Kerry re: Iraq >"We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true"

Sorry about the source...

Next time Kerry, give me a call.

What is his effectiveness as a leader if he can't judge evidence for himself?

I have no doubt he would make a better president, but let's just say I'm skeptical about his motives at the time.

And others believe a bomb blew up the Pentagon and/or various WTC towers. And others believe Castro actually is elected. Faith based politics are never good, no matter who is engaged in them.

Even people who voted no no the IWR believed much of the WMD intelligence was true.

that the media, the left media AND the right media are ENTRENCHED in their call that a vote for IWR was a vote for war, and none will hold Bush accountable for going to war in SPITE of the fact that the IWR provisions that weapons inspections and renewed diplomacy steps be the first course of action were succeeding and that war could be avoided.


How many times did Kerry say that Bush didn't HAVE to go to war, that the weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts were working, so let them continue so war is TRULY only a measure of last resort?

The media refused to make any distinctions because that would be holding Bush accountable. Too bad so many on the left joined them.

to NOT violate the IWR was a mistake in and of itself?

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, "Giving Bush the IWR was like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenage boy."

We gave him war power on Afghanistan, how is Iraq any different if they really had had nuclear weapons??

yes or no.

bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan has achieved exactly what?

Why target Kerry if the entire Senate is nothing but a bunch of warmongers since they all voted to bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan.

I would say the same about Hillary or ANY Democrat who violated the trust of the people who elected them by doing *anything* that wasn't focused DIRECTLY on removing that bloodthirsty piece of shit from the White House.

Nobody ever criticizes anybody for trusting Bush with the Afghanistan vote. Nobody ever posts the quotes where Feingold or Kucinich or Boxer said that Saddam had WMD or was a danger to the region and the US. They believed the WMD intelligence, but they aren't called on for being dupes.

People are full of shit. The lot of them, across the political spectrum. It's all a goddamned political game, I'm just sick of it.

because Saddam was still seeking nuclear capabilities. And that is why so many Democrats HAD BEEN WORKING To get weapon inspectors back into Iraq since 1998.

They were being consistent in their vote to get them in thru the IWR.

I'm sure you will :D

Didn't the inspectors go back in and then Bush pulled them out before they could finish the job of conclusivly PROVING no WMDs?

accountable - the corporate media and the left were so loudly blaming the IWR and Dems, that Bush was able to get little scrutiny for how cravenly he was violating the IWR.

I think some of the military insider guys like Kerry, Biden, Murtha, really believed Colin Powell was working from the inside to prevent war, along with Brent Scowcroft, Bush 1 and James Baker - what they did was overestimated the influence of that crowd while underestimating the influence of Cheney and Wolfowitz. And no one guessed that BushInc was going to lie even to Powell to do it.
I thought Powell was in on the lie.


Honestly - I wouldn't have believed Cheney to be a more powerful influence on Bush2 than Baker and Bush1. And Scowcroft was supposed to be Rice's mentor. So, in this case, people who were UNAWARE of these relationships wouldn't have factored them in, while those aware of the lengthy relatiuonships would have.

And another aspect that gets little notice - BILL CLINTON. Clinton wanted the Dems to trust that Blair would influence Bush and be the calming factor. Remember when Clinton told Dems at that time to describe themselves as Blair Democrats?

I was really shocked when Powell delivered the now-famous picture of the "mobile weapons labs". I thought at the time he was very uncomfortable and kept asking myself why is Powell of all people perpetuating these obvious lies? I was really counting on him to be the one guy in the administration who would call a halt to the madness before it went too far.

out and said how pissed that Powell was that they lied to him to get him to lie to others.

are laying some groundwork for the Hague.

Yup. We were lied to. I really thought there were WMD when I made that speech.
Yup.

There is so much more than one little sound bite. And people need to read the whole speech and also recognise that every Senator whether they voted for it or against it, voted with the intention of helping our country. It's a really shabby day in America when you vote no against the President and assume he's a liar and can not put aside party politics.

