Woodward Interviews Kerry on 9/11 and Iraq
Today’s Washington Post features an interview with John Kerry which Bob Woodward did on March 7, 2006 in conjunction with work on his recently released book, “Plan of Attack.” Woodward submitted 22 questions to Kerry about his views on foreign policy before 9/11, and on starting the war in Iraq in 2003. Today’s article is an edited version of a 2-hour conversation based on those questions.
A Conversation With John Kerry
Interview by Bob Woodward Washington Post Sunday, October 15, 2006; B04
In the months before the 2004 presidential election, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward sought to interview Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, about how he might have conducted foreign policy in the 18 months between Sept. 11, 2001, and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. For his book “Plan of Attack,” Woodward had interviewed President Bush on how and why he made decisions during that same period. Woodward gave the Kerry campaign a list of 22 questions based on Bush’s actions, asking how Kerry would have responded at each key decision point if he had been president. Kerry declined the interview at the time. More than a year later, on March 7, Kerry agreed to be interviewed by Woodward and answer the 22 questions. Below is an edited version of their two-hour conversation.
<!-more->
ON PLANNING FOR WAR
John Kerry: Let me start at the beginning, because if I were president and we had been attacked as we were attacked on 9/11, I would have, first of all, created a kind of war cabinet similar to what other presidents have done historically, going back to Roosevelt and others. . . .
Now, you may have an executive committee within that . . . like President Kennedy did. But your war cabinet itself needs to be especially plugged in . . . so the right questions are on the table and the right questions are asked and the right discussion takes place. I mean, if you go back and look at Eisenhower, Eisenhower is smart in that he played less than fully briefed, so to speak, and he would let the staff fight it out in front of him and not let on what he believed or where he wanted to go. I think it’s particularly important presidentially not to indicate your policy right up front unless there’s such a clarity to it. For instance, in response to 9/11, there’s clarity. We’ve got to go kill al-Qaeda. . . . In fact, I would have thought about starting that war differently.
Bob Woodward: In what way?
I believe that during that particular period of time you knew that they [the Taliban and al-Qaeda] had bad habits. They didn’t believe that we would necessarily invade. . . . That is an enormous advantage with which to begin any planning. So they are running around in caravans, which we can see from technical means. They’re talking on cellphones, which we can follow with technical means. It gave us time to put assets on the ground.
There are all kinds of things that we could have done with respect to pinpointing their whereabouts.
This is after 9/11?
Absolutely. And my instincts would have been much more inclined to have used feint as subterfuge to indicate you might be doing one thing when you’re really doing another. . . . I would have been inclined to have used a greater covert effort to put the pressure on Osama bin Laden, at which point I would have been prepared to move major track divisions into position, whether it’s the 101st, the 10th Mountain Division, 82nd Airborne, etc.
. . . Now, I know we had SEALs at Tora Bora. And they wanted to go. I mean, who wouldn’t have wanted to go get Osama bin Laden?
bottom line is there wasn't even a sufficient strategy to do that. I would have guaranteed there was. Period.What would you have said to your central commander, who’s the guy on the ground, about planning for an Iraq war?
First of all, I would have had enough people around who understand and define to me adequately the nature of the threat that we now face. . . . And that requires a pretty extensive outreach effort which includes, in my judgment, not just the Joint Chiefs of Staff and your national security adviser and your intelligence director, but it really includes. . . . President George Herbert Walker Bush, President Jimmy Carter, President Bill Clinton, you know, President Ford, Brent Scowcroft, Zbig Brzezinski, Jim Baker, George Shultz. I mean, you start running the list. I would have had all of those people to some evening sessions, sat up there in the Yellow Room and sat around and said, “What are we facing here? What are the challenges? What’s the most important thing we do? How do we win?” Once you define the war on terror, then you can really understand what you’ve got to do. I think these guys rushed to a definition of the war, saw it the way they wanted to see it, clouded by ideology, and then went out and made people do things accordingly. . . .
It’s incomprehensible to me. I mean look—go back to that period. On that November 21st date [Nov. 21, 2001, when Bush first asked Rumsfeld to look at the war plan for an attack on Iraq], we had not yet fought Tora Bora. . . . We were deep in Afghanistan with an enormous priority to kill al-Qaeda. And we also had a very tentative Pakistan that was fragile, which was a country with nuclear weapons, which we were just moving to the place of sort of participation with America. . . . So my instinct, absent evidence of intelligence, would not have been to ask the secretary of defense for war plans on Iraq. I would have said, “Do we have sufficient troops on the ground to trap Osama bin Laden?” . . . It would not have moved me to take the eye off of Osama bin Laden and the fundamental goal, which was destroying al-Qaeda. . . .
You would have gone to Bush’s father, even?
Oh, absolutely. You kidding? I would have said, “Come down here and spend the evening at the White House. Let’s talk. I want to talk to you. Tell me about your decision. Tell me all the things that went through your head when you were thinking about going into Iraq and you made the decision finally not to go.”
In August ‘02, Powell asked for a two-hour dinner alone with Bush. Condi Rice is there and he says, “The consequences have not been fully examined and if you invade . . . ‘you break it, you own it.’” What would you have done at that moment, if you were president?
If I were president and my secretary of state came to me and said, “Mr. President, you’re on a bad track,” I would slow the baby down and find out if I was on a bad track. Or I’d fire my secretary of state. . . . I mean, if a guy with Colin Powell’s credentials who’s been chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who’d risen up through service to other presidents, who’s been to war, and who is your chosen secretary of state, came to me and said that, I’d say, “Okay. What do we need to do? Where are we? What are the downsides? What haven’t we done?”
