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."
Methinks this cubram might be a DU troll; she's only been here 4 days and is singing the praises of war critics and those who want to block judges....
No, no. Kerry's reading of the Constitution is that if W gets thrown out, he and Edwards move in to the White House. And if that's not the way you read it, he'll find a federal judge who agrees with him!
I think so too but I also think this one will require The Troll Busters to get the real read.
Both accusations constitute an oversimplication of my beliefs as I have stated them. You seem to not understand, or not want to understand my positions. Either way, My beliefs are sincere, and I will not back down from a rational discussion, but don't have time to repeat myself over and over. You may not agree, but at least try and understand, and not mischaracterize what I write. God speed.
You don't get it, do you? In any decision the expository and the exculpitory evidence must be weighed. What in the Downing Street Memo suggests that this was not the process?
Saying that they selected the intelligence that established the grounds for war is a MEANINGLESS statement. In light of the decision that was made, of course it appears that only the expository was selected.
About the only charge you can really make is that President Bush, in an effort to try and get the UN to do their job, may have been overzealous in presenting the case. The bottom line is the POTUS is under NO OBLIGATION to make a case for US Military action to the UN. I'll repeat that so that it sinks in . . . there is NO OBLIGATION for the POTUS to sell war to the UN.
In my opinion, this was a mistake and I would have fired Colin Powell on the spot for even suggesting it. Help me recall . . . did President Clinton or Mad Maddie go to the UN to ask if they could bomb the shit out of Iraq in 1998?
I invite the "troll busters" to scrutinize my body of writing, and try and find anything but sincerity.
Once again, I was not referring to actual scenarios, and certainly did not speak of the memo. I was merely deconstructing a statement I thought was wrong. I don't pay the memo much mind, and don't think oppositon will gain any traction.
Well, maybe. But as we all know, DU trolls come by here often. Who knows, maybe they could learn something from tobyhill.
That is a muddleheaded analogy. We didn't go to war with Saddam Hussein because we didn't like him. We went to war with Saddam Hussein because he was judged to be a danger to the people of the United States and Iraq. He was a terror supporter. He had, if not the WMD themselves, the machinery to manufacture WMD for his terrorist allies. The nexus of WMD (or WMD capabilities) and terrorists COULD NOT BE IGNORED. I'm sorry if you don't like the decision, but it is EXACTLY that kind of decision that President Bush was elected AND REELECTED to make. Got it now . . . troll?
OK . . . so, I don't get it. The point of you post is . . . nevermind?
Have we got a link for that???
I think that the Republican Ad documenting all of Kerry's flip-flopping on Iraq is linked earlier in this thread.
Great....need a link
See Post #47 in this thread.
The secret Downing Street memo
The Sunday Times - Britain
May 01, 2005
Yes and don't forget the biggest weapon of mass destruction responsible for 300,000+ in mass graves in Iraq has been found and IT goes by the name of SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Thanks, I'll save those links.
Go back and read what I actually wrote. I supported the war then, and I support it now. I merely criticized the notion that a President X should go to war on selective intelligence, as was inferred in a previous post. I DO NOT THINK THIS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. Got 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.