Nobody knew the level of deceit in this White House until after the years passed. And 80% of the public even thought Bush wouldn't lie and lead us to a endless war.

that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands. Kerry kept silent about that. Madeline notsoAlBright said the death of thousands of children was "worth it".
Says much about the state of the elite.
Always ready to sacrifice Arab lives in the pursuit of empire.

one of the reasons they wanted to get the inspectors back in and diplomatically seek regime change back then, was so those sanctions could be lifted.

There was also another factor that rarely gets mentioned anywhere - and one I am familiar with because I've been following terror issues fairly closely since 1996 = One of the reasons Clinton, Gore and senators like Kerry were working on a post-Saddam Iraq plan back in 1998 was because Saddam WAS getting increasingly paranoid as a ruler and a big part of that was because Bin laden had him targeted for overthrow or assassination. They would have a greater opportunity with stepped up diplomacy to get Saddam to leave peacefully.

With Saddam gone and a west-friendly regime in back then - with Clinton, then Gore being the US broker - Iraq would have had a chance of maintaining its secularism AND repelling Bin laden and his forces.

millions of us around the world with nothing more that two brain cells and a modem were not?

It's great that he is finally admitting to making a mistake, but frankly, that was a mistake that should not have been made.

I disagree with Kerry - - I think he is saying what NEEDS to be said given

that the media, the left media AND the right media are ENTRENCHED in their call that a vote for IWR was a vote for war, and none will hold Bush accountable for going to war in SPITE of the fact that the IWR provisions that weapons inspections and renewed diplomacy steps be the first course of action were succeeding and that war could be avoided.


How many times did Kerry say that Bush didn't HAVE to go to war, that the weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts were working, so let them continue so war is TRULY only a measure of last resort?

The media refused to make any distinctions because that would be holding Bush accountable. Too bad so many on the left joined them.

much time on the slopes.

eh

I merely expect a little more of a US Senator, than to put his trust in GW Bush.

Just surprised that you would use it.

And, for the record, I'd say he put his trust more in knowing that Powell, Scowcroft, Baker and Bush1 were against invading Iraq. And he believed that weapon inspectors and diplomacy would have the proper chanvce to avoid war.

Of course, the media and the left and right LOUDMOUTHS BOTCHED THAT UP by proclaiming IWR=WAR which over-rode any attempt to hold Bush accountable for going to war while weapon inspections and diplomacy were proving it to be unnecessary. I hope their version doesn't make it into the history books - pack of dumbasses.

If you are implying that kerry put his trust in War Criminal Sec. of State Colon Powell, then he is in worse shape than i imagined.

Whatever Kerry was doing... skiing, reading good books, or writing up Senate Bills, he failed America by not doing all he could to stop the Bush war, that most of us thought was inevitable. That goes for any Senator or Representative who did not speak up against the Bush madness.

While millions of us were on the Streets protesting in Feb. 2003, where was John Kerry?

Brent Scowcroft, Baker and Bush1 all thought they could influence Bush2.

Did YOU Know that Cheney had more influence on Bush2 than Bush1 or Baker had?

And further, there were OTHER FOCKING FACTORS that alot of geniuses never calculate :

There were TWO WAYS this was coming down - either the IWR or

Bush's way with NO weapons inspections, no diplomacy, and Iran and Syria as the next immediate targets.

There's the REAL CHOICE you have - do you work to shape a resolution that takes Iran and Syria off the table and puts weapons inspectors back in and renews diplomatice efforts or choose Bush's way.

If democrats really didn't want war, they could have done all they could to get people informed, and demanded alternatives. Iraq was not a threat. In fact, under Bush I and Clinton, the US was a threat to the Iraqi people. Not a peep from Kerry. Or all but a handful of Dems. Sad, tragic story.

It doesn't even matter, because you paint with a broad brush.

Do you even realize that we wouldn't even BE in Iraq and NO 9-11 would have happened if Kerry's investigations of IranContra and BCCI were opened up to the public the way he wanted?

You will tar Kerry any way you please but don't even PRETEND as if you know him or his motivations - you do not - - you OBVIOUSLY do not.

bad some people dont understand it is a major characteristic of a leader.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but I dont think I can without breaking DU rules.