ON THE “AXIS OF EVIL”
Do you think that the idea of lumping North Korea, Iran and Iraq together is, from a policy point of view, possible or wise, as Bush did in his 2002 State of the Union?
No, it’s neither wise nor possible because they are different challenges, different cultures, different historical backgrounds to those challenges. And in the case of the Middle East, we really had an opportunity post-9/11. This is what I think was so important. This is what I saw staring us in the face as I went through 2004 . . . a remarkable opportunity to reconnect to the post-9/11 goodwill of the world, which in my judgment this administration squandered. And that goodwill was perhaps one of our greatest assets. Had we taken that goodwill and built it into a larger strategic concept - I mean, you can go back to Woodrow Wilson. . . . And then you go to Roosevelt. You go to Kennedy . . . and Eisenhower. They all had a larger strategic concept, which - this is important—had the ability to bring the world to our side.
Bush thought this was a strategic concept.
This was an ideological concept, not a strategic concept. . . .
I mean, this is what I would have wanted in first discussions. What are we up against? What is this all about? Did these guys just attack us because this is part of Osama bin Laden’s strategy for a greater caliphate in the Middle East, or are they attacking us for other reasons? . . . And it seems to me that the transformational aspects of it require a much more massive kind of public diplomacy, global cooperation on religious issues as well as on economic issues and human rights and other issues, as it did the barrel of a gun. These guys could only see it in the context of the military piece.
ON POSTWAR PLANNING
[I]t wasn’t really until three months before the war starts that Bush got involved in aftermath planning. And the question is, when do you start, even if you’re contemplating war, which clearly they are, when do you start the ball rolling on aftermath?
Day One. And that is not a Monday morning quarterback comment. That is such a fundamental prerequisite to the concept of contemplating going to war, particularly where you are going to occupy another country. One of the first questions, I’d sit there with a bunch of people at the table, I’d say, “Okay, assuming we go into Iraq, what happens after?” Nobody ever doubted this was going to be short and we were going to win. So we knew we were going to win, so once we’re in Baghdad, what happens? Who’s going to run the country? Will there be electricity? What are the war plans? Can we protect the pipelines on the oil? What’s the ability to make sure people have food? Are you going to guard the ammo dump so you make sure there isn’t looting?
Remember when Rumsfeld said, “Oh, looting happens.”
“Stuff happens.”
I was stunned by that. And I said they’re going to rue the day that they allowed this stuff to get out of control because they sent a message, “No control.” And our kids were being blown up by the very weapons that they didn’t even think about securing on the way in. There should have been an elaborate—in fact it was an elaborate plan and they chose to ignore it. Colin Powell and the State Department had a fairly elaborate plan and I’ve talked to people who are involved in the making of it.
ON DONALD RUMSFELD
In November-December ‘02, Rumsfeld’s making major force deployments to the area but he says we can’t do a big one because it will tell the world diplomacy is over. And he said, “We’re sending these forces and they’re going to be in top fighting shape for about two or three months but then it will start to degrade.” Your reaction?
One of incredulity that a president would even allow that argument to be persuasive and that a secretary of defense would make it in the first place. And shame on all of them for that. That is insulting to Americans and to all of us, the notion that you have to send people to war simply because you put them there. This is just, you know, it was their rush to war.
And then when Rumsfeld in January started telling the president, “You’re losing your options.” And you know, you get to a point where we’re asking our allies, particularly the Saudis, to make commitments and it’s not feasible to back off.
Well, you could always back off it if you haven’t committed the troops and there’s a reason to back off. I mean, if you don’t have intelligence to go to war and you go to war for weapons of mass destruction, you damn well can say, “I’m not giving the order to fire.” What is the shame in going back and saying, “We have new intelligence that indicates something different and I intend as president to exercise my responsibility to the world and to our troops to make sure we’ve exhausted that.”
Do you get in a bind, though, where to credibly threaten force you have to deploy all kinds of troops and then once you’ve deployed them you get into—
The purpose of the deployment of the troops is to get the weapons of mass destruction under control. If at the last moment something indicates to you either there aren’t weapons of mass destruction or you have a way to get them under control, you don’t use the troops and you don’t have to. I mean, those are the tough judgments. Look, what are you going to do? “Oh, gee. We’re locked in. We don’t have sufficient evidence but I’m going to send this kid from Illinois to die anyway?”
ON DOUBTS
Can a president afford to have doubt in a time of war?
Well, you better have your doubts before the war. And you better explore every doubt before the war. But once you’ve committed, you better not have a doubt. You better know what you’re doing and you better be committed to winning and do everything in your power to do that.
Do you think they had a process of doubt?
No. Clearly they didn’t, and that’s a reflection of the president.
But Bush says, when I asked him earlier, I said, “You never get everyone to agree on the use of force.”
I’m not looking for everybody’s agreement. You’re never going to get everybody to agree.
What are you looking for?
What I’m looking for is the broadest possible vetting and examination. And let the debate take place in front of me and I’ll make my judgment. But nobody will have any doubt that every question was asked. Nobody will have any doubt that the alternative theories were examined, that history was examined, that culture was examined, religion was understood, that the dynamics of the region were explored, that people who’ve lived there have been inquired of. When I get to that decision I can explain it and there’s only one rationale, not a whole bunch of shifting rationales. That’s the way you take a nation to war.
ON HISTORY’S VERDICT
I asked Bush in December ‘03, “How do you think history’s going to judge your war?” And that’s when he said, “We don’t know. We won’t know. We’ll all be dead.”
I think history nowadays judges things much more rapidly, number one. And number two, certain things lend themselves to pretty rapid judgment. Vietnam is an example of that. . . . And history is going to judge this very, very, very rapidly, I think.
