Kerrys says Bush needs to offer "real answers to tough questions" tonight

September 07, 2003

“Being flown to a carrier and saying the words Mission Accomplished, does not end a war. The swagger of a President saying “Bring’em on” does not bring peace.

“Giving a speech on national television does not reassure Americans about what’s happening in Iraq -- to be straight with the American people about Iraq takes more than a speech, it takes real answers to tough questions. President Bush needs to lay out the full answers owed to the American people – he should have done so before he ever went to war, he needs to do it now.” -- John Kerry

The American people deserve to know the truth – real answers to the following questions:

1. How are we going to get others to share the financial burden in Iraq and how much should we expect of them?

2. Given the way the Administration pushed aside our allies before going to war, how are we going to get more international security forces to share the burden and risk with our troops?

3. How are we going to convince the Iraqis that we are friends not occupiers?

4. When and how are we going to transfer power to an Iraqi government?

5. When will the oil flow and when will the oil revenue be available?

6. While helping to stabilize Iraq, what is the Administration’s plan to avoid the strain on troops that have been overextended?

7. When will electricity and other basic services be available through out Iraq?

8. How much is Iraq going to cost the American taxpayer?

9. Why didn’t the Administration assign enough troops to secure the weapons of mass destruction sites, secure the non-WMD ammunition sites, and prevent the looting – in short, what was the plan?

10. Why was the planning for securing the peace so off-the-mark?

Especially since most are too lazy to think of them on their own.

whose campaign did that a month or so ago?

Let me see.....hmmmmmm.......I bet somebody knows the answer.

This is not just general questions Kerry has. It's questions he thinks Bush needs to answer tonight.

How come Dean hasn't gotten the answers? What is he going to do to get the answers?

You haven't heard the last of Kerry's questions, unlike Dean's.

This is the main reason I am not a Dean supporter. His questions were great, I was thrilled. But instead of keeping the pressure on Bush, he turned on the Democratic Candidates/Congress which are the only people who can actually DO anything about getting those questions answered. Ever since that happened, I have been personally disgusted with Dean. It's a very personal thing with me. So you understand why I probably won't respond further on this particular issue.

Its why I love him!. If he hadnt been taking it to these guys from the get gothey would still be tip toeing arround Bush. Howard was the one out railing against bush and the complacent dems from the get go. And look at where he has brought these candidates to today. Gehp kerry and even lieberman all bashing bush loudly and proudly in the last debate. Something that has been missing from all three of them since bush stepped into office. I wish it didnt take a verbal beating from howrd to get them to stand up and do the right thing. but It did,

The only reason they are doing it now is because they have seen how well it works for Dean. Wich goes to why I cant support them. They apear to only be speaking out at this point because they think they can use it to win the nod. That is pandering IMHO and they can pander thier way to hell as far as I am concerned.

and which one was pounding Bush the most and why no Dems were backing them up. The press didn't pay that much attention to them, though. They couldn't. They were still on their short leash.

Funny, Russert gave Dean the perfect opportunity to bash Bush on MTP back then, but Dean would not do it. He took a swipe at Gore and Kerry instead.

"There are those who criticize the president. I think it's easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I choose not to do that."

"Vermont Maple Syrup with those waffles" diplomacy

Dean's continual lies about the October Resolution and his absolutely meaningless statements about Biden Lugar kept Dems from rallying public opinion and allowed Bush to make claims sbout WMD's that were not true, keeping the demos from closely examining them and getting public support to do so.

1. Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech


2. Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President's October 7th speech. (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)


3. Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed this very week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence "subsequent" to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from your administration and the intelligence community on the matter. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)


4. Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003)


5. Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002)


6. Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war including the supposed link to al-Qaeda while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary. (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03)


7. Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003)


8. Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war. (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003)


9. Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February before the UN Security Council that, "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." (UN Address, 2/05/2003)


10. Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003)


11. Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003)


12. Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those would be, and now continues to try to keep the projected costs hidden from the American people.


13. Mr. President, we need to know why you said on May 1, 2003 , that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003)


14. Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort.


15. Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (The Washington Post, Mike Allen, 5/31/2003)


16. Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6998&JServSessionIdr012=80gg5vea78.app13b&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1301

that he cribbed from John Kerry?

Formats are formats. Did Dean INVENT the question format?

Did Kerry INVENT foreign policy?

whereas Dean is learning as he goes.

like SBNA Deanies like to make. I guess the Dean camppaign will hound the press to question Kerry's right to pose a list of questions instead of focusing on the questions for Bush. That seems to be the way they operate. And you offer some confirmation of that on this thread.

The two speeches side by side on a table, and see paragraph by pragraph how Dean is simply stating everythingf in Kerry's speech in the EXACT same order in which Kerry's earlier speech is laid out.


It reminds me of the cartoon with Sharpton and Dean in which Sharpton is making a detailed point, and Dean says "Yeah What AL said"

This is a very clear indictment of Dean in the minority media of his stealing of ideas

The guy can't read...better to ask him only 10.

Maybe we'd better not ask any. Unless it's "Cookies or pie?"

Bud or Bud Lite.

right here on DU!

I applaud any or all of the candidates for posing the questions, I think it's a good strategy.

Just pointing something out. I do not hate Kerry, and applaud all efforts to put fire to the shrub. Just found it was a "co-inky-dink."

