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."
Did he ever sign SF180?
Gore ... Dean ... Kerry ... Hillary ... I can't fathom what the Dems are thinking as we look forward to 2008. It's like the whole party took 10 big steps to the left overnight. And with each step they repeat the claim to represent mainstream America. I just don't get it.
Is sKerry so brain dead that he hasn't yet realized he lost the election?
Wake up, Johnny boy, America didn't want you anymore than did your Swift Vet buddies.
Now, go out back and play, like a good little boy.
from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1415393/posts
"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," he said of the memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "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. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."
He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the sense that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"
Earlier in the day, Sen. Kerry met in a "town hall"-style meeting with about 75 seniors, where he assailed the recently passed Medicare prescription drug benefit, the GOP's tax cuts for wealthy Americans and the attempts to privatize Social Security.
He said to the largely supportive group, "The next time one of those conservative senators or congressmen comes to you and starts talking to you about American values, I want you to look him in the eye and say, what is the value that is represented in providing the wealthiest people in America with a great big tax cut at the expense of the poorest people in the country?"
"I went back and reread the New Testament the other day, and I've got news for you. Nowhere in the three-year ministry of Jesus Christ is there any suggestion at all that you ought to take from the poor and give to the rich and leave children at risk," he said to a loud round of applause.
Invoking the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal's "safety net," Sen. Kerry accused Mr. Bush and the GOP of misleading the public about Social Security and their intentions. "They're never telling the truth," he said.
"There were people who opposed Social Security in the '30s and '40s. There were people who voted against Medicare in the last quarter-century. And they're still there," he said.
He dismissed claims that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042 or 2052, but "Medicare Part A does go bankrupt in 2020. Why isn't the president talking about that?"
Several seniors quizzed Sen. Kerry about the practice of penalizing Social Security recipients who have other sources of income, especially those who have lost their spouses or who worked for some time outside the Social Security system. Sen. Kerry replied that he and others are backing legislation to ease those cuts, which one city resident said were causing her to have to sell her home.
Dartmouth resident Robert Michaud made a case for private retirement accounts, charging that they have been shown to produce a better rate of return than Social Security. A person making $90,000 a year puts $12,000 into Social Security, he said. Raising that income cap "is not tweaking, it's a crime," he said.
Later in the day, Sen. Kerry attended a forum in Fall River discussing the Head Start program.
He claims he did. Then weaseled around about how long it wouild take to file the paperwork.
"Even Bill Clinton and Algore said the was WMD's."
There is no more powerful way to defeat a lib than with boomeranging the statements made by their ideoligically heroes:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
And let's not forget their pontifications in the past on filibusters:
* Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)
* Joseph Biden (D-DE) "everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a … vote on the floor."
(Cong. Rec., 3/19/97, S2540)
* Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down."
(Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)
* Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur."
(Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
* Edward Kennedy (D-MA) "If our … colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote."
(Cong. Rec., 2/3/98, S292)
* Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) "Let's bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down."
(Cong. Rec., 9/11/97, S9165)
* Tom Daschle (D-SD) "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination."
(Cong. Rec., 10/5/99, S11919)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT) "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported."
(Cong. Rec, 6/18/98, S6521)
* Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) The filibuster "has unfortunately become a commonplace tactic to thwart the will of the majority."
(Cong. Rec., 1/4/95, S36)
And we never, ever can ignore the flopping Byrd (from this blog: http://jcrue.blogspot.com/2005/03/byrd-byrd-byrd-is-word.html):
U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) had an op-ed in the Washington Post today (‘Nuking’ Free Speech, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5692-2005Mar3.html) arguing against the current Senate proposal to restore the rights of the majority and end the unprecedented filibusters against the President’s Judicial nominees. But his arguments were both factually wrong, and historically inconsistent with his own voting record.
Sen. Byrd said that restoring Senate tradition “could rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch or a wrongheaded policy. It could destroy the Senate's very essence -- the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate.†But history—and Sen. Byrd’s own actions—prove otherwise.
In fact, Sen. Byrd is often credited with pioneering the Senate procedure he now derides as a denial of free speech and a threat to our liberties. Recall that it was Sen. Byrd who led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 - including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents:
In 1977, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent in order to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural gas deregulation bill....
In 1979, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent that allowed the Chair to rule on questions of germaneness raised during the consideration of appropriations bills - notwithstanding Senate Rule XVI, which states that all questions of germaneness on appropriations bills must be decided by the full Senate.
In 1980, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent to require an immediate vote, without debate, on any motion to go into executive session to consider a particular nomination. His new precedent was specifically designed, in his words, to "deal with a filibuster on the motion to proceed" to a nomination. Previously, a motion to proceed to a particular nomination was debatable. The new precedent was sustained by a vote of 54-38, and yet the precedent did not “rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch,†as Sen. Byrd claimed in his op-ed.
In 1987, Senator Byrd caused establishment of a new precedent declaring that certain tactics were to be construed as dilatory during roll call votes and therefore always out of order no matter what - even though the text of the Senate rules had clearly authorized such tactics. Previously, dilatory tactics were out of order only after cloture had been invoked.
And in 1975, the Senate voted three times (51-42, 48-40, and 46-43) in support of the power of a Senate majority under Article I to change the rules. Those precedents forced the Senate to act and led to a major change in the cloture rule.
Liberals - hypocrisy is thy name!
O my God! It does exist!
Very interesting.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
******
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
******
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
But we all know what a waffler he is, so I don't much stock in whatever info is released. As another poster noted, if that information that he's so slow to release would have helped his campaign, you better believe he would have released it early last year.
Kerry who????
'Kerry is a nimrod'-ping!
John O'Neill will be remembered for being one of the main reasons that John Kerry was not elected.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your post about O'Neill but if it's that O'Neill lied about his own military service please provide some proof of that. Not that a red herring such as that really matters anyway.
John Kerry, like so many other professional leeches in Washington, is unfit to represent anyone other than his pissant self.
Kerry is too chicken. He'll flip flop and do nothing of the sort.
Another SeeBS "no proof, but the story is right" type?
Don't be a CINO (Conservative in Name Only)
Don't listen to CINO's in politics,
the Main Stream CINO media,
and even here on Free Republic.
Remember all who told you not to worry about klintoon, hitlery and reno
after the 2000 election?
Remember all who said Ashcroft would prosecute them.
Remember Chinagate, Pardongate, Waco, Vince Foster, the Jewish town in NY etc., etc., etc. ?
Well reno ran against Jeb Bush and hitlery wants to beat Hanoi Kerry in 08
Are YOU willing to listen to the CINO's again?
Well, it looks like O'Neill has lied repeatedly about his own service record.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412328/posts?page=54#54
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412328/posts?page=55#55
But it is true that many people probably don't care that Kerry's chief accuser is a liar.
This is getting too good for words. Keep it coming, John-Boy!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412328/posts?page=54#54
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412328/posts?page=55#55
Rush said a year ago that if Bush gets re-elected there
would be an all-out effort by the 'Rats and the MSM to have
him impeached over Iraq. The effort is under way. Will we go the distance to do what's necessary to stop the assault in its tracks? If it gains momentum, and we ignore it, we
could be sorry.
Kerry is a miserable, henpecked, frustrated swine. But he will see this as an opportunity to lead a 'Rat Party move to paralyze the Bush Administration and take Frau Hillary out of the limelight.
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.