And severely?
I think history is going to be very, very tough on not just the way the war has been managed, but on the way in which the decision to go to war was carried out. It’s going to be a low moment . . .in the presidency in history.
57 Comments
New comments for this entry are closed.
It’s a powerful interview, all right. I read it last night and was struck by the detail and directness of the answers. This is another good example of just how wrong it truly was that Mr. Bush got selected president in 2004 over Sen. Kerry.
(And in all fairness to those driving the bus on this blog, the confusing formatting in which Mr. Woodward’s questions are not clearly delineated from Sen. Kerry’s answers is not a sign that something got lost in translation—that’s the way the interview appears on the WaPo’s own site as well.)
43 is the worst president in history bar none,
Otter
kerry just said that he had “plans” on what he’d do differently if elected but he never gave any specifics on his plans. You can’t beat something (bush) with nothing (kerry).
get over the 2004 election already, bush won fair and square by over 3 million votes.
Concentrate on 2006 or your party will lose again.
PT,
Texas has many things and people to recommend it, but George W, Rove, all the financiers of the trash ads, Swift Boat lies and Bob Perry, aren’t among them.
With as much written about the election disenfranchisement, tactics and funny voting, I disagree with won fair and square, or decisively.
Having declared war, illegally and immorally, Bush gave us few options in 2004, but hope he’d take Kerry’s suggestions to impact Iraq for the better.
Bush hasn’t taken advice from anyone, his own military, and bogged down our ability to lead because of his disaster in Iraq, because of NO PLANS.
Proud Texan
My, my aren’t you wingnuts defensive these days. I’m not sure how you missed what Kerry would do differently it’s in the interview in black and white and there’s more about what he would differently here as well.
It appears you simply spout off rather than actually reading the interview.
The party that is poised to lose in November is your party. And your president has no plan for when they do.
Of course that should come as no small surprise because in truth, Bush is the man with out a plan.
“I’m not sure how you missed what Kerry would do differently it’s in the interview in black and white…”
yea pammy, this interview is dated 2006 isn’t it? wasn’t the election in 2004, 2 years BEFORE he finally comes up with a plan?
Hey Texan,
How about this plan from king george. Go after Osama, but leave before you get him. Go to Iraq and look for wmd, never find it, so change your story why you went in there 4 times. Fly on an aircraft carrier, tell everyone mission complete and have no exit strategy. Keep cutting the rich people’s taxes during a war, the whole time while we borrow money from China to finance the war. How about this strategy, sub contract security in our ports to a Country who has ties to Iran. There’s a great strategy. How about lets stay the course, what ever the hell the course is. Mr. Texan
turn on druggie limbaugh tomorrow, drink your kool ade and climb back under your right wing rock.
Yo Texan, what the hell are you doin here? Go post your pro-Bush BS on anncoulter or rushlimbaugh.com or something.
Otter’s right, Bush 43 is the worst president ever. Why don’t we send Bush and Cheney to Iraq instead? If Kerry was elected, at least we would have a president who had actually been to war instead of going AWOL in the Texas National Guard.
Proud Texan
If you want to read a copy of Kerry’s ‘04 plan I would be happy to provide it. It’s clear you didn’t read it when it was available then.
The “we’ll all be dead” comment by Bush always makes my skin crawl. Such negligence! Such responsibility for carnage! Such waste of our tax dollars & human life, of our countrymen and women & of the Iraqi citizenry, including children, by someone supposedly “pro-life”
Foreign policy under W has been immoral.
KERRY BACK YOURSELF UP!
You are sitting on 13 million, while the Democrats are at a huge disadvantage. Just because your want to run for President again you are putting our congress at risk.
Put your money where you mouth is. Transfer the 13 million to the DCCC.
Hey Ray—
I’m not sure this answers your precise question though I’ve seen it addressed before and I know that the explanation included where the money went—and what legal restrictions were involved in where it could and could not be used. I didn’t bookmark the location or I’d give it to you here. Suffice it to say, that just because you’re ignorant of how it was managed, does not mean that it was not managed well.
But try this information on for size which was posted at dailykos by Casey Morris:
Ray Suelzer
Kerry has raised more money for Dems candidates across the country than any other Dem in office. His efforts have been acknowledged by the DCCC and they have been grateful for his help.
He has put his money where his mouth is. Where’s yours?
Hey, ray Suelzer:
Now, that’s a *real* stretch. What’s this, if you can’t debate someone’s policies or positions on their own merits you go for the obscurely-framed ad hominem attacks instead?
First of all, what you’re talking about is irrelevant. Second of all, it’s irrational. And third, it’s completely ineffective even from a trollboating standpoint.
Of course, if you want to start comparing personal net worths and how those funds are being put to use by representatives of either (or any) political party, then you’re opening up a huge can of worms.
Shucks, Mr. Cheney’s take of the war-profiteering proceeds from his Halliburton connections alone actually exceeds the net worth of a Mr. Kerry or even a Ms. Clinton.
I’ll leave the expository details to dwahzon and Pamela, since they got there faster with the facts this time. But that’s neither here nor there.
Why don’t you share with us what your *own* net worth is, Mr. (or Mrs.) Suelzer, and tell us just how much of that you have transferred to the RNC yourself? Surely you’ve already put all your own money where your own mouth is, correct?
If you do have anything left over after all your generous contributions to your own party’s bloated war chests, though, you might want to consider using some of it to pay for some basic typing, grammar, and literacy lessons. English is the most common language in this country, so it might not hurt you to learn how to use it properly.
