Posted on 06/04/2005 9:55:19 AM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit
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.
"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."
Once again, you're preaching to the choir.
"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.
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.
Are you trying to convince me? Or yourself? If it's the former you're beating a dead horse.
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.
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.
You're wrong again. Owen sat for years without a vote--and she had a clear majority behind her.
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.
She obviously didn't have an overwhelming majority, that is, until last week when a cloture vote was attained
"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.
snicker...This might be a wonderful example of, "Go ahead: Make my day."
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.
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.
Now his excuse is that Theresa took the postage stamps with her.
Obviously you don't.
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.
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.