I'm glad to see Kerry finally admit that he was wrong. But, the "gee, Bush misled me" rationale is pathetic.

But, once again, Kerry is giving in to the STUPID aspect of the media and the left's incorrect ASSERTION that IWR vote meant you supported invasion.

Many Dems wanted weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts to play out to avoid war.

Despite the overwhelming evidence before them that BushCo intended to go to war no matter how they voted. If they didn't "support" the invasion, they most certainly aquiesced to it with their pathetic votes.

Bush's way with NO weapons inspections, no diplomacy, and Iran and Syria as the next immediate targets.

There's the REAL CHOICE you have - do you work to shape a resolution that takes Iran and Syria off the table and puts weapons inspectors back in and renews diplomatice efforts or choose Bush's way.

Cuz, Bush WAS GOING IN as the Downing Street Memos prove.

in GW Bush.
Think of that man, he believed and trusted GW Bush!

Either Kerry has shit for brains or he supports a policy of aggression and empire.
I think he is not stupid.

could be a more determining factor? One or the other?

Here's your one or the other - the REAL one or the other that I posted above:

Well, there were TWO WAYS this was coming down - either the IWR or

Bush's way with NO weapons inspections, no diplomacy, and Iran and Syria as the next immediate targets.

There's the REAL CHOICE you have - do you work to shape a resolution that takes Iran and Syria off the table and puts weapons inspectors back in and renews diplomatic efforts or choose Bush's way.

what he did trust was the people around Bush, namely people like Colin Powell, who lent credibility to the administration at a critical time.

It occurs to me, though, that when people say "I knew it was going to go wrong! Why didn't Kerry know what I knew!" that I can't think of a time when we thought anything Bush was about to do would go RIGHT. So unless a person was going to just assume that whatever Bush would attempt would be shit, regardless...

I dunno, it was just a fleeting thought. But how many people in Washington are that opposed to the whole enchilada, Bush-wise, in the same way so many here are.

How much are we like those who decided early that no matter what Clinton tried, it would be shit.

Or do I need more coffee because I'm rambling?

Strings together quotes from several speeches to create it's own spin. Kerry says he was wrong believe Bush would abide by the resolution, but he has never supported Bush's illegal war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1015710

Why?

.

out of the way quickly so that the focus would be put back on the economy before the 2002 mid-terms.

unfortunately the priorities were quite misplaced and irresponsible.

bullshit! Can't he break the ice on this and just come out and say, "This administration waged a coordinated fear campaign of lies based on fixed and in some cases stolen data."

what's that......Wesley on the ADVOCATE? :o

Changed my avatar back when the senate was voting on shredding the constitution earlier this month.

him being in the Advocate - by the way, I have read a few copies and it makes for interesting reading

General's orders: exclusive interview: retired four-star general Wesley Clark thinks "don't ask, don't tell" needs to go and same-sex unions are here to stay. Can these pro-gay positions win him voters' support—and the Democratic presidential nomination?

Advocate, The, Feb 3, 2004 by Jon Barrett
It has been more than 10 years since a Democrat from Little Rock, Ark., first took on the military's ban on gay service members, winding up with a compromise that was quickly dubbed "don't ask, don't tell." Now another Democrat from Little Rock is tackling that compromise, saving it clearly doesn't work and must be dismantled. As president, Gen. Wesley Clark is prepared to fix what his former commander in chief, Bill Clinton, left broken.

In a testament to how much has changed in the decade since "don't ask, don't tell" was born, all nine of the Democratic presidential candidates who are currently elbowing their way across the country say the policy is discriminatory. But the 59-year-old Clark, a retired four-star general and former NATO commander, could be the only one with enough brass to make a difference. As Steve Rawls of the military watchdog group Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund explains, "Military leaders will have a lot of sway in convincing Congress to change the policy, and General Clark obviously has a lot of stature within the military community."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_Feb_3/ai_n6010914

very interesting..........

eom

talking truth.