John Kerry for President!

[richiebaseball]

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

"[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

"Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

"Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)

"Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?" (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

"[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

“If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Sen. John Kerry, los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

"[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ‘but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.’ Kerry added: ‘Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.’" (Wayne Washington, "Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq," The Boston Globe, 2/6/03)

"I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …" (NPR’s "All Things Considered," 3/19/03)

"Everybody knows that just saying there are weapons of mass destruction didn't make it so." (Sen. John Kerry, Face The Nation, 8/1/04

Richard

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by kbeverina
It's common practice to keep confidentiality on task forces--at all levels of government and with all administrations. Did you not know that? You seem to think this is something unusual.

Really? That's odd as most elected bodies are governed by the Sunshine laws. When it comes to making public policy, the public has a right to know.

Originally posted by kbeverina
The irony is that the Sierra Club actually had more policies included than any of the energy firms.

The true irony here is that you apparently know what went on in Cheney's secret meetings and the rest of us are prohibited from knowing by a Supreme Court decision.

Care to share your inside info about Cheney's secret meetings?

Originally posted by kbeverina
Would it be any use to ask for some proof of this? I mean, is there anything?

With my compliments:

1) Lies leading up to the war

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

2) Lies about how much war would cost

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0507-04.htm

Here's an interesting one if you like your numbers quick and fast:

http://www.costofwar.com/

3) lies about how we would be greeted like liberators:

http://americanassembler.com/issues...ngs/Spy agencies foresaw Iraq resistance.html

4) Lies about troops needed for Iraq occupation

http://middleeastinfo.org/article2787.html

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Originally posted by shortbun
LOL! We are supposed to believe you have any personal experience with a major political candidate why? Oh-you and
John were drinking Kongaloosh together and he mocked you
or what? Puhleeeze! You said it, "Hard to believe."

Ouch! I'm not sure the personal innuendos are warranted, but unfortunately, professional courtesy stops me in my tracks on this one.

MG

 

[Samsara]

Originally posted by Maistre Gracey
Ouch! I'm not sure the personal innuendos are warranted, but unfortunately, professional courtesy stops me in my tracks on this one.

MG

If I may wonder off-topic for a bit...

What is "Kungaloosh" anyway?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Originally posted by Samsara
If I may wonder off-topic for a bit...

What is "Kungaloosh" anyway?

It is the verbal part of the salute in the Adventurers' Club at Pleasure Island.

MG

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Really? That's odd as most elected bodies are governed by the Sunshine laws. When it comes to making public policy, the public has a right to know.

Sunshine laws only apply to the state of Florida, not the US.

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by MJames41
Sunshine laws only apply to the state of Florida, not the US.

Uh...not really.

"A sunshine law is a law aimed at opening up government procedures to inspection by the public, metaphorically letting the sun shine on the procedures."

 

[stemikger]

I'm leaning toward Kerry not because I'm crazy about him. More for the fact that I want Bush out. I just don't like the fact that Kerry has contradicted himself on several issues. I hope if he gets in he steps up to the plate and trys not to please the putlic opinion and does what is necessary. I hope he gets our boys out of Iraq and puts more money into homeland security.

When I think of all the damage Bush did in four years I get really sad. After 9/11 we had the world on our side and someone he turned that around and focused on Iraq and not Al Queda?

Oh well. I hope Kerry gets in and turns things around.

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by JPN4265
Were not here to provide you with the easy way out. Look up the quotes yourself. Kerry supports seem to believe that if they don't agree with something, it must be a lie.

As do members of the Bush side. Don't you agree???

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Here's one for you........
Did you know that all of those huge blobs washing up on beaches over the years really aren't remnants from giant, ellusive sea monsters? The DNA proves that all along they had been nothing more than whale blubber. Such a dissappointment. huh?

Okay find the source for that one please......

I found it. The reading was long and boring, but still very interesting.

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by ThAnswr





Bush did lie. He lied to the country about how much the war was going to cost. He lied about the number of troops needed. He lied that we were going to be treated as liberators. He lied when failed to tell the country about the depth of the insurgency.

Then again, maybe he didn't lie. Maybe he believed all the bs he was putting out about the war in which case he's the most gullible incompetent ever to sit in the White House.

So Bush is either a liar or an incompetent, take your choice.

