When was the greatest window of opportunity to bring down entire Bush cabal and the terrorists?

And the international financiers and friends who helped to fund global terrorism since the late 70s?


.

gave a great answer. ;)))

nt

And Kerry was very much a part of that investigation before the Bush I pardons. That's why, knowing what he knew about the Bushes, I could never understand his IWR vote! He knew better than to trust them no matter how nicely they packaged their lies.

the weapons inspections and diplomatic measures in the IWR that were WORKING to prove force was not needed.

Even in August 2004, when asked if he'd still invade, knowing then what he knew now, Kerry said YES!

Sheesh. Spare me. We knew what Bush was going to do, we knew about PNAC, we knew the Bushies had a hard-on to take over Iraq's oil and all they needed was power (hence theft 2000) and a reason 9/11 which they let happen. The Wimpocrats, including Kerry, rolled over.

Kerry has done more than most to get our troops home and has been one of the few that has consistently spoken out on this immoral war. It's too bad you care more about a 4 1/2 year old vote than ending the slaughter in Iraq.

he said vote - he did not hear the if phrase, so he thought he answered the same question he was asked a million times. In early September in his major Iraq speech he said he would NOT HAVE GONE to war. He repeated this that night on Letterman - even answering that it was possible in that case for Saddam to still be in power. He said the same thing many times in 2004.

If you listened in 2004 - he said that Bush mislead us into war by not exhasuting the diplomacy, not letting the inspectors finish their work and not as a war of last resort. Does anyone else thing they heard these statements at least a million times. Each of those phrases were a Bush promise violated.

Until the DSM, which showed that Bush was going to go to war anyway and that he "fixed" the intelligence, Kerry was willing to consider the possiblity that Bush was wrong on WMD, rather than he lied. Kerry in his speech on the IWR spoke of the possibility that there were WMD - the key seemed that you could not say there weren't with certainty because there had been no inspectors.

Knowing who Saddam was, that the sanctions would be lifted, the prudent thing was to get inspectors back in. Kerry, in recent years, has said he was wrong to trust Bush. It may be he was quilty of thinking he could push Bush into working with teh UN and possibly avoid the war.

What is clear is, that in spite of being diagnosed with cancer in late December and having various tests and treatments and surjery in mid February, 2003, Kerry made a strong speech that said not to rush to war. He also spoke against the invasion calling for regime change here after Bush invaded - this when the war was at 70% approval. These speeches clearly branded him as anti- war at that time. In fact, had he been well enough to attend the DNC event in March or April 2003, where Dean gave an anti war speech - that perception may have continued.

Words, mere words. In the Greatest Story Ever Sold, Frank Rich (one the good guys still in journalism) wrote:

"If there was a day that Kerry lost the election, it may have come in August 2004 ... Asked if he would still have voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein if he knew then that there were no weapons of mass destruction, Kerry answered yes. Would Kerry have also answered that a Senator should have voted to authorize the Vietnam War even if he knew that the Johnson administration had hyped North Vietnamese attacks on American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin? Hardly. His answer about Iraq was a moment of supreme intellectual dishonesty that sullied his own Vietnam past as surely as the sleazy Swift Boat assassins did."

Kerry would still have voted for this mess. He and others like him who claim they didn't know what Bush would do are fools for several reasons:

1) it was practically spelled out in PNAC
2) it made no sense because how does a country that we already decimated in 1991 and then kept under sanctions for 12 years morph into such a great, imminent threat
3) it made no sense because 15/19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and the 4 remaining were from Yemen, Egypt and UAE; there was not an Iraqi among them
4) they should have heeded the sage words of their colleagues Byrd and Kennedy who urged against
haste especially a rush to war

All the lives lost or forever changed, all the waste and devastation, all the good will destroyed didn't need to happen. After the fact speeches and reams of words cannot undo the YEA vote that ceded way too much power to a megalomaniac.

Adam Nagourney and Jodi Wilgorin who all were beyond unfair in their coverage of Kerry certainly hurt Kerry's chances through lies and distortions.

