Kerry Didn't Read Iraq Intelligence Report -- Aides

[Kadie]

Kerry Didn't Read Iraq Intelligence Report -- Aides

6 minutes ago


By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), whose campaign demanded to know on Wednesday whether President Bush (news - web sites) read a key Iraq (news - web sites) intelligence assessment, did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged.



"Along with other senators, he was briefed on the contents of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) by (then-CIA (news - web sites) Director) George Tenet and other administration intelligence officials," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.


Kerry's campaign has challenged Bush to say whether he read the complete intelligence report before deciding to go to war, or whether he just read a one-page summary, which Democrats say gave him none of the dissenting views included in the full version.


The Kerry campaign stepped up the attack on Wednesday, sending out an e-mail with the headline, "Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=696&e=1&u=/nm/20040715/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_iraq_dc

[still_one]

1. No excuse, but

1. Was Kerry allowed to read the report?

2. Kerry was not the President, and unfortunately trusted him...

[lojasmo]

33. No excuse, but

Mantra of koolaid drinking appologists everywhere.

How about GOD DAMN IT! Is EVERYBODY abdigating their responsibilities? Is it a new political ENCEMIC? Where the hell is the outrage?

[monobrau]

39. he sure as hell voted

Let's face it; our man kowtowed to the administration when he should have been looking out for us.
He was wrong, and it's time he righted that wrong.
That means we have to do the right thing and get him into office.

[fearnobush]

2. Don't read in to this, This is good back spin on Kerry's part.

Bush has been smearing Kerry with Back spin since day one, remember those ads that said Kerry cut funds for solders in Iraq, when in reality, it was Bush who did the cutting.

So a little back spin on our part is needed, yes it's dirty and evil like them, but we must do all we can to win this year. The Planet depends on us!

[FlemingsGhost]

3. And there you go ...

Kerry will make a fine DLC stooge.

[emulatorloo]

8. What the hell are you talking about?

Was he allowed to read it?

More importantly, he was not the President.

Did Bush read it?

Why won't bush show the one page summary?

[FlemingsGhost]

13. Why didn't Kerry et al abstain from voting?

A one page summary? What a farce.

Kerry and nearly the entire Democratic Party likely deduced that politically speaking, it behooved them to go along. Now where would they have gotten that idea from?

(edited headline: grammar)

[emulatorloo]

15. I think you are doing a lot of "deducing" based on a 1 page Reuters

story. . .

see post #6

[FlemingsGhost]

16. I think you are missing the point.

Why did 92 members of the Senate pass a resolution after having seen a one page summary of a report? How is it that a schlub like me, and many other DUers knew exactly what Bush and the Neo-Cons were after?

I've seen post #6. That executive order should have been a huge red flag for members of the Senate. Yet, they "soldiered" on. And why not? They did nearly the same thing with the "Patriot Act."

(on edit: typo)

[Rose Siding]

20. 77 Senators voted for it.

21 Dems voted against it. Maybe they read the documents.

http://www.clw.org/control/iraqvote.html

[FlemingsGhost]

22. Forgive my math, and thank you for the information.

My point is still valid.

[Leilani]

41. Proud to say:

My Congressman, & my 2 Senators voted AGAINST the IWR.

They had enough info to vote no!

[roguevalley]

28. They gave the vote because they didn't have the fortitude to face

down the monkeys. It was cowardice that made this happen and he can spend the next four years making up for it. He has to make up for it, he and all the other idiots that didn't stand up to the monkeys. Bush had them by the balls, the press was calling him Churchillian. They were buffaloed and they need to remember this. I am holding my nose on Edwards and Kerry because its ABB. However, they better do something after they win, if they win or piss on them. Everyone who voted on the resolutions, etc. had better start attoning NOW!

Don't try and machiavelli this mistake on Kerry's part. That's what the pugs do. He has to remember it and do the right thing next time. That's what REAL men and women do.