So is Dean's energy policy, environmental policy, and now apparently his trade and tax policy. Can anyone explain what Dean's tax and trade policy actually is. Does the candidate himself even know?

What's more coincidental?

a) That liberal candidates would have similar policy views,

or

b) That one campaign would copy the successful tactics of another campaign?

Darn that devilish Dean! :evilgrin:

Would that be going too far?

But wait...Clinton is going to campaign for Davis next week. Is he copying Dean too.

By the way...Clinton vs. Dean would be no contest. hehe
Just an amusing thought. How I long for the days of Clinton and look toward the days of Kerry.

Which set of questions would you rather have answered?

C your way out of it.

Note: I didn't make that up. I copied it.

Dean is brand new to looking at policy from a liberal pov, so please tell us which two liberals you're talking about.

Candidate A: Supported invasion of Iraq.

Candidate B: Vociferously stated that proof needed to be forthcoming.

Candidate A: Voted for Patriot Act. Didn't read it, though.

Candidate B: Couldn't vote. Noted reservations for parts of the act.

.

that were most troubling. NOONE read the act because it was revised and pushed through within hours.

You know Dean would have voted for it, especially when he was still very much ensconced in the Zell Miller wing of the Dem party at the time.

Now heres something you all cant say about my candiate. My candiate Dennis Kucinich is the only one who didnt vote for the patriot act and if you think IWR is important, well this man was influential in trying to get people to vote against it.

It's all about trying to bring the others down because of it. They may act sanctimonious right now, but, they are not sincere enough about it to stand with DK. It's like Republicans who really don't give a flying fuck about abortion but will demagogue it for the votes and for the $$$$$.

I know what you mean. Thank you also for that nice comment in that thread on Kerry on nuclear weapons, I didnt know you were undeclared on candiates. Then whats their point? I just find it interesting and I may be wrong but theres something about Kucinich voting against it and speaking at an anti iraq war rally that pleases me and he was a congressman as he still is. You know better than I do his dedication to the people of his district and I saw a video with him and them, was really good.

and only Kerry. But, I wouldn't have minded if Gore was nominated again. Then Dennis entered and what could I do? I have to support them both. I give to them equally. DK has great defenders here now, so I fight the Kerry battles.

Thats good that you give to both of them. I really appreciated that story in GD and I didnt know we shared ethnic heritage. Respect your choice.

You= "Dean is just another Zell Miller." "Dean supporters equate to Republicans." "Dean supporters are just demagogues." "Dean supporters don't care; they could give a flying fuck!"

Me= "He voted for it." "Kerry's questions sound familiar."


Who's the REAL demagogue? Find where I've said anything about Kerry or his supporters that equates to anything like your post. I can find plenty of your "observations."




P.S. We care about the IWR and PA very much, thank you. It's you who is willing to spin the votes as something they are not.

\Dem"a*gogue\ (?; 115), n. leader; commonly in a bad sense, a leader of the mob; dh^mos
the people + 'agwgo`s leading, fr. 'a`gein to lead; akin to
E. act: cf. F. d<'e>magogue.]
A leader of the rabble; one who attempts to control the
multitude by specious or deceitful arts; an unprincipled and
factious mob orator or political leader.


http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/demagogue


Now lets look at a statement made by a few Vermont progressives and liberal democrats about Dean...

I know that a lot of you are going to vote for Dean -- he talks a good game; he can be charismatic and charming. But I'm warning you. This man will tell you what you want to hear, or at least tell you something that has some little kernel of something that you can interpret as support for the things that are important to you. But when the time comes to stand up and lead on the issue, to take on the money interests and backsliders in his own party, that stiff little spine will turn into a slinky.

If you vote for him, it's your job to stand behind him with a poker and keep him headed in the right direction. Don't give him any honeymoon period, either--keep the pressure on from the second you drop that ballot in the box. The minute you relax, he's going to turn right back into what he really is...a privileged, arrogant, middle of the road republican. Put your political energy into getting some truly progressive folks into the House and Senate, and into State legislatures around the country so that there will be more pressure from more directions. We need to get together our sophisticated progressive thinkers to develop policy ideas in every area, so that we're ready with real, well-thought out counter-proposals for the incremental changes a Dean administration might put forth. If you feel you must, support Dean, do--but then go do the work necessary to make real change.

Ron Jacobs, Donna Bister and Marc Estrin comprise the OLD NORTH END RAG collective. The RAG is an agitational community newspaper serving the Old North End of Burlington, Vermont. This neighborhood is a primarily working class section of Vermonts largest city that has a history of political activism

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

So by, definition, according to severalVermonters who have followed Denas activities and campaign IN PERSON, closely and have watched Dean for FAR longer than most of his supporters have been involved in politics

WHo would best be described as a demegogue?

EOM

In my view almost every Dem value that Dean compromised over the years gets explained away by his apologists. I'm not talking about nonpartisan issues like defense or national security. I'm talking about basic Dem platform issues.

Just because he is talking the hot populist rhetoric for the last 8 months doesn't mean us longtime politicos are expected to believe his sudden conversion that 11 years of being a Democratic governor in a progressive state never even inspired.

You saw nothing wrong with Dean marching next to a sign that equated Kerry with Bush and have the nerve to complain about me equating the compromising centrist Dean with the compromising centrist Zell Miller?

ROTFLMFAO! What THIN skin you have!