(I don’t know what it is with you guys, but you all seem to be seriously deprived in the common language skills department. Just gotta love that No Child Left Behind program your team pushed though a few years back, huh? It’s obviously done you folks a world of good so far…)
buddy can you paradigm,
Otter
Ray,
As dwahzon and Pamela have posted, John Kerry has raised a lot of cash for Democratic candidates since 2004. Hotline also mentioned it here back in July, and the number has gone up considerably since then:
More importantly, John Kerry reacted rapidly in the key strategic race of PA-07, being the first national Democrat (I believe) to come out strongly in support of Joe Sestak, raising $90,000 for Joe in the first weeks of the campaign - a campaign that now is widely expected to yield us a key congressional seat. John Kerry has played a big role in making Sestak’s campaign a success. So, while your concern about getting Dems elected in 2006 is well-founded, I believe your concern about whether John Kerry is doing enough, is not.
Ray
Any further suggestions?
I need to correct myself here. I implied in my earlier remark that Mr. (or Mrs.) Suelzer is a Republican by inclination. I should not have assumed that. He (or she) could be an equally clueless Democrat instead. My bad.
mea culpa mea maxima et cetera,
Otter
Ray,
One more article you should consider. From Roll Call, via the Democratic Daily (thanks, Pamela!), from back in May:
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2827
Oh, wait, didn’t you just say JK should “put his money where his mouth is”? But Rahm Emmanuel, head of the DCCC, says Kerry’s doing just that!
Anyway, I hope that settles the question for you.
Looks like the ‘defeatocrats’ gained 2 more republican ““followers”” today. Hagel and Warner seem to think that only NOW is the time to consider the failure of the administration’s policies. Looks like the cell phones and soccer balls we provided and the untold BILLIONS and near 3000 PRECIOUS lives of our troops, had a DELAYED impact on the sycophants of dubya. TOO long delayed ! Maybe Howard Dean’ll REALLY speak his mind and motivate Americans to get out and vote. It’s time for Mr. Kerry to show some anger at what’s been happening too.
arthur,
Yeah, I’d say it’s time to get angry about this. I think most of us - including Kerry - have been angry for quite some time.
You may want to watch the first video on the Multimedia page of this site - “John Kerry’s Address at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner”. I think you’ll detect some anger there. You’ll find it in many of his other recent speeches, too. (Just because it isn’t shown on tv, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen)
Hey Arthur,
Go check JK’s speech that he gave on Friday night. He’s been saying the same thing for a long time but it doesn’t get covered in any media channels that you watch.
You can read it or watch it.
dwahzon,
Beat you to it. Nyah, nyah… and all that.
;-)
Arthur
Mr Kerry has been doing that for sometime now. You can check the Kerry archives here for a complete run down - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?cat=2
Yeah! It’s about time they stopped playing dead and got up there and started shouting about it like the rest of us have been all along! Now they’re right out there in front with us! They’re mad as hell and they’re not gonna fake it anymore!
there mr. demille did I act angry enough this time?,
Otter
MH, well, I would have beat you if they’d get these damn cookies fixed.
I hit post after I’d typed it in once complete with 2 links but no name or email addy and ended up having to completely re-enter it.
grrrr!!
But I’m glad that we both had it covered.
Speaking of cookies… anyone know when they will be baked? We’d all be able to respond to things faster without the extra typing.
Otter is absolutely right. GWB will go down as WPE (worst President ever).
The majority of Americans know the Iraqi war is based on a lie. I for one, would like to see JK say at the beginning of each of these kinds of interviews something to the effect of, “we would not be in this kind of mess in Iraq if America hadn’t been fed a bunch of lies”. To make comparisons about war Cabinets and conversations with previous Presidents totally ignores the absolute fact that this war has taken place for the benefit of the corporate heads of our oil based economy.
Gee, a clever, cynical otterpuss, how unusual.
Posted by MH | October 15, 2006 7:26 PM
Great quote by Rahm Emmanuel.. frankly, I didn’t expect that kind of appreciation from him. so it was a nice surprise! And Sen. Kerry definitely deserves the praise. . I don’t know of anyone else in Congress who has done as much. ..
I also have to say that there seem to be some exceptional Dem. candidates for Congress this cycle; kudos to the candidates, and all the Dems who have helped recruit and support them ( I assume that Emmanuel deserves some credit here , and also Sen. Kerry, especially for his explicit, passionate support of the vets running for Congress. .)
Patrick Murphy’s (Dem candidate in PA) slogan is: “To change Washington, you need to change the people you send to Washington.” Looks like we’re getting there.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Posted by Otter | October 15, 2006 8:15 PM
Otter,
I thought you resembled a little furry creature with long whiskers.
http://www.otternet.com/
I just want to say how wonderful it is to see this blog up and running again. Let’s get the train back up and running on those tracks.
Thanks for the link, oncall, and I’ll match it with this one because they do valuable wildlife preservation work all around the globe: http://www.otter.org
I’ll also use this opportunity to point out something that most of the current readership here doesn’t know (and probably doesn’t much care about either, but hey).
I use the nickname ‘Otter’ for this and a variety of other online activities not to be cutesy or anything, but because it’s been my default nom du tron for many years now. It started out as a totem-animal reference back in the day, but now it’s sort of taken on an existence of its own since so many people know me by that nick.
So signing my posts with the nickname ‘Otter’ is not just some trivial cuddly furry sort of affectation on my part; it’s more like an ongoing acceptance of what’s become the online status quo for me over the years.
And that’s pretty much all there is to that. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled blog, which is already in progress. So go on out there and vote one for the Gipper!
which is not to say that actual otters aren’t cute & cuddly little buggers in themselves,
Otter
Does anybody have a link to John Kerry’s interview with Bill O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor”?
