« World Domination | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Friday »

They Called For Torture

John Kerry on Bush, torture, and the war on terror. It was good John. It would have been so much better if you'd said, hell yes waterboarding is torture.

Quicktime Video 6.2MB 10'46
Quicktime 7 required



He should've said all that and a lot of other things both before and immediate after the 2004 election. Like that the election was very likely stolen. John Kerry always says the right things, only not when it really can make a difference.

Silence may be golden, but sometimes it's yellow.


Just a thought...but how horrible would it be if the republicans win the next election and again have power? Can this country survive that? Kerry seems to be talking the talk, but nothing seems to be getting done, which is perhaps due to the fact that once you get a juggernaut that is the federal government going, its all but impossible to stop it. Even if we got a democratic senate and president right now, would things really change? My thinking is no, nothing would change, because our possition in the world would still be the same. iran would still be biting at our heals because it knows we are weak, N Korea would still be launching missles because they know we are weak, and iraq would still be in civil war....


One thing I would like to hear from Democrats, any Democrat: if, as Bush claims, we have to fight terrorists over there to prevent them from following us here, does that mean Homeland Security is incapable of protecting us? Ron Suskind, in his recent book, makes a substantial point. And, that point is the Bush administration knows full well that Homeland Security still cannot protect Americans at home. Why are we still vulnerable?

Any country that fights an immoral war is weakened, it's that simple.

Its a juggernaut with two possible heads. It doesnt matter which 'party' is in power - the result is not sufficiently different.

John Kerry is still offering fighting talk. At the last election I told people that I was not unhappy about Bush getting back in because if he hadn't the crisis would probably have been postponed a little longer.

It's like a septic boil on your body. It has to burst and get really messy before it can start to heal.

The planet - that we depend on - will soon give one almighty shake and shrug us all off as a failed experiment, unless we get our heads out of the sand and see what is before us.

The system of top down management is broken! And it wont be fixed by any new president, however good he or she may be. The task before us is one of waking up and understanding the failings of the present structures of power, then begin evolving and modelling new ways of taking care of our needs, through grass roots cooperation.

No one has all the answers. It's likely to be a bit chaotic, but it can't be much worse than the path we are being led down by our global leaders.


Maybe Kerry wasn't that great of a candidate, and he did make some dumb statements and cast dumb votes, but he would have been a pretty darned good president. There was no Democratic presidential candidate from 2004 field that had a better grasp of foreign policy that that guy does. His incoherence was largely his own problem but was also in part a reflection of the simple fact that any opposition aspiring to power has to take some account of, even repsonsibility for, the enormous and enduring blunders of the current occupants.

People who pine for Edwards or Dean in retrospect have adopted the Republican view that it's better to get one of your guys in there than to nominate someone who is up to the task at hand. We nominated a guy who was by and large up to the task at hand.

John Kerry is a poor spokesperson for Democrats even when he speaks clearly. I say this as a longterm Democrat.

Bush currently wants legislation passed that will allow prosecution using secret evidence - SECRET from the defendant and attorney. This is one more reason I think the Bush administration is dangerous. At a politically advantageous time for Bush, during the anniversary of 9/11 and during the current runup to the 2006 elections there is some risk that this legislation will get passed or at the very least make Democrats look foolish if they voice opposition to whatever means Bush says is needed to convict the plotters. How soon will laws used to convict our enemies be seen as good enough for US citizens and similar legislation passed against us. I have heard there is no other country that allows conviction based upon secret evidence. That is only the worst but not the only bad idea in the legislation.

Terrorism is only one of many serious problems this country faces.

P.S. Leaders of the Democrats, please wake up and stop letting Bush frame the debates.

Sigh... a man with a brain and logic and the ability to convey his thoughts.

Instead, we got stuck with GWB and his continuing folly and his reading of scripts of someone else's words.

The fact that John the Conceder voted for this war indicates that he is

A) politically stupid, B) a political coward, C) both

Kerry enabled Bush and is covered in blood. I've no interest in listening to him now.

Here we go again "I have a plan to stop terrorism" which basically boils down to "I'll make them like us" and like a true 'Hardball' reporter, Chris doesn't follow up with "just how are you gonna do that Senator?"

Just once I'd like to hear a reporter ask him "Senator, you are the only person I know that has a portrait of yourself on your desk. Are you in love with yourself?"

If you look closely, it's a picture of him and his wife, all you can see is her hair, but it's her. He's not that egotistical.

I looked very closely and about 3/4 of the way, you'll get a better shot - its just him. Karl Rove probably snuck in there an planted it so Kerry would look bad. Damn Republicans!

"John the Conceder voted for this war"

Crikey, he didn't vote for the war, he voted to authorize the 'use of force' at a time when bush was still insisting he wanted a diplomatic solution.

the way that authorization was gained was an act of political brilliance

to: dende blogger I agree Kerry was not perfect, but still a good choice. However, you're claim that he had the most foreign policy experience ignores the fact 4 Star General Wesley Clark was also running- and played a very active role in diplomacy in his work as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, among other things.

"he didn't vote for the war, he voted to authorize the 'use of force' at a time when bush was still insisting he wanted a diplomatic solution."

Well, then, politically stupid it is . . .


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives