MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 2/3/04 (Excerpt from RNC Research w/Sen McCain interview) MUST READ

Republican National Committee ^ | Feb 3, 2004 | RNC Research

[PhiKapMom]

THEY SAID IT!

RNC RESEARCH
February 3, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 2/3/04

DON IMUS: So Senator Kerry, sort of, subtly brought up yesterday, and I guess apparently Terry McAuliffe, who came from under some rock some place probably -- but anyway, they brought up this question about the president's military service and whether, in fact, there was -- whether he was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard. Are those appropriate questions, and should the president answer those questions and clear this up?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): That issue came up in the last election cycle. I think they were responded to. If this turns into a nasty campaign, clearly they have to respond to it. But, look, I believe that service in the National Guard is honorable service. There are thousands and thousands of National Guardsmen and women who are in Iraq as we speak, and so to somehow denigrate service in the National Guard is totally inappropriate, and I think there would be a backlash to it if they pursued that.

IMUS: I don't think they're doing that. I think what they're -- the question is, it's fine to be in the National Guard if you go to the meetings. I don't think he went to the meetings. I think that's the charge.

MCCAIN: Well, but that charge was never proven, and again, it was brought up in the primary that President Bush and I were in. I never pursued it. I never asked questions, but there were questions asked by the media about it. I don't know. You know, all is fair in love and war, and maybe they'll have to answer those questions again. But everything I know is that President Bush served honorably in the National Guard, and if you're going to make an allegation that somebody didn't, you better have some pretty good proof besides just throwing it out there. You see my point?

IMUS: Sort of.

MCCAIN: Well, look, I mean, you can accuse anybody of anything. But the burden of proof is on the person who is making the accusation.

IMUS: Well, that's not the way it works. You know that. That's not the way it works.

MCCAIN: Look, I know that President Bush has a record of honorable service during the Vietnam War in the National Guard where he also went through pilot training and flew a rather difficult airplane to fly and did well. And that's what I know about his service, and I will believe that until somebody proves otherwise. I mean, you can't say that you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

IMUS: I've always said that he went to enough meetings to learn how to fly one of those planes.

MCCAIN: Yes. And it's a difficult airplane to fly.

IMUS: But if he got transferred to the Alabama National Guard for some reason and then didn't show up for any of those meetings, I don't think...

MCCAIN: But, see, I don't know that that's the case.

IMUS: If you don't know that that's the case, that means it's never cleared up then.

MCCAIN: Everything that I've heard -- every bit of information I've ever heard, I never got into it because I wasn't that interested, is that he served honorably and well. And I assume that to be the case.

[Huck]

Well, I can't say anything without getting slammed. I removed my tagline, which seems to have helped. It was critical of the president. I think without it, I will get less attacks.

[Huck]

Didn't Kay tell Hillary that the reason he is leaving is because the Admin reneged on its committment of resources to finding the WMD? And didn't she smugly (but it's hard to argue) that that speaks volumes about the Administration's thinking on the matter? And this is with 85% of the search done? So we can't say it's searching the size of california anymore. Now it's 15% of california. Or am I wrong?

[USCG-RET]

international:
"Welcome to Free Republic!!"

thanks international!!

[prairiebreeze]

Er, David Kay found evidence of Saddam trying to buy nukes or nuke processing materials, some from North Korea.

So it sounds like you believe few issues were large enough to justify war at all. Okay...

For your consideration:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066068/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066536/posts

and especially:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068163/posts

Prairie

[hoosiermama]

Would you justify going to war with SH linked to 911?

[hoosiermama]

Check your source again.

[prairiebreeze]

They have in no way searched 85% of the entire country of Iraq in 9 months. What has been targeted in the searches are the known and usual locations, ammo dumps, labs, storeage facilities. Places where waste products were stored etc. Probably some offices etc, at least those that weren't burned before the invasion. 85% of that is done.

So are you a Hillary supporter?

