The next sh*tstorm

[whometense]

Anyone else wonder where Tim Russert got that question about the Kerry campaign, focus groups, and Abu Ghraib? Please let me know if someone has posted this already, and I'll delete.

It seems Joe Klein's got a book coming out. Excerpted in TIME here: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1181593,00.html

Perhaps the worst moment came with the Bush Administration torture scandal: How to respond to Abu Ghraib? Hold a focus group. But the civilians who volunteered for an Arkansas focus group were conflicted; ultimately, they believed the Bush Administration should do whatever was necessary to extract information from the "terrorists." The consultants were unanimous in their recommendation to the candidate: Don't talk about it. Kerry had entered American politics in the early 1970s, protesting the Vietnam War, including the atrocities committed by his fellow soldiers in Vietnam. But he followed his consultants' advice, never once mentioning Abu Ghraib -- or the Justice Department memo that "broadened" accepted interrogation techniques -- in his acceptance speech or, remarkably, in his three debates with Bush.

Greg Sargent writes about Shrum's rebuttal in the American Prospect here: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009795

The dispute is noteworthy, because Klein's version of Kerry's focus-grouping appears to be a key piece of his indictment of the campaign, at least in the excerpt. The book, a broad indictment of the "pollster-consultant industrial complex," is called Politics Lost.

When we contacted Klein about Shrum's comments, he dismissed the accusation, saying that Shrum refused to speak to him for the book. Klein emailed us the following statement:

Everything in the Kerry section of the book was double and triple-sourced. I spoke directly to the person who conducted the focus groups. A Kerry pollster told me that the consultants' view of Abu Ghraib was unanimous, which was confirmed by Kerry staff members and other Kerry consultants. And, of course, the proof is on the record: Kerry did not mention Abu Ghraib -- or, equally important, the Bush Justice Department Torture Memo -- in either his acceptance speech or the three debates. I like and respect Bob, but I find it odd that he was willing to talk to you and not to me, despite repeated requests during the writing of this book.

It's worth noting that Kerry himself has said that he called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld based partly on Abu Gharib. Either way, this fight is only going to get worse in coming days, when Klein's book comes out and those indicted in the book blast back.

I guess our mission here is clear - research all of JK's statements around the time Abu Ghraib was exposed, and see what he said when. I can NOT believe he never mentioned it. Not once??

[Mass]

1. Magistral piece of disinformation

The statement is factually correct:

Kerry did not mention Abu Graib in the debates (the subject did not come) or in the acceptance speech that was about his vision, not Bush's screw-ups.

However, what Klein does not tell us is that Kerry mentionned it many, many other times during the campaign, letting people who read the book think that he NEVER spoke about it.

[karynnj]

14. Didn't he mention internation law and the Geneva Convention

in the first debate. If so, that is a covert mention of the issue - coded, but Bush coded his abortion answer and people thought that was smart because it clued the base in without inflaming the non-base.

[Mass]

15. I know, but as Klein cannot be bothered dealing with the truth,

he would not have recognized that.

It is actually too bad he took this example because I agree with the general line of the story. Consultants are way too important in Democratic campaign and do not the candidate be the candidate.

[JI7]

2. he mentioned it many times throughout the campaign

including during that major even with President Clinton in Pennsylvania.

[ProSense]

3. Several mentions, but here are two

before:

Kerry says Rumsfeld should resign over Iraq inmate abuse
Criticizes Bush for not being aware
By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff | May 7, 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/05/07/kerry_says_rumsfeld_should_resign_over_iraq_inmate_abuse

and after the campaign:

No. 10, the war in Iraq has undermined the basic rule of international law that protects captured Americans. The Geneva Conventions are supposed to protect our forces, but the brutal interrogation techniques used at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have lowered the bar for treatment of POWs and endangered our soldiers throughout the world.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S9774&position=all

[wisteria]

4. I worried about that question as soon as Russert mentioned it.

After I went back and watched the interview again, I was satisfied with Kerry's answer. Although, I think he had to know about the discussion going on around him. That part, needed a better response. It was apparent that Kerry was surprised by the question, but Senator Kerry mentioned he had brought up this matter and spoke about it many times.

