Posted on 06/02/2005 9:37:29 PM PDT by kromike
Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," Kerry said, referring to the Downing Street Memo in an interview with Massachusetts' Standard Times newspaper.
Story Continues Below
"I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," the top Democrat added. The Downing Street Memo, first reported on May 1 by the London Times, was drafted by a Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is said to be minutes of a July 2002 meeting where Blair allegedly admitted that the Bush administration "fixed" Iraq intelligence to manufacture a rationale for war.
Citing the Downing Street Memo, former presidential candidate Ralph Nader called for an impeachment investigation on Tuesday in an op-ed piece published by the Boston Globe.
"It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists," wrote Nader with co-author Kevin Zeese. "A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step."
The British memo, however, contains no quotes from either Bush or Blair, and is notably slim on evidence implicating Bush in a WMD cover-up.
Though largely ignored in the U.S. outside of rabid anti-Bush web sites like MichaelMoore.com, the Downing Street Memo won Sen. Kerry's endorsement in the Standard Times interview:
"It's amazing to me," the top Democrat said, "the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."
Yawn.....
I just hope it promts Bush into seriously going after Kerry and his record. I sure would if I had the power Bush does to make things happen.
The point is Kerry simply isn't worth the effort
dang... didn't make it to his one year anniversary ;)
Oops! Kitty pudding...
"I just hope it promts Bush into seriously going after Kerry and his record."
I doubt he will, though, since he's not up for re-election. What's the use? He's has been elected twice and he's sitting pretty.
The Great Iraq Flip Flop
By Linda A. Prussen-Razzano
Democrat candidates for 2004, in an obvious attempt to rile to their base and generate headlines of any significance, have decided to use the war with Iraq as their rallying cry. If they truly believe that this position will lend them any credibility with voters outside of their base, then President Bush will have little trouble bayoneting the wounded come Election Day.
Wounded, you say? Yes, wounded.
With the exception of Howard Dean, who is garnering public support but will undoubtedly only see the White House with the help of a tour guide, there isn’t a single Democrat in the field who didn’t also believe everything President Bush believed about Iraq, long before President Bush was elected.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) likes to pretend he remained unconvinced that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed a threat to the American people, but back on January 28, 1998, he co-sponsored concurrent resolution #71. After listing multiple grievances committed by Iraq, and detailing its flagrant defiance of numerous United Nations resolutions, Mr. Kerry and 45 other members of the Senate, affirmed that:
“Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security; and
Whereas the United States has existing authority to defend United States interests in the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the continued threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq's refusal to meet its international obligations and end its weapons of mass destruction programs;
(2) urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs; and
(3) urges the President to work with Congress in furthering a long-term policy aimed at definitively ending the threat to international peace and security posed by the government of Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Too bad Senator Kerry shot his mouth off. On March 12, 1998, he also co-sponsored concurrent resolution #78, relating to the indictment and prosecution of Saddam Hussein for war crimes and other crimes against humanity, specifically:
“Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President should--
(1) call for the creation of a commission under the auspices of the United Nations to establish an international record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials;
(2) call for the United Nations to form an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and any other Iraqi officials who may be found responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other violations of international humanitarian law; and
(3) upon the creation of a commission and international criminal tribunal, take steps necessary, including the reprogramming of funds, to ensure United States support for efforts to bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials to justice.”
Unlike his counterparts, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) has been relatively tame in his criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the war with Iraq. This is a good thing, because he also co-sponsored concurrent resolution #71 and concurrent resolution #78. Further, he co-sponsored Joint Resolution #54, finding that Iraq was in an unacceptable and material breach of its international obligations.
Former candidate Dick Gephardt, who once dominated television screens and now begs for media attention, and Dennis Kucinich, whose campaign is so thoroughly uninteresting he had to make a mockery of Private Jessica Lynch’s rescue just to get noticed, also supported Joint Resolution #54, finding Iraq in material breach, as documented under Roll Call Vote #378 taken August 8, 1998.
Please note, under United Nations resolution 1154, passed on March 12, 1998, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations would allow the United States to use military force to bring them into compliance.
Back in 1998, Republicans introduced all of these bills. Back in 1998, Republicans did not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the people of Iraq, their neighbors, and the global community. Back in 1998, all the Democrats listed above agreed.
Back in 1998, Republicans put the security of the country first over partisan politics. By all appearances, many of the current crop of Democrat candidates are incapable of doing the same. Do we really want that type of person for a President?
Before any of them start screaming about President Bush or inferring that he lied, I have just one question – what did you not know then, and when did you not know it?
*****
Why Democrats Will Lose The War
By Linda A. Prussen-Razzano
Another day, another soldier coming home to Dover, and another Democrat twists himself into a pretzel on the war with Iraq. If you are looking for consistency and resolve in fighting the war on terror, your only chance on the Democrat side is Joe Lieberman. The rest of the Democrat candidates have little credibility, pitifully less historical awareness, and could not purchase a clue at discount prices on how to properly combat terror.