[FlemingsGhost]

30. I agree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1937128

[MadHound]

62. But there is one huge problem with your post

And that is Kerry is already promising to "stay the course" in Iraq, throwing more men and money into the fray. His only sop tossed to the anti-war people(who are quickly becoming the majority in this country, if they aren't already are) is a vague promise to pull out sometime before his first term ends. No specifics, no timetable.

I'm sorry, but Kerry and the other pro-war Dems screwed the pooch on this one. Whether they did it out of political expediancy, or actual belief in the threat, these quisling Dems authorized Bush to conduct an illegal, immoral war that has killed tens of thousands. And the more they back this war, as Kerry is continuing to do, the more complicit they are in the murder of innocents. Kerry should repudiate the war, call for withdrawl, and apologize for the part he played in bringing it about. All Dems who voted and supported the IWR should do this. Instead, they keep supporting and illegal, immoral occupation, either by actions or words. Their corporate masters won't let them do otherwise.

[emulatorloo]

66. The one page summary was for GWB, not the Senators

The report apparently contained disclaimers and caveats on some information.

The one page summary is important because the question is - did the summary contain the caveats?

The one page summary was prepared for GWB, not the Senate.

Did GWB go to war based on the one page summary? That is the question.

[sandboxface]

23. Only Congress can declair war..

but in this case, they gave war powers to the President, which makes me very suspect of Kerry.

Was he allowed to read the entire report? I want answers.

[crossroads]

51. To vote against it would have seemed "unpatriotic"...

considering all the hype in favor of going to war from Bushco...
:shrug:

[MadHound]

63. Sorry, but that flies in the face of facts

Yes, it would have seemed "unpatriotic" to the mouth breathing RW crazies who won't vote for Kerry no matter what, but the vast majority of people in this country were in favor of waiting for a decision on war until the inspectors had finished their job. Calls and other messages to both the Senate and House were running 280-1 against the IWR. How about these people doing their damn job, and representing the wishes of their constituents instead of the wishes of their corporate masters! Is that too much to ask? I suppose it is under the modern two party/same corporate master system of government.

Besides, being a leader means standing up for the right thing, even though you might take a hit. Rolling over for Bushco simply demonstrates once again that these people aren't leaders, merely spineless yes men willing to do their master's bidding no matter who dies as a result.

[lojasmo]

34. What the hell are YOU talking about?

If he wasn't allowed to read it, it would be easy enough to say so.

Kerry was a SENATOR. The senate is beholden to act as the unit which CHECKS AND BALANCES against the power of the white house. Congress, including Kerry and Edwards FAILED TO DO SO. They FAILED the american people who elected them.

The white house is refusing to turn in the document because the white house is full of CROOKED BASTARDS. but we knew that.

[Shakespeare]

11. Kindly note post #6 n/t

[tjdee]

4. Guess what, he's not the friggin PRESIDENT!

The thing is this.
John Kerry, as Senator, does not have to do all the thing the PRESIDENT does.

So I couldn't care less if Kerry read it or not. As the other senators and congressmen, he trusted that the people in the White House were doing their job--or at least not being as lacksadaisical as they were. That makes Kerry and the other Dems somewhat lacksadaisical, in a way, but I digress.

I do however care if the pResident, who makes these asinine decisions, read the report. Or if someone smarter read it and created pictographs and other visual aids for him.

[AlGore-08.com]

31. Guess what - - he's a friggin' SENATOR who's running for PRESIDENT

Why is okay for Kerry to pass the buck - - "Gee, I just didn't notice I was being sold a bill of goods, I really would have made a better decision if I had noticed that I had swallowed a load of BS" - - "Golly, I just didn't take the time to read all that pesky paperwork, I'm sure I would have made a better decision if had bothered to do the absolute bare minimum required for my job" - - and it's a crime for Smirk to say the exact same thing?