So why did Kline put this in his book? I think it was done to try to discredit Senator Kerry's integrity.

[ProSense]

7. Klein is a jerk.

I still don't understand whats behind the painstaking effort some are undertaking to twist relatively understandable situations into these convoluted scenarios. They make for silly reading because the substance just isn't there, and the spin attempt becomes blatantly obvious.

From now on I want them to ask McCain about the torture amendment and Bush's signing statement.

[sandnsea]

5. Actually, the Times piece is pretty good

I agree with it. A Senate campaign is about bringing home what the voters want. A Presidential campaign is about getting the voter to trust you to see more than what the voter wants, it's about tossing your house keys to the guy and knowing he won't screw your wife, run up your credit cards, or show porn to your kids. That he'll be able to handle whatever comes up and do the right thing, whatever it might be.

I don't know whether Kerry was over-consulted or not, but I do know Democrats don't get national campaigns. Democrats as a party, not just JK. The fact that he did break out and talk about torture and Abu Ghraib on occasion, proves he didn't just listen to focus groups. Maybe he should have done it more, I don't know.

And they focus grouped Arkansas??? I've lived in Arkansas, I have family in Arkansas. Interesting choice.

[karynnj]

13. Exactly,

I think in actuality, Kerry played this as well as he could. Also, I think Kerry commented at least as much as any of his competitors in the Democratic party. The Abu Gharbeh events were known before Kerry got the nomination.

The Abu Ghrabeh charges were very well publicized themselves. All of us have pictures seared into our brains. The fact that a political cartoonist could convert the statue of liberty to reflect one of the more iconic Abu Ghrabeh pictures means the charges' coverage in the population was likely saturated. If Kerry would have made a big deal of it, I doubt there would have been a huge increase in the number of people who knew about it or who were horrified by it.

It is crazy to think that even one person horified by Abu Ghrabeh thought that Kerry was equally likely to do this - especially when the right went to great lengths to insure that everyone knew that Kerry spoke out against the atrocities in Vietnam. All it should have taken was the subtle inclusion of Abu Ghrabeh in the list of Bush problems in Iraq - which Kerry routinely did. Kerry, in fact, was the one candidate who didn't have to make sure people knew his views on this.

On the other side, look at the fire storm he got by impoliticly (but accurately) describing non-Arabic speaking Americans bursting into homes in the middle of the night on search & destroy missions as terrorizing. (Look at the Durbin incident) Kerry, because of 1971, was at the greatest risk of having a more overt statement turned against him and used to demonize him. This would have cost him votes in the middle of people who wanted to believe that these were isolated events and that most of the soldiers were passing out candy bars to the Iraqis.

Even in 1971, Kerry told Safer, in answer to whether he wanted to be President, gave an answer that implied that he could be dooming his political chances to be President by speaking out - but that it was important. In 2004, others were speaking out about Abu Gharbeh, Kerry had no information to add and from his past there was no question of where he stood on these issues.

As to the debates - I think Kerry DID mention complying with interational law and the Geneva convention - which both preclude Abu Ghrabeh type behavior.

[kerrygoddess]

6. I wrote about this today

and there is a wealth of statements from JK on Abu Grarib in the post - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2602

[TayTay]

8. NYTimes May 1, 2004

As outrage swirled around the globe, much of the military's official response on Friday was a repeat of steps already taken, and previously announced. In Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for the coalition military, said a new senior officer, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, was improving conditions at detention facilities. The assignment of General Miller as deputy commander for detainee operations in Iraq was announced by the Pentagon on March 22, two days after the initial charges in the case were disclosed. Military investigators are also looking at whether any of the civilian interrogators should be held accountable for the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Senator John Kerry, Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, issued a statement Friday saying: "I am disturbed and troubled by the evidence of shameful mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. We must learn the facts and take the appropriate action.

"As Americans, we must stand tall for the rule of law and freedom everywhere," Mr. Kerry added. "But we cannot let the actions of a few overshadow the tremendous good work that thousands of soldiers are doing every day in Iraq and all over the world."

