Lest Anyone Forget So Close To Election Time...

[Kodiak]

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

 

[DavidJames]

I think the best way to interrupt your quotes it to recognize and give credit to Kerry and Edwards for modifying their opinions when better information became available. Stubbornly and dogmatically sticking to an opinion (as Bush has) based on flawed data are not attributes of a person I want running the country.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

 

[DaChew]

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


That's odd. Having missed the vast majority of the intelligence briefings on this subject, I would have thought that if Kerry was an honest man he'd have declined to state a specific position.

 

[Luke T.]

So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently.

 

[HarryKeogh]

So you want us to remember that when the President lied to those men they believed him?

OK, got it.

me too

 

[Kodiak]

I think the best way to interrupt your quotes it to recognize and give credit to Kerry and Edwards for modifying their opinions when better information became available. Stubbornly and dogmatically sticking to an opinion (as Bush has) based on flawed data are not attributes I want running the country.

Your "modifying their opinions" equals my "flip-flop" and "revisionist history".

Your "Stubbornly and dogmatically" equals my "Resolve and determination".

Bush has acknowledged that the intel he had at the time turned out to be inaccurrate.

Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to Kerry/Edwards...

 

[Kodiak]

They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently.

Exactly.

You wouldn't know that today though if one just listened to Kerry's and Edwards' campaign speeches nowadays.

Thus this thread.

 

[wollery]

They had access to the same information the President did, and reached the same conclusions independently.

No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

 

[merphie]

Exactly.

You wouldn't know that today though if one just listened to Kerry's and Edwards' campaign speeches nowadays.

Thus this thread.

Be careful you will get the die hard Kerry fanatics in here saying how you can't read the thread correctly and don't understand English.

 

[merphie]

No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

Wow! You mean Congress is a puppet of who ever the current administration is?

I guess I will have to stop writing my congressmen and just convince the president of my opinion so he can skew the facts however he wants and mislead everyone in Congress!

Why do we have a legislative branch again?

 

[Kodiak]

No, they had access to the same reports as all the other senators (and congressmen, I assume). They did not, however have direct access to the heads of the intelligence services or the raw data from which the reports were compiled, as Bush undoubtedly had. And we have since learned that these were far less positive than the official reports.

You may simply be ignorant of how the U.S. Federal government and its bureaucracy is composed, but Bush WAS NOT privy to any "raw data". The intelligence heads and NSA chiefs are given finalized threat assessments, status reports, and evidence conclusion summaries, which they pass on to the President at regular national security meetings.

For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Ironic...don't ya think?

 

[gnome]

For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.

 

[merphie]

Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.

I guess you have never heard of the "Senate Intelligence Committee".

Bush doesn't have special permissions when it comes to the departments. It's called Checks and Balances.

The Kerry position that he was mislead is just a political spin to make himself look good.

 

[TragicMonkey]

For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Like he did with the Medicare budget?

 

[Kodiak]

Yes as a matter of fact I do. I think he was extremely picky about what info Congress received, and counted on public opinion to push them into going along with him.

merphie has already addressed this, but if you have evidence to support your position that intel was withheld from Congress, please present it.

 

[Kodiak]

Like he did with the Medicare budget?

Nice fallacy.

You're changing the subject and failed to answer the question.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Nice fallacy.

You're changing the subject and failed to answer the question.

I'm not interested in the question; I was just pointing out that sometimes Bush doesn't give all the information to Congress. Which makes sense--they should know to get their own research done.

Edit to add:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/releases/2004312815.html

 

[Brown]

For Bush to get the support he needed from Congress, do you really for one second think that he provided anything less than absolutely all the evidence that existed at that time?

Yes. I think it's pretty clear that Bush pretty much told what he wanted people to believe, and he ignored the advice of some of his staffers that some of the information was technically and factually incorrect. He spoke as an advocate.

According to John Dean, a lawyer for Nixon and a key figure who helped expose the Watergate scandal, Bush deliberately misled the Congress, which is (according to Dean) an impeachable offense.