I haven’t seen it but I can’t find it on the Internet either.
Dan the Man
I have the transcript here - John Kerry on Bill O’Reilly’s ‘No Spin Zone’
There’s a link there to the video on Fox, I think it still works, but my firewall wrecks havoc with Fox videos.
Dan the Man
Let me try this again:
John Kerry on Bill O’Reilly’s ‘No Spin Zone’
In addition to all the other comments about Kerry’s fund raising. That money was donated to him. It could be considered unfair by his donors to pass it to other candidates.
It is also political reality to save any war chest for the next campaign. Whether he decides to run for the Senate again or chooses the WH (YES!), that is only seed money for starting up either campaign.
Ahhhh, feels good to be under the Kerry umbrella. Been wondering in the forrest for a couple of years….nice little blog here….
I haven’t bought Woodward’s book yet, but I plan on doing just that today. I was reading some excerpts from it on timeonline/uk.
Cheney was so determined that he even took info from a guy who was a middleman for Reagan in the Iran-Contra scandal.
You can read the whole article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2404016,00.html
On Rumsfeld and Jay Garner
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2393399,00.html
This interview is another example of why Kerry should be president:
A president who analyzes the problem, tries to find a solution, is engaged… and is ready to recognize he does not know everything.
What a novel concept in this difficult times.
However, how will the media see that? That is a more difficult question, given the way the media reported the Fox interview. Barely nothing on the 13 first minutes on the issues that really matter, and tons of idiotic comments about the 08 race.
fedup, funny that you should mention Ghorbanifar in the excerpt you quoted.
He’s in the news again—passing info to Hoekstra it appears.
Check out this article at Raw story.
Thanks for that link Dwahzon.
So Hoesktra who is the chairman of the Intelligence Com. is meeting with this known liar. Even more that this known liar is on the federal payroll.
...along with all the other known liars on the federal payroll, that is.
of course they’re lying their ships are moving,
Otter
I agree entirely with FrenchGirlFromMA. Problem is that Kerry is too high brow for most voters. Bush, on the other hand is just right. His staccato wild eyed manner seems to resonate with the folks. Dont quite understand it but Kerry can put a guy to sleep. As for Bush, he is the perfect Anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns into disaster. But people vote for him. totally perplexed.
Newish,
That’s because the media works for Bush and the GOP. It was their job to sell Bush as “the perfect Anti-Midas.” Katrina, the Iraq war and other things have come to light so Bush isn’t the regular Bubba that they thought he was.
As far as what you said about Kerry, people that have met him or seen him in person will highly disagree with your assessment.
Newish, I’m guessing you never met Senator Kerry. The dozen standing Os he got at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner Friday night weren’t stretching exercises to keep the crowd awake. He owned that room.
People voted for Bush because of the terror alerts, because of the media hype and because they just didn’t know the truth.
I’ve met Senator Kerry. I’ve also spoken with the very lovely Teresa, and I can tell you from my own experience that neither is anything like your description of the Senator.
I hope you have an opportunity to meet them yourself, but take my word. They’re good people.
Pamela,
You hit the nail on the head: The wingnuts are getting mighty defensive. It’s no wonder posting this terrific interview is attracting a swarm of them. Speaking of Iraq, here is another report confirming what Senator Kerry has been saying for months:
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20061016-105826-4138r
Some proud Texans are yapping about Kerry has “no plans.” If they just paid attention to the man - maybe, they’ll ‘hear’ the darn plans. If this doesn’t help, then they should at least remember that pride is a double-edge sword.
THE “5-R” PLAN (shhhh! TOP SECRET! do not reveal to (R)epublicans(!):
1. (R)edeploy fr. Iraq 2. (R)e-commit to Afghanistan * 3. (R)educe our dependence on foreign oil 4. (R)einforce our homeland defense 5. (R)estore America’s moral leadership in the world.
IIIIIII (EEEEE)-HAAA!!!! (sp?)
Newish got it right on the bat. The only reason Kerry was competitve in the ‘04 race was because of the anti-Bush hatred. Truth is almost nobody voted for Kerry; they were just voting against Bush. The president even told Kerry himself that “a plan is not a litany of complaints.” Bush voters actually voted FOR their candidate. Guess who won.
How do you do that, wiseguy? Obviously, you are omniscient, with the actual ability to see inside the minds of most voters. Pretty damned amazing, IMO, but here’s a tip - that trick is even more impressive when you are correct. You should work on that.
Quick, what am I thinking RIGHT NOW? I’ll give you a hint, I’m pretty sure it’s the same thing most everyone reading your comment is thinking, and it’s not very flattering to you, I’m afraid.
Of course people supported and still support Senator Kerry. He has a three million member e-mail list. His events are sold out and his crowds are totally fired up. I watched Road to the White House on C-Span the other night. They covered a speech by Giuliani and the NH Kerry event. Giuliani’s was painful, and there was no crowd response. I’ve witnessed more interesting stuff flattened on the side of the highway. Senator Kerry’s speech, on the other hand, got a dozen standing ovations. The dinner was sold out and the crowd was energized.
Bush’s comment only means he hasn’t read Senator Kerry’s plan. Of course, that would require actual reading, and I’m not sure he’s finished his ‘Shakespeares’ yet. As for Bush voters actually voting for the candidate, I think Mr. Bush was wrong when he mangled the ‘fool me once’ adage. From the looks of his poll numbers, folks are learning that they really were ‘fooled again’.
Oh, hell. There’s your guy on TV right now, signing away the moral authority of the United States of America. Again.
Apologies. WiseMAN, not wiseguy. My mistake.
:-)
Twenty-one days to the November election also means it is almost four years since the JohnKerry.com site was first rolled out.
What a long strange trip its been. Unfortunately not all has been for the good.
We are less free then we were.
We are less safe then we were.
We are less the community we were.
We are less the shining light I can see from my window out in the NYC harbor.
Winning new House and Senate seats in November is critical to reversing the horrors of almost six years under George W. Bush.
We are not just Democrats, we are freedom fighters.
We are not just Democrats, we are the a new wave of American Justice.
We are not just Democrats, we are the Americans our forefathers dreamed we should be.
Twenty-one days to the November elections. Time to get out and do what you can and a little more.
Straighten up that yard sign.
Call a friend and let him know you are proud to vote for Democrats.
Thank a Veteran.
If nobody voted for Kerry, only against Bush (because Kerry stood for nothing), then why did John Eisenhower (the son of Dwight D., and a Republican for 50 years) publicly endorse John Kerry in the last election?
LOL!
One of my all time favorite quotes from a Republican.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower.
I don’t think the son saw much of his dad in today’s Republican party.
DD Eisenhower, World War II general and U.S. president, warned everyone to “beware the military industrial complex.”—- the self- perpetuating machine that big oil and big industry are stuck in. After actually serving time in battle, seeing the carnage and the big picture, was very pro peace and diplomacy in the post World War II world. The UN started up after the big wars to prevent war from happening again. Bush is the biggest “provacateur” we have seen in many generations. It’s not Democracy, as I was initiated into it, that he is pushing. More like a fascist regime. Time for regime change!
As a former United States Marine who participated in the evacuations of Cambodia and Vietnam in April 1975 while assigned to Heavy Helicopter Squadron HMH-463 operating off the U.S.S. Hancock (CVA-19), I witnessed first hand the disasters that ended the U.S. involvement in those wars. I came to learn later that the original justification for the war was based on reports that the U.S.S. Maddox was attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats on August 2nd and 4th, 1964. The attack on August 4, 1964 never occurred and the belief that the ship was being attacked was based on a faulty radar image caused by bad weather. That information was passed on to the White House, never the less President Johnson pressed the case for war before Congress and in the media. As a consequence of the President not informing Congress that the August 4th attack never occurred, Congress passed Joint Congressional Resolution HJ 1145 which lead to the Vietnam war.
The similarities between the faulty intelligence which prompted Congress to pass the “Tonkin Gulf Resolution” and the cooked up intelligence that Congress used to enact Public Law 107-243, the resolution which authorized President Bush to attack Iraq are chilling. Both Presidents manipulated intelligence to get permission to take our nation to war for goals they could not get the American people to support by being honest with them.
After carefully studying and reviewing all the reasons President Bush has proffered up regarding attacking, and occupying Iraq, and applying the principle of Occam’s razor the only reason I can deduce for President Bush’s real reason for attacking Iraq was to gain control of that nations proven and unproven oil reserves. I heard the WMD & terrorist arguments, I heard and continue to hear the establishing democracy arguments but based on my research that is all a bunch of bull. On September 23, 2005, The Christian Science Monitor ran a story regarding a report by the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). The report claims that only between 4 to 10 percent of the fighters in Iraq opposing the U.S. forces are foreigners. That the U.S. and Iraqi Government are manufacturing the terrorist variable to maintain continued domestic support for the war. On November 17, 2005 The Washington Post printed a story that downplayed reports by the Pentagon that foreign fighters were responsible for the violence in Iraq.
All the rhetoric emanating from this White House about Iraq carries about as much creditability as Congressman Folley’s desire to turn over a new page. My research on the actual reason the U.S. and England attacked Iraq in March 2003 is based in the same reasons Britain attacked and occupied that nation after World War I. Oil. I am disappointed that our elected leaders, both Democrat and Republican have not come clean regarding this issue but continue to debate the course of the war and the fowl ups in judgment by the Bush administration behind the body guard of lies about the causes and necessity for staying the course in Iraq. Here is why I believe that this war is only about securing access to Iraq’s oil reserves.
Former U.S. General Norman Schwarzkopf, the commanding officer of coalition forces in the 1991 Gulf War stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in February 1990 that, “Mideast oil is the West’s lifeblood. It fuels us today, and being 77 percent of the Free Worlds proven reserves, is going to fuel us when the rest of the world has run dry. It is estimated that within 20 to 40 years the U.S. will have virtually depleted its economically available oil reserves, while the Persian Gulf region will still have at least 100 years of proven oil reserves.” Those comments were uttered over sixteen years ago.
Today, the United States is facing an energy crisis that threatens our economy and status as the globes only remaining superpower. The U.S. is down to its last 22 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, including those in Alaska and off the Coast of California. These reserves have declined by around 20% since 1990. Total U.S. oil production in 2002 was down sharply about 2.4 MMBD, or 23% from the 10.6 MMBD average in 1985. U.S. crude oil production is at 50-year lows. Today, the United States is consuming an average of about 19.7 MMBD of which it imports 11.2 MMBD or about 57% of total daily demand. Nearly 40% of these imports come from OPEC nations, of that nearly half comes from Persian Gulf sources. At our current rate of consumption, should all imported sources of oil be interrupted, the United States would completely consume it proven reserves in as few as three years.