One of the centerpieces of the Democratic stump speech these days has been that 'Bush lied.' The loony left likes to say that Bush 'misled the country.' It's a lot easier to run around saying that Bush lied than it is to actually come up with an example*.

Still, even thought mountains of evidence, along with two reports by the British and United States governments, exonerate the president, it's still a rallying cry for the left.

David Kay, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, speaking about the intelligence said there was "no sign that the administration pressured analysts." Then there was the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee which completely absolved the administration of any lying. Over in Great Britain, something called The Butler Report found no evidence that Prime Minister Tony Blair misled anyone. Then, there's the 9/11 Commission, which found that the administration was misled by a flawed intelligence network. And finally, even Hans Blix himself said, "I don't think they acted in bad faith."

So why do people keep repeating the fantasy that "Bush lied?" Because their hatred of George W. Bush is so deep, they fail to see the facts (something liberals don't like anyway.)

*Remember, a statement can only be a lie if you knew that statement to be untrue at the time you made it.

 

[treesinger]

Hello all! I posted this on page 16 and didn't get any response. I was wondering if any people who thought Bush lied about WMD's would contradict my statement. So I've quoted it here again to give a second chance at criticism. If no one does, that's fine. But I'm surprised no one made an attempt.

I just want to know if I'm making sense here.

Originally posted by treesinger
As far as Kerry's remarks (and Michael Moore's dialogue with Bill O'Reilly) about Bush lying about WMD's, I see the point as disingenuous. If I were President, and the CIA, MI:5, AND Russian Intelligence AL said that Iraq had WMD's, and the UN said the Saddam had them and had not provd that he had destroyed them, I would have to assume overwhelmingly that Saddam had WMD's. As it turns out (so far) we are very wrong. Except for the rogue chem weapon, there is no large stockpile found. But is that lying? No. Lying is when you know a certain situation to be true and willfully disregard that proof in favor of contrary action. Bush would only be lying if he KNEW or had very strong reason to believe that Saddam did NOT have WMD's. If that were the case and Bush went to war regardless, then he'd be a big fat liar. But he didn't.

I just don't understand the charge that Bush lied. Is he the one ultimately responsible? Yup. But I don't think he made an irresponsible decision. The litmus test for me is, "Would I have decided the same thing with all of the same information he had?" Yeah, I would. Would that make me a liar, deliberately misleading the Ameriican public? Heck no! I used supposedly reliable information and made a judgement call. I'd be responsible for the aftermath, but I shouldn't be called willfully negligent. And, IMO, neither should Bush.

Put another way. If one of my kids had a serious mysterious illness, I would take her to a doctor. If I went to 3 doctors, and they all had the same diagnosis, I would have reason to believe that the illness must be what is affecting my child. I would accept whatever treatment the doctors would perform for that particular illness. But what if it turns out the doctors were wrong? And what if the medical treatment actually HARMED my child because there was no illness at that particular point to treat? Now, am I responsible for that choice? Yes. Am I a liar? No. If my family is off-the-hook angry, they may say, "You lied! You told us that she would get better with this treatment, but the treatment is actually making her worse! How could you lie like that to us and especially to her?"

IT IS NOT A LIE! It is taking the best info you have, verifying it at different places to assure congruency, and making decisions based on the info. It would be patently unfair to call me a liar in my "sick child" scenario. It would be equally unfair to call Bush a liar for exactly the same reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I'm wrong?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

treesinger,
Let me try! If a doctor diagnosed me and gave me a prognosis I would research every possible option before deciding on a treatment. No matter what each doctor said, I would do my own research to decide for myself. Doctors aren't gods.

Does that give you some insight into where some of us are coming from?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by MJames41
Sunshine laws only apply to the state of Florida, not the US.

The "Sunshine Law" is part of the Florida code, but "sunshine laws" are all over the country.

Sunshine laws prevent government from acting in secret when it comes to making public policy.

I want to ask one question..............why are people so willing to give up their right to know what their government is doing?

Dick Cheney held a private meeting with a group of individuals, on public property and on taxpayer time. And some don't think they have a right to know what went on. Why?

No one is saying a politician shouldn't have the right to call an individual and ask for their opinion. That should be private. But to organize a meeting with a select group of people, at a specific time, at a specific place and claim that that's only soliciting opinions is ludicrous.

FWIW, I protested Hillary Clinton's secret meetings about health care.