From: THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: CAPTIVES; Bush Voices 'Disgust' at Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 1 05-01-2004
By THOM SHANKER and JACQUES STEINBERG; Thom Shanker reported from Washington for this article and Jacques Steinberg from New York.

[ginnyinWI]

33. May 13, 2004 "Kerry assails Bush on Iraq"

by Jim Vandehei, Washington Post.

Sorry I don't have a link, because I printed it out at the time. I happened to be looking through my collection of print-outs and this one talks a lot about Abu Ghraib and Rumsfeld. Kerry even suggested possible replacements for him: McCain, Sen. Warner, Carl Levin.

On Abu Ghraib he suggested delaying the trials of the individuals involved, saying it would damage military morale and the chain of command. He said the cause was "major failures in command".

Mary Beth Cahill is quoted as saying that they wouldn't rush into commenting on a national crisis. The explanation given by the writer is that the Bush campaign had repeatedly accused them of playing politics with Iraq.

It was a ticklish time: damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

[Luftmensch067]

9. Lazy and ignorant, as well as malicious...

And, of course, the proof is on the record: Kerry did not mention Abu Ghraib -- or, equally important, the Bush Justice Department Torture Memo -- in either his acceptance speech or the three debates.

This just proves that Joe Klein, with his "triple-sourced" quotes, is no better than those voters during the campaign who only paid attention to what the three networks showed of the Kerry campaign: the acceptance speech and the three debates, which means essentially missing the entire campaign, months and months of many events, statements and speeches per day.

Anyone who takes Joe Klein as an unbiased reporter on JK seriously should read that hideous hatchet piece he wrote about him (sorry, forget the source right now, but I bet you all know the one I mean!) The man clearly has a destructive agenda here. And, may I point out, the thing Klein is most famous for is his "anonymous" penning of Primary Colors? Hardly an advert for credibility in political writing!

[beachmom]

10. I researched this some time back and posted a thread here

If you recall Andrew Sullivan made an outrageous statement on his blog that "Kerry was complicit to torture" because he didn't make it a campaign issue, which was repeating what Yoo (sp?) said in a book. The basic premise was that there was an election, the Democrat didn't bring it up as a campaign issue, and * won, so the issue was settled -- the American people were fine with torture.

I'll try to find that thread. But what John Kerry said on MTP was highly impressive, because it jived with my careful research (with all of your help), and yet he came up with it from the top of his head (or do you think he knew the question was coming?).

[beachmom]

11. Here is the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=47499

[beachmom]

12. To be fair, guys, torture was NOT a major campaign issue in '04

But Kerry did speak up at the beginning, and felt comfortable to talk about it when questioned. But a choice was made that Iraq, health care, the economy, GWOT, and homeland security were the main issues. I don't think that was a mistake back then, because we have learned so much more about how widespread torture has become, and people have shaken off some of their irrational fear that led them to believe torture was okay. But from a moral AND political standpoint, I think that if he decides to run again, he should make this a bigger issue in a general vision of American losing the respect of all of the world, and how America has lost ALL of its moral authority.

[wisteria]

16. You are right. That is why I find it a bit strange that it was brought

up on MTP and Kline made an issue out of it in his new book. This was, and has been made McCain's issue. My first thought was Russert was trying to draw a line of difference based on integrity and fairness between Senator Kerry and Senator McCain. Maybe, I am being far fetched, but that is what first came to my mind.

[TayTay]

18. Russert was doing the 08 dance

trying to get Kerry in a 'gotcha' with the liberal base.

I am disin-klein-ed to believe it. I don't think Joe Klein is all that reliable a reporter and is massively biased.

[whometense]

19. I used to think Klein had some

respect for Kerry. I don't know when the brainwashing happened. He was present at the big foreign policy speech JK gave in December (?) 2003 at the Manchester NH Public Library. I know because I was there and saw Klein in the audience. VERY small room.

