Posted on 09/29/2004 8:00:45 AM PDT by finnman69
GMA
John Kerry was apparently on Good Morning America and The Note snippets this baffling exchange:
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
DS: So it was not worth it.
JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.
DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?
JK: No.
DS: But right now it wasn't?p>
JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done what he's — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That's the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.
DS: But no way to get rid of him.
JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.
DS: So you're saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don't twist here. Notice how Kerry loses his cool and accuses the questioner of twisting; Is this guy thin-skinned or what?
In tomorrow's debate, Kerry will benefit from lowered expectations because his image among voters is something of a caricature right now. But he still has to do better than he did on GMA. You can bet President Bush has a list of zingers that he will deploy if Kerry gives him an opening.
Whose word are we depending on to declare that this individual was in Iraq at the time in question?
You know, if you are going to lie, you should at least avoid the provable lies. Everything I posted above is in prior posts to you, and you have responded, so I know you read them. All that is necessary to prove it is to copy those posts here.
You have no interest in the truth, only in your spin.
Which Shakir? At which time?
Did you know that Saddam's fingerprints were on the first WTC bombing in '93?
This is but one of dozens of articles about that matter as well:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115387/posts
Doesn't this "orange face" thing remind you of Al Gore in the closing days of the campaign - changing his image - wearing "earth tones" - So FAKE and so TRANSPARENT.... They really do think the American people are too dumb to notice these attempts at making over their image.
THANK GOD President Bush is the real thing!!
Anyone hear Rush say , "There is no truth to the rumor that Kerry has been exposed to "Agent Orange"?" Hilarious!
Are all Iraqi nationals a part of Iraqi intelligence? Or is this just another of your non-sequiturs?
Peach's article was written by Laurie Mylroie. She has been pushing the theory of Iraq's role in the OK City bombing for years. She has also been pushing a theory that the Iraqis did the 1st WTC bombing. This theory is predicated on the idea that KSM and Ramzi Yusef are not really who we say they are and that their identities were fabricated from info stolen during the invasion of Kuwait. A handful of known quantities buy into the Mylroie theory, notably James Woolsey and, to a lesser extent, Wolfowitz. Most view it as "conspiracy theory" stuff.
Since when has Kerry done something without cameras around? His sentence is beyond outrageous. It's downright pathetic.
He's a "Me Too!" person.
You dare complain of honesty in others when you post deceptive crap like this?
You pretend that Pakistan operated like Iraq and claim to be honest? Identifying the actions of a loosely controlled country like Pakistan with the totalitarian dictatorship of Saddam is highly dishonest.
As is the pretense that Saudi Arabia spoke with one voice or its citizens were identical with the government. Or that it was in any way as dangerous as Saddam's.
We did not have to justify action against Saddam based upon one thing there were many which amply justified that.
Including his involvement in the first WTC attack and the OKC bombing.
Just his trying to kill President GHW Bush was sufficient justification for war had we had a president at the time.
Oh, brother. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Nearly everyone in the intelligence community accepts that Iraq was behind the first WTC bombing. I thought it was a given and not even an open question anymore.
Oh...I blew it, I blew it!
You really can't read can you.
I said that Jordanian intelligence stands by their report that Shakir is Iraqi intelligence.
Notice how Kerry loses his cool and accuses the questioner of twisting; Is this guy thin-skinned or what?
Oh yeah....been saying that all along. kerry has a short fuse and you can light it very easily. GWB stays cool and kerry will blow. My God if he can't handle an interview by a simple journalist (sorry Diane) how in theee hell is he gonna handle a genious like GWB?
Peach is right. You don't know what in perdition you're talking about.
CBS (questionable value :-)
Lawsuit in federal court against Iraq by 9/11 families. Mentions Ramzi Yousef, etc.
Thought you may be interested. And now I'm off to other threads; too much time spent on this one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
from above:"(NOTICE: The 9/11 Commission Report released July 22 contradicts the speculation about Shakir's identity. Buried in Footnote 49 of Ch. 6:Commission Report: Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)"
I guess my point is that from the above, the closest I get to putting that guy into a (pre-planning) 9/11 meeting is this quote from Hayes, "An Iraqi of that name ... had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks."
I'm just saying that is not enough for me to go on. The man can only be "possibly" linked to Hussein, I have not heard anyone in the administration refer to it, and the 9/11 commission was clear in saying that they haven't found "operational" ties. And yes, he was an "airport greeter" but do we know he was part of this meeting? If he were part of the meeting and linked to Sadaam, then yes... that would be an operational tie.
yes... I was aware of this link.
That's your statement.
Well, let's see how that compares to a Fox News story, with comments by Vice-President Cheney, from a few months ago:
"At the time, Al Qaeda was in its formative stages in Sudan, and officials said they know of no conclusive evidence that ties either Usama bin Laden or the Iraqi government to the attack."
Sure. Nearly everyone accepts it. An easy assertion for you to make, because you know it can't be disproven. It is a shame, though, that "nearly everyone" is being so silent about what they all "accept."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.