Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo

nice pic.

Call me naive, but I like it that a few of our Senators are challenging the Groupthink mentality. The conservative agenda is better for it.

The conservative agenda is better served by allowing Democrats like Robert Byrd define "extraordinary circumstances"? Byrd was one of the "moderate 14" that gave us the Republican "cave-in" on the filibuster...a cave-in that happened thanks to seven Republicans.

Uhhhhh . . . actually, it is not. Fixing intelligence would mean falsifying it, altering it. Fixing intelligence around a policy means finding intelligence that supports a policy.

Now . . . you may be dismayed at this, but I am not. What would the alternative be? Going to war with Iraq on a whim with no intelligence?

This was a planning meeting. Blair and Bush were discussing their options and preparing for the worst. Neither of them had any reasonable expectation that Saddam was going to change course, no matter how much the UN and the French and Germans really wanted it to be so. It wasn't going to happen.

There is absolutely NOTHING criminal indicated by this memo.

Actually, I was speaking more on their willingness to challenge the Party leaders across the board. Chuck Hagel has been another with the strength of conviction to step "outside the box," Is he a "RINO" also? Debate in good faith can only strengthen governance. I like to think GOP Members have indeed been operating in good faith.

"Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said..."

I love the way this article starts out. :^)

But it should have simply said: Failure John Kerry.

Going to war on selective intelligence is not much more intellectually honest than fabricating intelligence. Is lying by omission better than lying (to be clear, I am NOT accusing the administration of lying, rather using a an analogy) The Administration (and most everyone else) has said the intel pointed toward war. I take them at their word.

Just tell Alan to google impeachment "bush" and he will get tons of it from the rats.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&q=impeachment+%22bush%22&spell=1

You are leaping to a conclusion. Selecting intelligence that fits a policy is EXACTLY what I expect The President to do.

Ignoring the exculpatory is a differnt matter . . . but there again, these are choices. The President had to evaluate the entire intelligence picture. I'm sure that there was intelligence of both types on the table. He believed . . . and so did most of the world, I might add . . . that the damning intelligence far outweighed the exculpatory. There is no indication that he IGNORED the exculpatory. He took it into account and rejected it. That's a choice. That's what leaders do.

What everyone chose to do about Iraq is a political decision. What Bush chose to do about Iraq was a political decision. If there is a price to be paid for that, then it is a political price.

Again, I'll reiterate, there is no indication of CRIMINAL activity in the memo. Therefore, there is no basis for impeachment. Impeachment is not meant to be a political tool. That's what we have elections for. Impeachment is a means for bringing a president to heel for CRIMINAL ACTS, for which he must be tried and convicted. THIS does not rise to that standard. Not even close.

You sure use a lot of analogies to explain what you are not explaining.

Have you read these utterly ridiculous Articles of Impeachment? I'm sorry, but referring to the UN in any Articles of Impeachment is just plain dumb. Where in the US Constitution is fealty to the UN supported? What a bunch of retards.

And they wonder why with disbelief that they are the minority party losing ground every election. lol

bassfire

"Yes, you are correct, It is about intellectual honesty, but also consistency."

The Pubbies are being very consistent. When 19 Dems, including Harkin, Kerry, Kennedy, Levin, wanted to eliminate the use of filibusters in ALL cases, every Repub and most Dems voted it down. Whether you were or were not against eliminating filibusters in the past is irrelevant to me. My concern is what did our politicians say and do in the past particuarly those that are still in power. The Pubbies delayed votes in committee (as have Dems) but NEVER filibustered a candidate that had a known majority support.

Obviously it is easier when one has a 55-seat majority but there is nothing inconsistent on the Pubbies side to say that this is a new requirement created by the MINORITY side, the very same side of which when they were the MAJORITY changed the rule that allows rule changes by a simple majority (Byrd).

Souter, Breyer and especially Ginsburg got through with virtually zippo dissent when it came to actually vote. Clarence Thomas could have been filibustered by the Dems but it would not have been necessary - they were the MAJORITY then.

Other than 1953-55 and 1981-87 the Dems had control of the senate from 1933-95. The Pubbies never filibustered a nominee - they were consistent and bided their time. In that same period when the dems were briefly in the minority the Dems also did not filibuster.

So please if you can show how the Pubbies are being inconsistent in regards to filibustering judicial nominees (particuarly those that have clear majority support) then your claim of inconsistency will be vindicated.

"Going to war on selective intelligence is not much more intellectually honest than fabricating intelligence."

Were these guys being selective then AND selective now:

“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 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 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 time since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

”[WE] 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 Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D – MA), 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 invigorated 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, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 review Bill Clinton's Iraq campaign launched Dec. 16, 1998 (a day before impeachment proceeding were to commence):

"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

When compared to their statements ever since the beginning of the current action you tell me: Who is being selective?

I never said the GOP was inconsistent regarding the use of the filibuster. You may disagree, but I feel strongly that if the tables were turned, we would be fighting for the right to filibuster judicial nominees that had designs on legalizing gay marriage, overturning abortion restrictions, and the like, and rightly so.

The consistent position is opposing elimination of the filibuster, no matter the majority party. If a nominee has a clear majority behind him or her, the cloture vote should be easily attainable, as it was for the Owen nomination.

Thanks for the ping!

You misread my post. Here it is again:

"Going to war on selective intelligence is not much more intellectually honest than fabricating intelligence. Is lying by omission better than lying (to be clear, I am NOT accusing the administration of lying, rather using a an analogy) The Administration (and most everyone else) has said the intel pointed toward war. I take them at their word."

I was responding to another poster that seemed to be implying that selecting intel to support a policy is ok. I opined that it is not. Selecting intelligence to justify war (and ignoring intel that does not) is irresponsible, to say the least.

I also asserted that I do not believe this to be the case. The administration looked at the intelligence, and made a judgement based on careful analysis. The intel was wrong, but that's ok, it's the best we had, and reflected a broad consensus, as you pointed out.

Well you're wrong. There is not any strength in the conservative cause by allowing liberals to dictate the agenda, which is what happened on the filibuster rule.

I am right. Remember Tom Daschle. Short term losses will be recouped in long term gain, with interest. Plus, the filibuster will remain in tact for a rainy day. You seem to want to run a sprint while the race is a marathon.