[karynnj]

17. Even if he didn't know it was coming

he knew exactly what he had said. As the issue was a mindfield, I'm sure he carefully chose exactly what to say - and said it consistently the same. Kerry has lived with the hatred engendered by his 1971 comments, but he still said more than I remember Dean, Edwards, Clark etc saying. There was a reason for not making the election a referendum on torture. The results would have been ugly. (Remember the RW immediately took the "they're beheading people" what's worse - which was sick.)

Also, I want to see the Klein quote printed in the first half of 2004 saying this was a winning issue.

[beachmom]

20. Re: Dean, Edwards, Clark

The Abu Ghraib scandal came out in March 2004, right? So the primary was largely over by then.

Sigh, sigh -- I had people over today, and it's obvious nobody cares about the torture, or thinks it's not widespread. They don't care about the war or *'s lies or anything. The world of knowledge we live in is largely different than the world most people in America live in.

I am very discouraged. * will survive EVERYTHING it seems with the tacit approval of ignorant Americans across the country.

[TayTay]

22. I don't think that's true

Bush is not surviving this. His polls numbers are in the toilet. He's ability to get programs through Congress is severely hampered. (What ever happened to those private accounts in SSI?)

The next challenge is Iran and what Congress does about this pre-emptive call to invade another sovereign nation. That is critical for the nation and for the Democratic PArty.

Why do you think that Bush will survive this? There are no indicators of this. What actions would constitute 'something happening' that would be indicative of Bush being in trouble in your view? (Not a pejorative challenge. I hear this on DU all the time: that Bush will somehow survive everything that has happened unscathed. I disagree. He is drowning and his Presidency is dying. What things would overtly show this to people who don't see all the massive signs?)

[beachmom]

24. It's just that Iraq came up and there was NO outrage among

these friends of mine. You know when you talk about "the heartland". I feel like I'm in it to a certain degree, and there was just no talk about how bad the war is. There was one person there, for whom when I was talking about PTSD, she didn't know what that stood for. And I live in a military town.

These people aren't indignant because they don't know nor care what is happening. Now mind you, these are Moms with small children, but somehow I have found the time to stay informed. Even if I wasn't blogging, even if I only subscribed to, say, Time magazine, I would be outraged. Yet, nothing was said. Even the two ladies I know who are Democrats. It's like I was talking to a group of high school students who never read or watched the news. They vaguely knew there was some sort of war going on, but since it doesn't affect them, they remain ignorant. I guess I'm not going to be satisfied until my swing voter friend (who, sigh, swung for * in '04) says "This president has to go". We're not there, and we're not even at the point where I'm hearing even frustration. Just "life is good", not all that interested in what's going on.

I tried my best to get some info out, but then I had to look after my kids at the same time, so I'm also discouraged with myself for not getting the message out the way I wanted to.

[TayTay]

25. SurveyUSA reported these ratings for Bush in VA

Virginia Bush Approval: 39% Disapproval: 57% Difference: -18%

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060315State.htm

It is sinking in. There are groups who will be more affected than others. (There are places in Masschusetts where Bush's disapproval rating is as low as 62% or as high as 74%. It varies.)

Also, there are people who don't talk about politics at all. Ask them about gas prices and other ancillary issues. Those roads might lead back to other feelings that have to do with national politics. It is all local, after all and about how these issues actually affect people.

[beachmom]

28. Northern Virginia is VERY blue, so those numbers can be

misleading. He could still be enjoying some approval here; in fact, many here may only disapprove of him because they are more right wing on the issue of immigration than *, and are highly against his guest worker program (my neighbor told me that prior to the '04 election).

You're right about gas prices and such, which I have to say I find so frustrating. Of all the things to blame * for, that's way down the list for me. Now if you want to talk about his horrid energy program, that's another thing which will definitely affect the long term, but gas prices are remaining high largely due to increased demand all over the world, especially India and China. I'm not sure how much Iraq is affecting the price, as their production is lower than pre-war levels. I guess, in a word, gas prices can only be controlled by a president so much. But for political reasons, yeah, sure let's blame him!!