Do you really think the President doesn't ever have to deal with folks trying to deceive him/her? You think there's no foreign leaders who lie to the President's face? You think there's no spies who try and con the President into some foreign policy blunder that benefits their country (or party)? You think there won't be people in a Kerry Admin with their own agenda who give the President bogus information to try and manipulate his decisions?

How do you know Kerry has the knowledge (and the people skills) to know when to trust people - - if this is an example of his critical thinking?

The other option is that Kerry knew very well what was going on, cyncially voted to go to war because it was very popular, and he knew he couldn't run for President in 2004 if he didn't - - and that "I didn't read the paper before I voted" is a pathetic attempt to cover himself now that the vote has become a political liability.

So which is he: incompetent or corrupt?

[pathansen]

55. Please stop criticizing Kerry

Kerry is our only hope of getting rid of Bush.

[AlGore-08.com]

77. Good grief. That's how the Republicans got stuck with Smirk

Because he was the only hope of getting rid of the Clinton dynasty. And all the Republican moderates crossed their fingers while they voted for Smirk and hoped he would govern differently than he campaigned. Look at how well that worked out for them.

If Kerry is such a bad candidate that he can't be criticized about anything, especially for his decisions about major votes like whether to authorize a war, then we're toast from the get go. Or are we supposed to be like the Republicans were, insisting that the Emperor is wearing a gold plated tuxedo with matching spats when he's obviously wandering around in his underoos?

Besides, it's going to take one hell of a lot more than a different President to turn this country around. We have to win back control of the Congress. And we have to hold Congressfolks accountable for bad decisions. It is our constitutional duty.

[pathansen]

101. I just don't want history to repeat itself

I agree somewhat with what you are saying.
However, many people feel that if Nader had not been so relentless about criticising and attacking Gore before the elections, we would not have gotten stuck with "smirk" in the White House.
People might make the same mistake and vote for Nader again.

[AlGore-08.com]

103. There's a big difference between spreading lies and honest criticism

All of the anti-Gore literature that the Greens in my neck of the woods were passing out was pure smear. It was constant repetition that Gore was "the candidate with the closest ties to the petroleum industry". Anybody who spent five minutes researching the most basic information about Gore and Smirk would know that it was total BS.

The closest thing to that level of smear in this campaign is the bogus smears that Kerry got his combat medals in some dishonest fashion. Even that isn't the same, since Ralph W. NaderBush is not on TV every five minutes repeating that BS.

I think there's some really dangerous trends in this election cycle. The worst of them is the insistence that we have to stay silent about anything we disagree with in the Kerry campaign. 98% of the threads on DU crow about how much better we are than the Republicans, because they all suffer from groupthink and stamp out any sign of critical thinking.

But this cycle, any difference of opinion on our side is met with "if you disagree with me, you support Smirk!" Any legitimate criticism of Kerry is met with "at least he's not Smirk!" Both of those are the worst possible arguments. They persuade nobody who is not already persuaded, and they turn off people who are on the fence. Taken to its logical extreme, it's the same argument that had people supporting Hitler, because "at least he's not a Communist!" - - or supporting Stalin because "at least he's not a Nazi!"

(And because I know I'll get flamed if I don't put the following disclaimer in: no, of course I'm not saying Kerry is as bad as Hitler or Stalin.)

[pathansen]

53. Yes, I agree with you

[Zorra]

5. Response to Kerry's question indicates that Bu$h did not read the report.

Otherwise, they would have said "yes, he read the report."

[papau]

6. Bush issued a Pres order that only 8 Senators could read a NIE - so

how the hell was Kerry supposed to read this thing?

Does the media forget the Bush pretend about leaks from Dems of "secret info" and Daschle's agreeing to the 8 Senator rule?

[merh]

9. Thanks for that reminder - I had forgotten that (as have others

here at DU and of course, the press.)

[wicket]

19. 8 senators??

Do you have a link for this? I could totally nail a freeper with this info hehehehehe :)

[alarcojon]

26. Yes, a link would be nice...

[papau]

35. Links below - 1st order issued 10/8/01- never changed,-later Jt intel com

committee only was to be given NIE.

And still later it was GOP only

And still later it was 8 named Senators (the 10/8/01 crowd)

The 2/03 briefing by Tenet in closed session was in lieu of getting the material as I recall (but I am old and my memory fades and that could easily be wrong)

In any case the beginning of the "I won't tell because Dems/Congress can not be trusted was 10/8/01 and is linked below.

Now the whole world gets the Intel summary (well, quite a few folks) - that is not what we are talking about. Nor are we talking about the multi page CIA/Pentagon daily, nor the Pentagon event summary of previous night, - heck I am not even sure these are still produced!

The CIA summary - the NIE - is 3 to 10 pages - and that is not widely shared

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/08/ret.bush.secrecy/

An angry Bush trying to plug leaks to media
October 8, 2001 Posted: 11:30 PM EDT (0330 GMT)
By John King
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Angered at leaks from classified briefings, President Bush ordered key department heads last week to restrict their briefings of members of Congress to the four major leaders and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, sources told CNN on Monday.

He also called the four leaders to explain his decision and said he was furious that sensitive intelligence material that was shared with Congress was being repeated to the news media, two sources familiar with the calls told CNN.

The top Democrats in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Missouri, expressed approval of the new policy.

He went on to restrict those briefings to the House speaker, the Senate majority leader, the House minority leader and the Senate minority leader, as well as the chairman and ranking members of the intelligence committees.

"This morning, I informed the House and Senate leadership of this policy which shall remain in effect until you receive further notice from me," the President said, ending the memo.
<snip>http://www.jsonline.com/
With officials exercising extraordinary security measures, Bush bluntly accused lawmakers Tuesday of leaking classified information to the press - and made the point in person during Wednesday's breakfast meeting with Gephardt, Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senate GOP Leader Trent Lott.


http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0208/06/politics-552818.htm

Lawmakers balk at FBI request for polygraphs in leaks probe


By Ken Guggenheim / Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Some members of a congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks are rejecting FBI suggestions they undergo lie detector tests as part of an investigation into leaks from the panel -- a probe they had requested.
Among those objecting are two leaders of the inquiry: House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who have said the tests intrude on the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.
"The Senate and, I assume, the House, has always investigated their own," said Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees, which are conducting the joint inquiry, requested the FBI investigation in June after CNN and other news organizations reported details of Arabic conversations intercepted by the National Security Agency on Sept. 10.
The leaks outraged the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney called the committees' chairmen, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., to complain.
In an interview with Associated Press reporters, Shelby said he believes all 37 members of the committees have been interviewed and all have been asked if they would submit to the tests.
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, asked about President Bush's opinion of submitting lawmakers to polygraphs, replied, "The Congress asked for this investigation and we're confident they'll work it out."


Of course, Later in 2003 Bush says only Joint Intel Com can be trusted as he fights 911 committee establishment. So I guess they passed the FBI polygraph!!! LOL

:-)

[maddezmom]

59. thanks for the links...

[Lostnote03]

36. "Whew"...lol

......Yup, how about those polygragh requests?.......Thanks for the reminder, very appropriate for those that do not allow facts to get in the way of opinion.....best wishes

[sandnsea]

37. Well I forgot

Thank you, because I was wondering what the hell Kerry was doing voting on something so serious if he hadn't read the NIE, or at least had his staff read it and brief him on it. I remember all that leaking garbage, now you mention it.

[Leilani]

38. Linc Chafee, a Republican, was troubled by his lack of info

so he went over to the CIA & asked for a briefing.

After the briefing, he voted no, because there was not credible info to cause us to go to war.

Give me a break!!! There was info out there IF THEY WANTED IT.

They did not look too closely, because they decided to go along to get along. Kerry has years of experience; these excuses do not fly.