In order to determine just how inept a candidate is, let’s outline some of the more ridiculous talking points they are spouting:
1. President Bush launched a pre-emptive war.
This is a lie. During the terms of the original cease fire, Iraq agreed to a no-fly zone. In the years that followed, it attacked our military planes on patrol. Any one of those attacks was grounds for a military response.
In November of 1997, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, which changed America’s military posture, including the first-strike use of nuclear weapons in response to terrorist attacks.
On January 28, 1998, Congress authored concurrent resolution #71, which urged the President “to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Authority had already been granted to the President to meet the growing threat, long before he had taken office.
United Nations Resolution 1154, passed in March of 1998, warned of the “severest consequences” for Iraq if they failed to comply. Mr. Clinton used UNR 1154 as justification for bombing Iraq later that year.
Finally, Iraq’s ties to terrorists were well documented. The Palestinian Liberation Front of Abu Abbas had training camps in Iraq and Abbas was later captured in Iraq after it was liberated by Allied soldiers.
America was not fighting a new war, it was fighting an old war. If a candidate is too stupid to know the difference, they certainly are not smart enough to run the country.
2. The President Should Have Known About the Terrorist Plot
The Clinton Administration severely hampered the intelligence community by refusing them to engage in any “dirty” espionage, having national intelligence focus on Christian groups and copyright violators, and cutting lines of communication between national and international operatives . The intelligence community was so restricted, we were caught completely unaware that India and Pakistan were going nuclear until they detonated their warheads just weeks apart from each other in May of 1998.
Yet, somehow, these same detractors place no blame on former President Clinton for not apprehending Osama bin Laden, for not preventing the attacks on our embassies, the first attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the massacre that was Somalia, and the Congressionally unauthorized use of troops in Serbia.
And how, pray tell, should President Bush have known? Don’t expect a realistic answer, because you won’t get one.
3. Iraq is a quagmire we can’t afford.
Two days into the military engagement, and it was a quagmire. We rolled over the countryside with lightning speed, and it was a quagmire. We have lost fewer troops in this war than any other major military engagement in history, but it’s a quagmire.
No, it is a focal point, and a must win for America. Leaving now would create a power vacuum in an unstable part of the world. By bringing the battle to Iraq, we are luring terrorists and extremists from all corners to one central location.
Further, in just one of the 14 appropriations bills before Congress this year, we gifted away $14 billion dollars to various programs that do nothing to further the cause of national security. If we stopped pledging funds to every useless program across the globe, we would have more than enough money to rebuild Iraq and create a core of democracy in a sea of tyranny.
Moreover, a lot of the “rebuilding” is, in fact, repairs caused by years of neglect and misuse under Saddam’s regime. The United Nations averted its gaze under the “Oil for Food” program and allowed Saddam to collection millions while his country starved and remained deprived. America is supposed to allow the United Nations to once again control a country it so thoroughly neglected?
No thanks, I’ll keep Bush.
****
Here, Lurch, you lying, stupid POS, there are some FACTS for you. I'm whiping my baby's dirty bottom with your memo.
Maybe he said he'd do a 180 on signing his Military Record release form?
Can you believe the GALL this guy has to suggest he read the NT, nevermind claims by this statement to be a CHRISTIAN??? Puting a stop to excessive taxation on the rich is NOT taking from the poor. The poor DO NOT have any right to my hard earned money. Besides, the poor never see any of it,lieing thieving liberals steal it all and line their pockets. I will give my money to the charities I choose. If they are corrupt, politically aliegned with thieving Liberals, or backward UN NGO'S, they get NOTHING.
bump
LOL and wasted what time he did have.
It's been reported that he did sign it, and that it's been sent to the Navy for review.
Sorry, but no review is necessary. If he signs it, it's a done deal.
John Kerry - coward, traitor, fraud, gigolo and just all-around sociopath. Am I forgetting anything? Did I get the order right?
I was only vaguely aware of this creep before the election, now I can't get his foul taste out of my mouth. I truly can't think of anyone I dislike as much as this guy and I will go to my grave cursing him. Those who read my posts during the election know why.
But in addition to my own issues, everytime I see a wounded service person (Major Tammy Duckworth comes to mind), I just want to scream that this POS got 3 purple hearts and is still walking around on 2 legs, can still see, still has his arms, and still has breath to vilify his country.
Well there you go, your reading something into Douglas Brinkley's statements which he later clarified, John Kerry did not give him all his records and only authorized him to disclose what he approved of.
Your attack on John Oneil is also unfounded. He adressed all acusations on many interviews. He's clean.
Update your information
I was thinking that is why he would, he's not up for re-election, it would be a nice parting gift to give Kerry. Lord knows he deserves it.
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.