? You’d think from their sectarian differences that Hizbollah (Shiite) and al Qaeda (Sunni) were deadly enemies (according to Juah Cole, they are: “As Shiites, the members of Hizbullah do not believe in a caliphate, unlike some sectarian Sunnis”). Hamas and most of the other groups you name are intensely concerned with local issues, and have no interest–nor ability–to think in the grandiose terms of a global caliphate. Some among the Al Quaida leadership may think in such unrealistic terms, but unrealistic is what they are: this from Der Speigel regarding a book by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein:
“Nevertheless, there is no way the scenario he [Hussein] depicts can be seen as a plan which al-Qaida can follow step by step. The terrorist network just doesn’t work like that anymore. The significance of the central leadership has diminished and its direct commands have lost a great deal of importance. The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality . . .”

Tokyo2Nite:
I believe at the time that Kerry followed the Democratic party’s general opinion that a military solution to terror was not necessary, and it was a “law enforcement” issue. Thus, I believe Kerry chose to downplay the threat of terror in order to more easily disagree with the Bush administration’s stance. I do not know whether Kerry understood that terror was worse than gambling or not..he did make the inept comparison, whether you choose to believe that he was sincere or not.
Maybe the Iraq War was unnecessary, a tragedy, and all the rest.
However, it is impossible to determine what would have happened had Kerry been elected, the troops pulled out, a “law enforcement” strategy put in place, etc. What if that failed ( I am not saying it would have)? Would the Pentagon be making the same assessment today?
There is an argument to be made, don’t you think, that military efforts have led to a situation, now, after years of hard effort and sacrifice, in which the Pentagon may make such a statement regarding the eventual defeat of terror? (and yes, reducing terror to a “nuisance” level would be a defeat). I also think the Pentagon’s choice of “nuisance” might not be very accurate. I mean, are ETA and Tamil Tiger bombings only a “nuisance”? Wouldn’t it have been much more difficult to make such a statement in 2004, before the war had been fought through?
Your discussion of the alleged loss of liberties and the “imperial presidency” are unrelated to this subject. This discussion has to do with whether the Pentagon’s recent statement mirrors Kerry’s 2004 statement regarding the threat level of terror and the proper response to it. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but I don’t think that is the subject here.
Thank you for your thoughtful discussion regarding this subject, it is rare.

People hear what they want to hear and they believe what they want to believe, despite evidence or lack thereof. Political ideology is the gospel truth for too many Americans. The proof is in some of these comments. I read a comment to the effect that Bush is right to spread democracy throughout the middle east. I’m sorry, but throughout historical civilization, there has always been multiple forms of government. Every nation is not (and should not) be a democracy. Democracy has its shortcoming too. Case in point…America.

Kerry was offering a weak foreign policy, and Bush offered a strong offensive foreign policy that included victories in Afghanistan AND Iraq as part of a much larger global war on terrorists. Bush’s policy exposed the Achilles Heel of international terrorists: they only thrive and flourish when the West is timid. Each withdrawal, from Lebanon to Kuwait, only encouraged our foes. The game has changed, and the Bush administration has gained the momentum.

Broderick:
You challenge the rationality of US voters without engaging the ideas in the posts. Can you clarify?

wow thank for your post