And as for Edwards, he thought a yes vote was correct, & last I heard he has not changed his mind.

What a disgrace!

[crossroads]

52. Great memory!

thanks for the reminder... I had forgotten about that!
:dem:

[bluedog]

7. Excuse Me.

Kerry is not president(yet)............bush had to have the report cut to one damn page and put in language he could understand.probably 1st grade reading level......
Clinton would have read the entire report and asked for more information..Everyone knows how Clinton read everything.......
Yet this 1 page brought us to an invasion of Iraq....killed thousands of people..put our country in debt up the ass...and Kerry didn't read it.....
Give us a break........this stops with bush.....Blair took the responibility..bush washes his hands off of the matter......
The blood of the victims is on the hands of Blair, Bush and the Republican Party.........who pushed for this.......they did try to spin this.but it won't work!!!!

[FlemingsGhost]

10. Excuse you.

There are three branches of U.S. government.

[Carolina]

93. nice try

but it doesn't stop with Bush and you're deluding yourself to think and say such. Our guys ceded their war power, their Constitutional duty, and gave someone they KNEW was duplicitous the authority to do whatever he wished. So they're either stupid or lazy. But blood is on their hands too. If they'd stood up to the Bushies and GOP, shown political courage (not cowardice), made the TV rounds with questions about the presented evidence, and voted NO ... then and only then would it be solely on Bush, Blair and the GOP. But they didn't do that; they went along to get along, to get that pesky little matter off the table before the 2002 midterm elections (lotta good that did) and now they're having to spin and explain the mess that their complicit votes have wrought.

Fool me once ......

[Hoping4Change]

12. DUers IMHO you are missing the point. Kerry voted for the war

to bolster the Admin at the UN (provide a united front) so the UN would exert pressure on Saddam to comply. Kerry nor many others who voted for it expected the poorly planned mad rush into Iraq.

[FlemingsGhost]

18. I, along with many other DUers, knew of the PNAC agenda.

You're telling me U.S. Senators didn't? How can that be?

[Hoping4Change]

21. That would be a very good question to put to Kerry.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Correct

Kerry didn't vote to go to war.

Kerry voted for gw* to take appropriate action.

[Langtree]

71. Wow. So if a Senator votes "Yea" on an issue or a Bill ...

He or she is not approving it, he or she is not sanctioning it, and he or she is not to be expected to take responsibility for his or her vote b/c after all, it won't be him or her acting upon that vote?

That's abdication of responsibility, and you're okay with that?

This is ABB (Anybody but Bush) Syndrome at its' worst. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (http://www.senate.gov/general/committee_membership/committee_memberships_SSFR.htm), and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (http://www.foreign.senate.gov/about.html), it's naive to assume that he did not have clearance to receive the intelligence briefing in question.

Quite simply, Kerry voted "Yea" on the measure because he found it politically expedient to do so. He is now backing away from that vote now for the same reasons. Morality, concerns about failures in intelligence, etc. were not part of his thought process in evaluating the issue. He's a politician, pure and simple.

[MadHound]

72. You've hit the nail Langtree

Sad to say, now you're going to get seriously flamed for it. It is, after all, verbotten to criticize the candidate, even though his actions, promise and policies are only slightly better than Bushco's

This is what happens when the party gets stampeded into something like ABB, a corporate DLC/DNC candidate who instead of making a real difference will only make a faux difference, and not much of one at that. This is the good cop/bad cop game the corporate masters are playing with our electoral system, and once again in our disgust with a Bush, we are going to elect somebody only slightly better(though still as pro-corporate) than him.

I urge everybody to work in bringing the two party/same corporate master system of government to an end. This can be done two ways. First, work like hell to get publicly financed elections a reality. Second, do not feed the machine and vote for a candidate who has taken corporate cash.

And don't fall for the good cop/bad cop routine. Instead of a blind rush to any ABB candidate, stop, think, and demand a candidate who is a real change.