U. S. and other western nations energy corporations had been activity engaged in Iraq since World War I. The five major world oil firms from the United States and United Kingdom, were excluded from operations in Iraq when that nation nationalized the oil industry in 1972. During the Iran/Iraq war, its oil infrastructure was virtually wiped out. In 1996 the Iraqi legislature under the U.N. Oil for Food Program began awarding oil and oil infrastructure contracts worth hundreds-of-billions in revenues to companies from China, Russia, Syria and Turkey. Those contracts to repair, operate, maintain, pump, and ship the Iraqi crude to international markets alarmed U.S. energy industry firms for it meant that they would be frozen out of operations in Iraq for decades. With the U.S. oil industry in decline, U.S. oil companies and oil services firms faced a challenging financial future. For them, securing access to the Iraqi oil fields with the second largest proven reserves in the world (112 billion barrels, 11% of the worlds total) was essential to their economic survival.
Iraqi oil is vital to the five big oil companies from the United Sates, and England (Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron/Texaco and British Petroleum). Iraq’s oil is of high quality because of the composition of it’s chemical properties, high carbon and low sulfur content. Those factors make it especially suitable for refining into high-value products. Because of these properties, Iraqi oil sells for a premium on the world market. In addition, more than a third of Iraq’s current proven reserves lie just 1,800 feet below the surface. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Western oil firms estimate that they can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than a $1.50 and possibly as little as $1.00. That number includes all exploration, oilfield development and production costs, including a 15% return. By comparison, a barrel of oil costs $5 to produce on other low cost nations like Malaysia and Oman. Production costs in Mexico and Russia may be as low as $6-$8 a barrel. Offshore production costs in regions like the North Sea can run as high as $12 to $15 a barrel. In Texas and other U.S. and Canadian fields where wells must be drilled deep into small reservoirs, costs can run as high as $20 a barrel. Assuming the price of a barrel of oil on world markets commands $50 and assuming that Iraq’s reserves are as high as 250 billion barrels after production costs, future gross revenues could run as high as $6 trillion. Assuming a 50/50 split with the a new Iraqi regime and also assuming a production period of fifty years annual profits could run as high as $60 billion. To put that number in perspective Exxon/Mobil 2005 collective profits from world wide operations were $36.1 billion. Chevron/Texaco 2005 annual profits from world wide operations were $14.1 billion. ConocoPhillips 2005 annual profits from world wide operations were $13.5 billion. B.P’s 2004 profits were $16.2 billion from world wide operations. Royal Dutch Shell’s 2005 profits were $18.54 billion from world wide operations.
That amount of money makes Iraqi oil one hell of an incentive for U.S. oil firms to pressure the Bush administration into attacking Iraq, especially when the cost of acquiring the concessions to the Iraqi petroleum fields are financed by the U.S. taxpayers and paid for with the lives of their military sons and daughters serving in Iraq.
The energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of energy has estimated that Iraqi reserves could possibly total over 400 billion barrels. If those estimates prove to be valid Iraq could be sitting astride fully 30% of the earth’s total reserves by the middle of this century or sooner if exploration is allowed to go forward. Should those estimates prove to be accurate, a simple mathematical calculation demonstrates that the revenues and profits will sour to levels much greater than if estimated reserves are 250 billion barrels.
Subsequent to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam, the contracts worth hundreds-of-billions of dollars awarded to firms from Russian, China, Syria, and Turkey awarded under the U.N. Oil For Food program were vacated by the Coalition Provisional Authority by order of then U.S. Director, Paul Bremer. The contracts to re-build, maintain, and operate the Iraqi energy producing infrastructure and to ship both the Iraqi oil and natural gas to markets around the world was then awarded to the U.S. firm Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas oil company in March 2002 in a close door, non-competitive bidding session in Baghdad. Halliburton you may recall is the firm Vice President Richard Cheney headed before joining the Republican ticket in the 2000 election. The new Iraqi constitution of 2005 influenced by U.S. advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiations are currently underway to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the super-giant Majnoon, whose 21 billion barrels are worth in excess of $1.5 trillion at today’s prices.
The question is how in the world would U.S. Oil company’s wield sufficient influence within the Bush administration to pressure it to conjure up and use faulty intelligence to justify attacking a sovereign third world nation in order to steal its lollipops. Look what my research reveals.
The election of President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, both with backgrounds in the U.S. energy industry gave executives and lobbyists from that business sector a reason to celebrate . Particularly content were the members of the National Petroleum Council whose membership raised a lot of money for the Bush-Cheney 2000 election campaign.# The appointment by President Bush of six cabinet members whose professional employment backgrounds were also embedded in the energy industry gave members further justification for joy. By the time President Bush completed assembling his administration, it was stacked with individuals with a vested interest in the performance of energy securities. The top 100 appointees private investment holdings totaled some $144.6 million spread across 221 separate investments in the energy sector # Obviously, the influence of the U.S. energy industry inside the Bush administration was significant. Within two weeks after taking office President Bush formed the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), with Vice-President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton as Chairman. Immediately, this group set to work developing the energy policy for the Bush administration. To this day much of the activities of the NEPDG remains classified even though several Freedom of Information requests have been filed with the U.S. Government since April 19, 2001 seeking release of documents related to its activities. Both Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club have filed law suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia attempting to force release of documents regarding its work.
On March 5, 2002 the Bush administration was ordered to make a full disclosure of NEPDG‘s activities. In the summer of 2003, just a few months after the invasion of Iraq, a partial disclosure of materials was made public by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Maps and charts dated March 2001 of Iraq’s oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects were forthcoming. One of the projects disclosures was titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”# Some six months prior to the events of September 11, 2001, and two years before the invasion of Iraq, the National Energy Policy Development Group chaired by the Vice President of the United States was conducting discussions regarding the Iraqi oil infrastructure. On June 24, 2004 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Administration would not have to revel anymore secret details of the task force.