All of my gloom talk doesn't necessarily spell doom for Democratic elections. I think we have a good candidate for Congress in my district who has a chance. But I want a movement where more and more people want this president removed from office. Heck, he can even resign (if Cheney goes with him). But with this whole Iran thing, I just want someone in there (maybe Powell?) who I can trust to use war as a LAST RESORT. And I want someone to change the Iraq strategy. And I want all of this NOW. And why don't other people feel the same way?

[ProSense]

31. Here is the breakdown by party

25% of Republicans and 66% of independents disapprove


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=94e33587-f944-42d7-9eb1-c67247244d9e

[sandnsea]

30. Kind of like my family in Arkansas

My sis-in-law is very opposed to the war and always has been. My bil is a Bushbot. My sister rides in between, and my brother is just trying to figure it all out but doesn't really have the time and is easily swayed.

Anyway, my brother sent me this joke the other day, where Pedro is a smart little immigrant who knows all about US history, including every US Presidential scandal, even Poppy throwing up. It's cute. But even though it references Cheney and the shotgun, there is NOTHING about Georgie.

So I email him, point out the obvious skirting of Bush, and ask him whether it's still unpatriotic to criticize the chimp in Arkansas. No response.

Being in Oregon, I hear alot more disgruntled people. But there are still plenty of people who get their news from Fox and believe whatever they say. It's rare that I hear a sponatenous political discussion on anything except maybe gas prices or slow sales. Even though people may think Bush is doing a bad job on Iraq, I'm not sure that they're in full outrage mode the way we are.

[ProSense]

21. Check this out!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2566132&mesg_id=2566132

[wisteria]

23. Oh boy, what's up with this bullsh*t coming out now?

Good to see you referenced Kerry's position on this though.

[TayTay]

26. There are answers

The Rethugs, not Kerry are holding up the Reauthorization bill for the Intelligence budget because of amendments in it that ask the Admin to report on the secret prisons issue and rendition. That sounds like a request for accountability to me.

[ProSense]

27. Do you believe this?

"No Dem Position on Gitmo." That's a blatant attack on the Democratic Party.

I'm glad for this thread, which gave me easy access to the references.

[ProSense]

29. Media Matters: Time's Klein at it again

Tue, Apr 11, 2006 4:40pm EST
Time's Klein at it again: Liberals "hate America"

Snip...

After attending a discussion with Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) fellow Julia E. Sweig, part of CFR's "HBO History Maker Series," Alterman described Klein's outburst in an April 11 post on Altercation, his MSNBC.com weblog:

I went to a breakfast this morning sponsored by HBO and the Council on Foreign Relations where Tina Brown interviewed Julia Sweig, author of Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century, here, before a small gathering of media and foreign policy bigwigs. ... It was a useful discussion with many useful tributaries and give and take with the audience and we all felt better for it.

That is right up until the very last moment when, after someone brought up the question of the whether the Democrats will be able to present an effective alternative to Bush in the next election, Joe Klein shouted out, "Well they won't if their message is that they hate America -- which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years."

Alterman went on to lament that Klein is, in Alterman's words, the "most liberal columnist" at Time, America's highest circulation newsweekly. Alterman wrote:

That's right. The most liberal columnist at the America's largest weekly newsmagazine pretends that the message of liberals for the past twenty years has been that they "hate America," just as if he were reading from talking points issued by Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. (Don't get me started.)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604110008

[karynnj]

32. What a hypocrite

He says:
Joe Klein shouted out, "Well they won't if their message is that they hate America -- which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years."

Then he has the nerve to say it was wrong of Kerry not to make Abu Grabeh a bis issue. As I've thought about this over the day, it's only made me angrier - in a sense this is the anti-war version of the SBVT. Kerry did speak out - and might even have been quoted by him newsmagazine, if they covered him as much as they should have. Also, Kerry's credentials on this issue, like his medals, were earned in battles that cost him dearly personally and possibly professionally - Joe Klein has likely never done anything as deserving of praise as Kerry did in the war or against the war.

How dare he suggest Kerry politicized this. What is clear is that he was extremely cautious about how he spoke of it, because, if he won he would be the CIC of these men and because he didn't want to criticize the troops.