[Langtree]

87. Good idea, but I think it goes further than that ...

There aren't (at least at this time) any political alternatives/parties out there. The Greens are frankly out of touch with reality, focusing on the environment and drug laws to the exclusion of other, more expedient issues.

I also think that the campaign period is simply too long. Many Americans become exhausted with the never-ending process, which is fast approaching 2+ years in duration. This serves no party well, and may have more to do with voter dissatisfaction and absenteeism (on election days) than perhaps any other issue. People feel they're getting name-calling and rhetoric instead of fresh ideas and actual information. Shorter campaign periods would also mean that candidates would have to stick to their issues, and disseminate their views in a more effective manner. No burnout means voters are more likely to go out and vote for the candidate who espouses their views.

And thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. DU can be remarkably strident at times, with no room for sharing ideas or dissenting for the status quo.

[AlGore-08.com]

100. Interesting idea - - however, shortening the cycle alone will not solve it

The main problem would be that with a shorter cycle (1st primary through general election in 3 months) is that money will play an even larger role in the process. Unless the news media suddenly starts reporting objectively on things that matter, candidates are going to have to make themselves and their positions known in a much shorter period of time, so they will be buying even more TV ads, be even more dependent on donors, need to spend even more time ahead of elections raising money...

Additionally, it would probably make incumbency harder to defeat for most offices - - the office holder would have years of free media coverage, and would be meeting folks all over the district as part of their job. Again, the "obvious" solutions to getting yourself known and respected involve having piles of money, rather than being a good public servant... so we'd get even more totally unqualified (ex)celebrities and trust fund babies running for office.

I really feel that until there is meaningful campaign finance reform, along with meaningful amounts of free TV time for candidates, any other reforms are just spinning our wheels.

[LiberalFighter]

80. Difficult to vote the correct way if given false information.

According to the report released today by the Senate intelligence committee, the intelligence community--led by the CIA--"overstated" and "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced hastily and haphazardly in October 2002, the intelligence community concluded that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons, was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program, was supporting an "active" and "advanced" biological weapons program, and was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle "probably intended to deliver" biological weapons. All of these critical findings, the committee report says, "either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."


Posted July 9, 2004

Senate WMD Report Whacks CIA, Not Bush
by David Corn
The Nation

[Langtree]

86. It's not that he read "false information", Liberal Fighter ...

Kerry's aides are on the record as saying he didn't read the briefing at all. That's an abdication of responsibility, period. Your assertions don't change the fact that it is evident that Kerry votes by which way the political wind is blowing, not by seriously examining an issue. That excuse works better for Bush than Kerry.

[Carolina]

95. excellent points

and I agree with you completely. That's exactly why I stopped supporting Kerry back in October 2002. Now I'm stuck ... no other choice since he truly is the lesser evil ...

BTW, please say you avatar is a tease.

[Langtree]

98. It is an homage to Lilly Langtree ...

the actress who was the mistress of Betie, Prince of Wales & son of Queen Victoria. Both Lilly Langtree and Queen Victoria were very strong women.

[Carolina]

92. and anyone with

one working neuron knew Bush was hellbent on going to war and would surely do so with his rubber stamp. Spare me the spin. Appropriate action my ass. Twenty 23 Democratic Senators saw through the Bushit and vote NO. The rest cravenly caved and now cover their sorry asses by blaming the CIA in their alleged intelligence report.

We're in a fucking hole and digging deeper by the minute and our guys Kerry and Edwards are NOT BLAMELESS. At the very least, they didn't do their homework.

[Carolina]

94. a war resolution was not

NEEDED to bolster the administration at the UN, since the administration didn't give a fuck about the UN. Nice try but this continued spin just doesn't cut it. Here at DU, we knew IWR was Bushit, why didn't our reps in Congress who are privy to SO much more intelligence? Oh yeah, that's right, they vote without reading. They don't do their homework, they don't listen to their constituents, they readily cede their constitutional duty to an idiot ideologue, and when the shit hits the fan, they blame the CIA or the FBI or Clinton!

