Kerry should hit the sack earlier, he obviously sounds incoherent in the AM.
If there is a moderate to right of center in the bunch, their questioning to Kerry on Iraq should follow Sawyer's line of questioning to a t.
Make the man say what he means and mean what he says. Don't let him off the hook on this one!
This all reminds me of the Laurel and Hardy 'Who's on first" routine.
I read the transcript twice and I still have no idea what Jabberwocky Kerry was saying.
I swear Homer Simpson is more articulate.
"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."
Even if this was true, and it's not, how in the holy heck would sKerry explain that "knowing the information that we know today" could have remotely changed the decisions made nearly two years ago if we didn't know it till now. We couldn't have known what we didn't know then but know now if you're John Kerry which I'm glad I'm not. I have so much less to explain than he does.
The debates are going to be like the auditions for The Last Comic Standing which in this case will be sKerry out cold on the temperature controlled floor in poor "standing".
Mumble, mumble, munb.....
Reminiscent of the familiar routine: "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
"In tomorrow's debate, Kerry will benefit from lowered expectations because his image among voters is something of a caricature right now."
Lowered expectations are only good if you can in fact exceed them.
I tend to look for more that a characture when I vote, although ayt present, that has what Kerry has reduced himself to.
John Kerry is completely incapable of expressing a cogent thought.
BUMP for later FUMING!!!!!
Kerry continued: "My first action as President will be to create a cabinet level Dept of Tarot so we can prevent going to war without future knowledge."
What an Orange AssClown
How can somebody who can barely string together a coherent paragraph SERIOUSLY think he might get elected President?
This is beginning to look more and more like a Clinton set-up to make sure Hillery has a clear field in 2008.
Okay, I'm stymied at the first answer he gives. We didn't know the information that we know today, at that time, so how could we not have gone to war "knowing" that information, that we didn't know.
Right, now I'm having a flashback to a Harry Mudd episode of Star Trek.
Kerry was a little aggressive with Diane Sawyer. Doesn't he remember what happens when you do that in public"I don't fall. That s__-of-a-b____ tripped me."
"I just threw it in the dirt because the guy behind the plate was so nervous."
Years from now Political Science students will be studying Kerry in the "101 THINGS NOT TO DO WHEN YOU'RE A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE" class. Can anyone name one thing this guy has done right? From his VP choice, to his campaign stops to where he eats, he just keeps screwing up. But it shows one core problem: if you don't have firm beliefs, you will always get tied up when answering questions. It's almost sad.
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.
One question and the debate and election is over:
BUSH: Senator Kerry, How can America elect a president during a war on terrorism who does not know that there are indeed links between Al Qaeda?
Given how Congress has made as many or more mistakes than our intelligence services, I am unwilling to take the 9/11 Commission or Senate Intelligence Reports as the final arbiter of truth about much of anything.
This is what the book The Connections has to say about the matter of an Iraq/AQ connection as it related to a 9/11 planning meeting. You will note it has far more detail than what a bunch of guys sitting at a desk in Washington were able to find out.
In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.
An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, 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. Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy. More curious, Shakir's Iraqi embassy contact controlled his schedule, telling him when to show up for work and when to take a day off.
A greeter typically meets VIPs upon arrival and accompanies them through the sometimes onerous procedures of foreign travel. Shakir was instructed to work on January 5, 2000, and on that day, he escorted one Khalid al Mihdhar from his plane to a waiting car. Rather than bid his guest farewell at that point, as a greeter typically would have, Shakir climbed into the car with al Mihdhar and accompanied him to the Kuala Lumpur condominium of Yazid Sufaat, the American-born al Qaeda terrorist who hosted the planning meeting.
The meeting lasted for three days. Khalid al Mihdhar departed Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and eventually Los Angeles. Twenty months later, he was aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it plunged into the Pentagon at 9:38 A.M. on September 11. So were Nawaf al Hazmi and his younger brother, Salem, both of whom were also present at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.
Six days after September 11, Shakir was captured in Doha, Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for several senior al Qaeda terrorists: Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who helped mix the chemicals for the first World Trade Center attack and was given safe haven upon his return to Baghdad; and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, otherwise known as Abu Hajer al Iraqi, described by one top al Qaeda detainee as Osama bin Laden's "best friend."
Despite all of this, Shakir was released. On October 21, 2001, he boarded a plane for Baghdad, via Amman, Jordan. He never made the connection. Shakir was detained by Jordanian intelligence. Immediately following his capture, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence on Shakir, the Iraqi government began exerting pressure on the Jordanians to release him. Some U.S. intelligence officials--primarily at the CIA--believed that Iraq's demand for Shakir's release was pro forma, no different from the requests governments regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by foreign nationals. But others, pointing to the flurry of phone calls and personal appeals from the Iraqi government to the Jordanians, disagreed. This panicked reaction, they say, reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest levels of Saddam Hussein's regime.
CIA officials who interviewed Shakir in Jordan reported that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to talk, he provided some important information: The interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated that he had probably learned them from a government intelligence service. Shakir's nationality, his contacts with the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, the keen interest of Baghdad in his case, and now the appearance of his name on the rolls of Fedayeen officers--all this makes the Iraqi intelligence service the most likely source of his training.
The Jordanians, convinced that Shakir worked for Iraqi intelligence, went to the CIA with a bold proposal: Let's flip him. That is, the Jordanians would allow Shakir to return to Iraq on the condition that he agree to report back on the activities of Iraqi intelligence. And, in one of the most egregious mistakes by the U.S. intelligence community after September 11, the CIA agreed to Shakir's release. He posted a modest bail and returned to Iraq.
He hasn't been heard from since.
Whether Shakir was Fedayeen is up to interpretation. That he is an Iraqi officer of some importance who was present at a 9/11 planning meeting seems indisputable.