The Boston Globe reported that Kerry who has a hearing loss from Vietnam did not hear the If phrase. In fact Kerry's full answer makes it obvious that he didn't because it was the same answer he always gave. As an answer with the if phrase, it was also absolutely inconsistent with the comments he gave many times a day.

Rich, who has still taken no responsibility for his treatment of Kerry and in 2000 of Gore, Speaking as a statistician, Rich is a very lousy analyst if he dwells on the one piece of countary evidence and ignores the thousands of times Kerry said he would NOT have invaded Iraq.

Note that Rich, unlike you, at least referred to the vote, not the decision to go to war. The fact is Kerry's vote did NOT cause the war any more than his speech could have prevented it. As to your points, there were no inspectors for 4 years. The former USSR borders Iraq, they could have smuggled something. Pakistan built a bomb unnotiuced by the world. Most of the Senators voting against the IWR voted for Levin. Had Levin been the bill, Bush would have invaded under it - using a similar signing statement to the one he put on the IWR.

Rich is also likely wrong about the comment hurting Kerry. Kerry got the anti-war vote. There was almost no third party voting. Every bit of analysis came down to the issue that decided it was terror and fear. One analysis I read made a conclusion that when it came down to it people in fear chose Bush/Cheney because they KNEW that they would attack if hit harder than they had to. They were concerned that Kerry would be more measured in any response because of his values.

and whether you like Rich or loathe him, what he wrote is absolutely correct.

All excuses aside, those who voted yea on IWR, aided and abetted Bush. PERIOD!

Stop the speechifying and end the fucking war.

and been villified more for working to end the war than Senator Kerry over the last 2 plus years. Senator Kerry has said his vote was a mistake he profoundly regrets. It was clearly NOT a vote for war. The fact is that Bush would have gone to war no matter what resolution was passed.

I actually like Frank Rich and know people who have corresponded with him regularly. That said, the best thing he could have done to have ended the war was to have at least not attacked Kerry as he did in 2004. Did you read his 2004 columns? Or, do you think Kerry would have led us to where Bush is. It did hurt Kerry that the NYT and WP which are considered liberal papers, were both behind Bush's foreign policy.

no matter how it was written - just as he did to the UN resolution that passed, or do people WANT to forget that point in their reach to blame the Democrats?

Rove spun that vote into a vote for war and the media complied so Bush could AVOID the actual guidelines and steps that were part of it, and so when Senators like Kerry focused on the aspects of the IWR that Bush was violating by invading, the corpmedia, the RW and the left were all on the same page screaming that the IWR was to blame for war.

and the corpmedia is in cahoots to ignore election fraud because most didn't WANT Kerry to win, no matter what they claimed.

So they blame the IWR for EVERYTHING - even though they know DAMN WELL that IWR did not send this nation to war - IWR would have PREVENTED war if administered honestly.

But media accepted Rove's spin that Bush had to go to war and IWR meant that Democrats were fully behind WAR, as if there were no measures to meet like weapon inspections and diplomacy.

On top of everyone else you blamed, now it's the New York Times fault that Kerry blew it to an imbecile? lol

They were as useless to the 2004 campaign as the bigname Democrats who stayed PUBLICALLY closer to Bush on terrorism and Iraq strategy, while refusing to back up Kerry on Tora Bora, Rumsfeld's firing, and fighting terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

Just like they wouldn't back him up later on Downing Street Memos, Alito filibuster and Iraq withdrawal vote last June.

You can tell you hit home, just by the responses! lol

:toast:

in the media who hail Ford are only doing so to make 'Moving past' serious crimes of office the STANDARD and the WAY it will be for every cooperating administration - Dem or GOP.


That's a cycle this country needs to BREAK, once and for all.

And in large measure, that is why I am an impeachment hawk and in favor of any 08 candidate who promises to investigate and prosecute as appropriate.

I LOVE YOU!!!!!


And your lovely wife.

wrong spot