[blm]

14. It wasn't Kerry's DECISION to go to war. It was Bush's responsibility

to make that decision after promising to implement the guidelines of the IWR.

Bush lied.

[quaker bill]

17. Bush said he did not read it.

Rice the person that normally reads things to the pResident confirmed that she didn't read it to him either.

It is long past time someone pointed this out. The limits of confidence on the information in the NIE were contained in the appendicies. Bush never got there, he has said as much and I have seen it on tape.

I will bet Kerry has the tape and is just waiting for the contradiction to air it.

The bottom line is that only Bush could give the go ahead to start dropping 2000 pound bombs on a civilian population of 4 million people. It is clear from his own statements that he did it without reading the entire f***ing report. I have been furious about this for a year, it is about time for it to be a damn issue.

[Seth Gecko]

25. spin, Kerry cheerleaders, spin !

what a riot.

[Hoping4Change]

27. Bush the gutless turd never saved a buddy in battle.

I am taking this opportunity to cut and paste impeachdubya's excellent retort to a Freeper on another thread -

...only a macho he-man cowboy like George Bush would wrap his arms around poppy's ankle and wail and plead for a cushy Air National Guard slot so that he wouldn't have to go to 'Nam and fight and die with the minorities and poor people who were out there slugging it in the war that he, nevertheless, couldn't be bothered to take time off of his blow-snorting and booze guzzling to actually oppose.

John F. Kerry unlike Bush the "gutless turd" drove a boat into machine-gun fire to save a buddy's life.

Yes, we don't know what we believe, unlike you morally certain GOP cretins- you know that the earth is flat and god created it in 6 days some 2,000 years ago, and that Jesus is coming back to stick a big shiny boot up the ass of the libruls and homersexshuls and sekyoolar humnists.. and you know that the best way to deal with your sense of sexual inefficacy, repression, frustration, and total inability to get a date with a woman who is not inflatable, is to criminalize reproductive choices--- so that those women who are out there having sex with real men, who have real brains, will be forced to go to dirty back alleys when they have an unplanned pregnancy.

[phrenzy]

29. BAM!

That message is a keeper.

[FlemingsGhost]

32. Not only a red herring ... not even your own words.

Your post addresses the issue of John Kerry's IWR vote, how?

[Hoping4Change]

60. IIf you read the post you'd see it wasn't reply to original msg.

It was a message to a freeper to read before he got tombstoned. IMHO every freeper should be given impeachduyba's excellent message to take with them as a token of rememberance.

[FlemingsGhost]

83. Freeper or not, the poster had a valid point ...

regarding the refusal to acknowledge anything inconsistent or downright suspect regarding John Kerry's candidacy. Specifically the issue this thread addresses.

[Carolina]

96. yeah, yeah, yeah,

and what I'd give to have the 1971 edition of John Kerry, the one who fought in and then AGAINST an unjust war rather than the 2002 quisling who went along with fellow Bonesman out of political expediency.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. FratBoy gave the order to invade Iraq, did he not?....

Therefore, who's to blame for invading Iraq, FratBoy or Kerry?

It's a riot, alright...just not one you seem capable of recognizing.

[NNN0LHI]

44. Deleted by poster

Use your imagination as to what I am thinking SG. :hi:

Don

[jonnyblitz]

61. no shit.

snicker

[Leilani]

40. I know the Repubs drink Kool-Aide

I didn t know Dems had their own flavor!

Why does the thread about Ditka get over 100 posts, & this thread, in my opinion, a very important topic, does not get the same interest?

[FlemingsGhost]

45. Because it reflects poorly on "JFK."

I suppose if folks choose to simply ignore the issue, hopefully it will go away with none the wiser.

Remember, "Anybody But Bush" ...

