Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo

Newsmax.com ^ | June 3, 2005 | Unknown

[tobyhill]

Would these be fair statements?

Thousands of Kurds and Iranians gassed by the authorization of Saddam would indicate that WMD existed in Iraq?

Iraq violated at least 16 UN Resolutions, should that justify the use of force?

Iraq firing at US Jets monitoring the no-fly zone established by the UN would be justification for war?

Expelling of UN monitors in violation of cease fire would be justification for war?

Failure to fully explain where the WMD, we knew he had, went to is reason to believe he was hiding it and justification for war?

Post 9/11 harboring terrorist is justification for war?

[cubram]

Once again, you're preaching to the choir.

[torchthemummy]

"Selecting intelligence to justify war (and ignoring intel that does not) is irresponsible, to say the least."

You have to select what is or is not credible intel. To come to a conclusion that the majority of intel by the US and other countries, coupled with the intelligence of past actions did not dwarf any intel that did not support military intervention just does not seem to be supported by the facts. I believe that all of the Dems and their statements, along with Clinton's Dec. 16 1998 justification, as I posted, actually were telling the truth because fortunately Hussein's Iraq had a thirty-year resume of proven brutality, terrorism support and regional desires for dominance allowed these seminal doves to play the hawk because...the truth was there to protect them.

You keep playing the angle quietly but it still is clear despite your denials: the war was unjust, Bush lied about intel, it doesn't matter what the Dems said then vs. now, we can't lower our selves to the enemies level yada yada yada. Sorry but I'm a Yankee, we take a little while and need good reason before we trust the new guy in town.

[tobyhill]

The questions above are about selective intelligence based on previous facts. It wasn't up to the US to determine whether Saddam had the WMD but Saddam was to prove he destroyed them. If he hadn't kicked the UN out the first time then the UN was supposed to destroy the WMD for him and Saddam would have skated. I even remember the US telling Saddam to just point out in the desert where the chems. were dumped and avoid the war but his reply was that he didn't owe the US any explanation. If there is any blame for the war then it's on the French for telling Saddam not to worry and just go ahead and treat America like crapola and they would handle us.

[cubram]

You want to think that I believe the war was/is unjust, but this simply is not the case. I supported the war then, and do now. I defy you to find something I've said to the contrary.

[cubram]

Are you trying to convince me? Or yourself? If it's the former you're beating a dead horse.

[harpo11]

John Kerry, put some ketchup on it".

President Bush got rid of the baddest as..er ah, baddest meanest bastard despotic dictator that could ever live during our time on earth. I don't give a rat's or democrats arse as to the reasons our resolute and determined President went to war and took the verminous plaque out, he did it because no one else would have or had the means to do it.

Don't you remember what happened on September 11, 2001? Those bloodthirsty murdering terrorist scum brutally killed 3000 of our, not French, I'm saying American citizens. Maybe even desecrating the Holy Bible and the Koran during these vicious attacks on America's soil.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Horse hockey. Tom Daschle was outed precisely because he was an obstructionist--something the Republicans are now participating in, to the detriment of the desires of the people who elected them--the conservatives.

I know full well the need to think long term. That has nothing to do with this issue, so don't lecture me on that.

As for the filibuster being there "in tact" [sic], I say "so what?" Republicans and conservatives have never participated in a long term strategy of filibustering judicial nominees. So you're saying we can KEEP something that we've never used since the Republican party began in the 1850s. Why bother?

No evidence exists that this "strategy" is going to put conservatives on the bench OR give Republicans more seats in the legislature. None.

And welcome to Free Republic. I notice you've been here a whole 3 days.

[Recovering_Democrat]

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.

You're wrong again. Owen sat for years without a vote--and she had a clear majority behind her.

[cubram]

Tom Daschle was outed precisely because he was an obstructionist

My point EXACTLY. I didn't even mention the political fallout the Nuke Option would have incurred. The polls reflected a negative opinion on the matter, as you know.

[cubram]

She obviously didn't have an overwhelming majority, that is, until last week when a cloture vote was attained

[tobyhill]

"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."
While you claim you are not accusing this administration and point this non-accusation out, your statement gives the impression of uncertainty. "I take them at their word" along with "(to be clear, I am NOT accusing the administration of lying, rather using a an analogy)"? All this within the context of "Going to war on selective intelligence is not much more intellectually honest than fabricating intelligence". I have never heard of a war without "selective intelligence".

[tobyhill]

"The polls reflected a negative opinion on the matter,"

Polls also showed President Bush with a 46%-48% approval rating and losing the election before the election but he won with over 50% majority. The MSM polls always lie.

[bannie]

snicker...This might be a wonderful example of, "Go ahead: Make my day."

[cubram]

The statement you quoted might as well have been a hypothetical. I was not referring to the Bush Administration (although this is obviously the context from which this started), but merely objecting to a statement you or someone else meant.

Maybe we define "selective" differently, but I would hope all war is approached based on the TOTALITY of intel. "Selective" implies picking and choosing evidence, for example that establishes grounds for war.

[tobyhill]

I think you have an expectation that Intel should be 100% accurate before going to war but George Tenet said one good thing,"While we will never be 100% right, we will never be 100% wrong". Wars will always be decided based on selective intelligence (picking and choosing) but in Iraq's case we also had historical significance. Because one picks information strictly based on their belief it does not make them a liar.

[cubram]

Picking and choosing based on careful analysis and determination of truth to the best of their ability, not beliefs. For example, a president would be irresponsible to say, "I don't like that pesky Chirac character, get me evidence so I can go to war with him," even though much of the evidence clearly points to Chirac as being irritating, but not dangerous.

No I don't expect 100 percent accuracy, but with so many lives at stake they better be darn close.

[cookcounty]

" I'm still wondering where sKerry's complete military records are. I read where he signed the okay to release all the documents. I suppose the release document is making its way through channels, huh?"

Now his excuse is that Theresa took the postage stamps with her.

[Recovering_Democrat]

If you understand Dashcle was an obstructionist, then you ought to understand how the Republicans have contributed to the obstructionism.

Obviously you don't.

[Recovering_Democrat]

You didn't say "overwhelming" majority. You said "clear" majority. And by all accounts she did have that.

You cannot point to a time in history when a 60 vote majority (indicative of an "OVERWHELMING" majority) was needed to confirm an appellate court judge.

Besides, newbie, there is NO PLACE in the Constitution or the rules of the Senate that indicate a nominee needs anything more than a scant majority to be confirmed. Nowhere. All a nominee MUST have is a majority of the Senate. For you or the press or the Democrat or the RINOs to put a "clear" or "overwhelming" majority marker in place is to add to the rules in the middle of the game.

Such a standard has never been used in the history of the Senate so there is no reason to start now.

Any intelligent person can tell you: most, if not all, of these appellate court nominees DO have 51 votes in the Senate.