Btw, what did the public gain by the SC decision that Cheney's meeting were not part of "the public's right to know". We gained nothing other than more secrecy in government. Some victory for the American people.

 

[bsnyder]

I just don't understand the charge that Bush lied

Sure you do! It's a political ploy, and a pretty disgusting one at that, given the nature of the problems we face.

No matter what each doctor said, I would do my own research to decide for myself.

And where would that process end? Would you have had the President collecting and analysing the intelligence data personally?

Does that give you some insight into where some of us are coming from?

Yep, you're willing to put politcs before anything else.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by bsnyder


Yep, you're willing to put politcs before anything else.

Bet, you are talking about your self here. Most of the time you sound like Rush Limbaugh. How on Earth do you get from my perspective on illness, that I put politics before anything else?

I don't even know enough about politics to put it first. You should listen to yourself sometime.

 

[ToriLammy]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
treesinger,
Let me try! If a doctor diagnosed me and gave me a prognosis I would research every possible option before deciding on a treatment. No matter what each doctor said, I would do my own research to decide for myself. Doctors aren't gods.

Does that give you some insight into where some of us are coming from?

So three doctors tell you the same thing, you go on the internet and research and find out the same thing. You start treatment and then 5 months into the treatment the doctors find out all the data on the illness was wrong (including everything you found on the internet).....who lied to you? Or was everyone just working with the best information available at the time????

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by treesinger
Hello all! I posted this on page 16 and didn't get any response. I was wondering if any people who thought Bush lied about WMD's would contradict my statement. So I've quoted it here again to give a second chance at criticism. If no one does, that's fine. But I'm surprised no one made an attempt.

I just want to know if I'm making sense here.

First, my apologies for missing your post. I was away for a while. I enjoy your posts and enjoy responding to them.

Here's where I think you're wrong. Ask youself...........is failure to offer information or omitting crucial information a lie. Is failure to claim something is used in a nuclear program, but fail to mention said something is also used for another purpose, a lie? Again I say it is.

I'm not going to go through the whole laundry list of what I believe to be Bush lies. We've been through this ad nauseum. But if you have a chance read this:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

If you do a google search about the lead up to the Iraq war and you'll come up with volumes refuting the Bush claims and volumes in which the Bush administration presented as fact what was, in reality, partially fact.

To claim that everything the Bush administration told about Iraq was 100% true without any exageration, is to ignore reality.

But, let's give the devil his due. For argument's sake, let's say Bush looked over the information, and truly believed he was doing the right thing. Fair enough and maybe he can be forgiven, but need I add, not by me.

However Bush came to the conclusion about the war in Iraq, it does not excuse the fact that he lied about how much the war would cost, hence that 87 billion that was needed because the original billions was not enough.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0507-04.htm


Bush lied about the troop strength that was needed to occupy Iraq. General Eric Shinseki, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired or was encouraged to after he told a Congressional committee, that we needed at least 200,000 troops to occupy Iraq.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article2787.html


Bush lied about how we would be greeted as liberators.

http://americanassembler.com/issues...ngs/Spy agencies foresaw Iraq resistance.html

Bush continues to lie about the 87 billion being "for the troops" as if that was the only item in that bill. The fact is that 87 billion also includes many different items, not just money for body armor. And that begs the question, why were 40,000 troops sent into a war zone without the necessary body armor? Why are unarmored humvees still used in Iraq?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089674/


One may be able to forgive Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq, but not how he has conducted this war.

And frankly, I'm mystifed by how people in this country can look at the total picture, and still think Bush is entitled to 4 more years. Such utter incompetence calls for someone to be retired, not rehired.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by ToriLammy
So three doctors tell you the same thing, you go on the internet and research and find out the same thing. You start treatment and then 5 months into the treatment the doctors find out all the data on the illness was wrong (including everything you found on the internet).....who lied to you? Or was everyone just working with the best information available at the time????

Well, I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would not go to the same doctor.

Let's add a caveat to "So three doctors tell you the same thing, you go on the internet and research and find out the same thing. "

What if those 3 doctors left out information that may lead to a different conclusion? What if those 3 doctors claimed as fact something that was in reality, partial fact?

Are you going to go to the same doctor who did that?

 

[jrydberg]

Whatever your politics, none of those are lies. They are judgements based on the best available information at the time. Bash President Bush all you want for making bad judgements, but they are nothing even remotely approaching lies.