I like and support Senator Kerry. I just hope he starts coming clean about the reasons for this war. If he does not then he, like Bush will not bring the fighting to a conclusion. The U.S. needs the Iraqi oil. The U.S. long range economic security depends on the Iraqi reserves. Unless and until all Americans know and grasp this no U.S. elected official will be able to reach an accord with the Iraqi insurgents that will bring peace to that troubled land.
Robert-
I’m not disputing your argument, you’ve certainly done the research. You use the phrase “at our current rate of consumption”, though, and I think that’s a big part of this. Sen Kerry has been pushing a strategy of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and looking to alternatives. Don’t you think that’s where the answer lies?
In his speech last Friday, he said:
We need you to stand up and fight again. Stand up and fight if you want an America that is finally and forever independent of Mideast oil – an America that relies on its ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family.
In his energy speech at Faneuil Hall last month he said:
Nothing will change if autocratic regimes keep pumping prosperity out of the ground to pay off a new generation with petrodollar welfare checks. We cannot change this if our oil money is sustaining the status quo. We must end the Empire of Oil.
Robert, I do agree with you that oil was a big part of what drove the Bush/Cheney Iraq war. I really don’t think it had much, if anything to do with defense or with “bringing democracy”. That’s my opinion, and it seems pretty much validated by what you’ve posted. But your conclusion is based on a continued dependence on foreign oil, a non renewable resource, and I think there must be a better way. It will run out some day, even in the ME.
Also, have your watched “Iraq for Sale”? I saw it Saturday night with some friends and listened to Sen Kerry on a conference call after. Lots of money being made on Bush’s war.
Thank you for your service, and thank you for your very interesting comment.
GV
Thank you for your response to my comments. I respect your defense of the alternative fuels concept to rid this nation of foreign imports of oil. However, I think it is important for American’s who subscribe to the notion that alternative sources of fuel could replace oil to fully grasp the fact that this nation is tooled for oil consuming vehicles. That industry took over eighty years to construct, is ingrained into the American economic system, like blood is to a body. Change is a very difficult thing for people to accept. Most folks who have purchased a gas guzzling machine have at least a five to seven year note on the car or SUV. There is no way Joe or Susie Smith are going to give up their SUV or toy hauler for the “idea’ of a alternative fueled mode of transportation. A modicum of serious research will demonstrate that those notions are simply impossible to achieve within the next fifty years.
To extract ourselves from fossil fuels, at a minimum we as a nation , separate of all industrialized countries would have to embark upon a massive retooling campaign to rid ourselves of the internal combustion engine. That is something that auto makers from any nation are simply unwilling to do. Any such legislation would rile not only the automotive industry but the tens of thousands of labor union employees to fight tooth and nail against such an effort. No, we as a nation, as a globe, are glued to oil as the fuel to drive our transpiration needs for at least the next century. Get used to the fact. Automotive and energy industry executives and their lobbyists know and accept this and are pouring millions and millions of dollars into campaigns and public relations efforts to ensure that change does not occur.
A simple read of the following article shows why the environmentalist arguments for turning off the oil pipelineand focusing on alternative fuel sources are simply a pipe dream and an error in judgment.
Ethanol could leave the world hungry
One tankful of the latest craze in alternative energy could feed one person for a year, Lester Brown tells Fortune
By Lester Brown
August 16 2006: 5:39 AM EDT
The growing myth that corn is a cure-all for our energy woes is leading us toward a potentially dangerous global fight for food. While crop-based ethanol -the latest craze in alternative energy - promises a guilt-free way to keep our gas tanks full, the reality is that overuse of our agricultural resources could have consequences even more drastic than, say, being deprived of our SUVs. It could leave much of the world hungry.
This year cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption. The problem is simple: It takes a whole lot of agricultural produce to create a modest amount of automotive fuel.
The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today’s entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand.
Worldwide increase in grain consumption
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that world grain consumption will increase by 20 million tons this year, roughly 1%. Of that, 14 million tons will be used to fuel cars in the U.S., leaving only six million tons to cover the world’s growing food needs.
Already commodity prices are rising. Sugar prices have doubled over the past 18 months (driven in part by Brazil’s use of sugar cane for fuel), and world corn and wheat prices are up one-fourth so far this year.
For the world’s poorest people, many of whom spend half or more of their income on food, rising grain prices can quickly become life threatening.
Once stimulated solely by government subsidies, biofuel production is now being driven largely by the runaway price of oil. Many food commodities, including corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and sugar cane, can be converted into fuel; thus the food and energy economies are beginning to merge. The market is setting the price for farm commodities at their oil-equivalent value. As the price of oil climbs, so will the price of food.
In some U.S. Cornbelt states, ethanol distilleries are taking over the corn supply. In Iowa, 25 ethanol plants are operating, four are under construction, and another 26 are planned.
Iowa State University economist Bob Wisner observes that if all those plants are built, distilleries would use the entire Iowa corn harvest. In South Dakota, ethanol distilleries are already claiming over half that state’s crop.
The key to lessening demand for grain is to commercialize ethanol production from cellulosic materials such as switchgrass or poplar trees, a prospect that is at least five years away.
Malaysia, the leading exporter of palm oil, is emerging as the biofuel leader in Asia. But after approving 32 biodiesel refineries within the past 15 months, it recently suspended further licensing while it assesses the adequacy of its palm oil supplies. Fast-rising global demand for palm oil for both food and biodiesel purposes, coupled with rising domestic needs, has the government concerned that there will not be enough to go around.
We are facing an epic competition between the 800 million motorists who want to protect their mobility and the two billion poorest people in the world who simply want to survive. In effect, supermarkets and service stations are now competing for the same resources.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm?cnn=yes