Prairie

[Huck]

Without looking at the links (thanks, but I have to get back to my damned job in a minute), I can say that I understand that our policy was regime change. And I understand we can say that Saddam was trying to acquire WMD. I guess you can say that's argument enough for invasion, overthrow and occupation. Maybe it is. But the two reasons most ballyhooed were 1)Stockpiles of WMD and later, after that one started looking grim, 2)Liberation of Iraqis. I am saying that reason 1 wasn't true and reason 2 is not a sufficient reason to go to war. Now the GOP position is that we made the best decisions possible with bad info. Not good.

[Huck]

The President himself has said they know of no such link.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Thanks for pointing me to the last paragraph. I am a slow reader ; )

CG

[Huck]

85% of the total search is done. Kay said so. As for Hillary, no, I am not a supporter, but I thought she scored a direct hit at that point in Kay's testimony. I am not a Kennedy supporter either, but I thought he had a point when he called Cheney to task for calling two vans "conclusive evidence" when Kay testified that the intelligence community held a consensus though not unanimous opinion that the vans were not WMD related. Cheney shouldn't say they are conclusive. That's overselling at best.

[hoosiermama]

Didn't say there were..... Just want to get into your head a bit and clarify when you think going to war is justified.

[Huck]

War is justified as a means of national defense. Politicians can stretch the meaning of "national defense" pretty far. Responding to direct attack is definitely ok with me. Liberating other countries is not. If someone proposed liberating China, for example, I'd be against it. Or Cuba. I was against Somalia. Against Yugoslavia. Against Haiti. I don't support doing anyone any favors.

[Alberta's Child]

If the main reason for war had been liberation of Iraqis, I'd have opposed it outright.

That's exactly why they "undersold" the issue.

What makes it even more ridiculous is that "the liberation of Iraq" doesn't even pass the smell test, either. If the U.S. is supposed to be liberating Iraqis from the grips of Saddam's small band of loyalists, and these loyalists are armed with little more than AK-47s, RPGs, and roadside explosives -- then the "liberation of Iraq" could be accomplished simply by handing out an M-16 and several thousand rounds of ammunition to everyone in the country.

[prairiebreeze]

I'm not disagreeing about 85% of the search being done. What you seemed to ask is if 85% of Iraq has been dug up and searched. If I understood your post.

It has not. 85% of the sites and locations that would normally be searched have been checked.

Prairie

[Alberta's Child]

This war was never about WMDs in the first place. I was shocked to see so many intelligent people on this site get taken in by a propaganda campaign that was nothing more than a thinly-veiled means of generating support for the war among the same dopey soccer moms who had been Clinton supporters throughout the 1990s.

[Huck]

Well, as a point of fact, I am a registered republican, but only because of NJ primary voting rules. If you register as an independent (my preference) you get to vote in neither primary. So you really have to pick one. I'd love to vote in both. In presidential elections, I have never voted for a republican or a democrat. I voted only once in a presidential election, and that was for the libertarian party. Call it a protest vote.

In my home state of NJ, I have only voted for republicans. My congressman, Scott Garrett, is to the right of GWB. I voted for Bret Schundler, a conservative, in our last gubenatorial election. And I voted for Doug Forrester, a conservative, in our last senatorial election.

So, I can sound like anything you want to think I sound like. In my voting habits, I tend to vote right to extreme right.

[hoosiermama]

Here's a quote from the Sun Times (*no Hillary connection although I understand it to be liberal leaning)

Even David Kay, who failed in his assignment to find such weapons in Iraq, has testified that there were abundant reasons to get rid of Saddam, and that the war was justified.

[aculeus]

Some points:

1. Any National Guard outfit can be federalized by Executive Order. No declaration of war or other acts of Congress needed.

2. Most of the soldiers slaughtered on Omaha Beach were National Guardsmen which is why a small town in Virginia (Bedford) lost more men per capita than any community.

3. Compare Clinton to Bush: leading anti-American demos in London and doing who-knows-what on that trip to Moscow versus volunteering for the Guard.