[NNN0LHI]

46. Well I just got home and seen it a few minutes ago for the first time

What is this Kool-Aide shit you are talking about anyway? Are you suggesting that Kerry should have become the anti-war, Saddam apologist during the lead up to the war? If you are suggesting that may I suggest that you have lost touch with reality? Because what you are suggesting would have not done anything to stop Bush from invading Iraq. So for what reason should have Kerry done anything different? To make him unelectable perhaps? The Democratic party spoke during the primaries and decided John Kerry would have the best chance of beating Bush in November. Do you got some kind of problem with that?

I didn't think the USA should have invaded Afghanistan. Kerry voted for that too. I consider that bad vote. But I know damn well we would all be better off with Kerry leading this country than the current Crackhead In Chief. Do you disagree?

Don

[Leilani]

47. Of course he should not have been a Saddam apologist

But that is a far cry from voting in an informed way, & voting honestly.

I respect people I disagree with, IF they are voting with all available info, & IF they are voting because they think it is the RIGHT thing to do. I can buy that.

But, it seems he did not take the time to inform himself fully, & he voted in a way that lots of people have questioned. That is why now, he has trouble giving a yes or no answer.

What about Rockefeller & Feinstein who have said if I knew then what I know now, I would have voted no?

And yes, of course Kerry would be better than the current occupant, but I want to vote FOR someone, not against someone.

Silly me, politicians always disappoint me in the end.

[NNN0LHI]

49. Thats just your view

Sure. Kerry could have went on over himself to Iraq before the war began on a combined WMD hunt / Peace mission if he were so inclined. What was that going to do? Stop Bush from invading? No. Make the Kerry look weak on defense and therefore unelectable. Hell yes.

What? Do you get some kind of kick out of being able to say "Ooh, look. No WMD's. And Kerry is to blame", or something? Go away.

Don

[Leilani]

50. Go Away, you say?

If I disagree with you, I should leave?

You have proved my point.

[MadHound]

64. How about Kerry doing his goddamn job, you know,

Representing the will of his constituents. That IS, supposedly, the job description for anybody in Congress. And the will of his constituents was abundantly clear. Messages to both the Senate and House were running 280-1 against the IWR, yet Kerry apparently saw fit to shirk his job duties, defy the will of his constituents, and vote for the IWR. I guess the will of his corporate masters was more important:eyes:

And yet we wish to entrust this man with the highest office in the land. What assurances do we have that he will fulfill his job duties there? Absolutely none friend, and it is apparent from his speeches and papers that he is still all too willing to roll over even more, just as soon as his corporate masters give the word.

[NNN0LHI]

69. What fucking job, ace?

The job of being portrayed as soft on terrorism, and a Saddam apologist. Did you fucking forget what kind of shit was being fed about Iraq by Bush and his minions to the US population or something? And just a year after 9/11 too. Who do you think you are talking to? Little kids or something? If Kerry's one vote in the Senate could have stopped this from happening you would have a leg to stand on. Lacking that you are just blowing more smoke.

Don

[MadHound]

70. The job he was elected to do friend, you know, represent his constituents.

And yes, I remember what bullshit Bushco was feeding us. And gee, guess what, millions and millions of people, both here in the US, and across the world DIDN'T FALL FOR IT! And yet now you're saying that we should give Kerry a pass. Sorry friend, I don't buy it.

And so what if Kerry had gotten called for being soft on terrorism, or a Saddam apologist. Part of being a leader is making the tough calls no matter what the fallout from them is. Instead, Kerry and seventy other Dems took the easy way, and rolled over for Bushco.

And what about those courageous Dems who actually fulfilled their job requirements(you know, representing their constituents)? Were they hurt by the stand they took? No, they weren't for the most part. A couple of them got voted out in '02, but the vast majority of them hung onto their jobs.

Look friend, messages to both the House and Senate were running 280-1 against the IWR. Polls taken at the time showed the vast majority of the American people wished to wait on making any decision until the inspectors had finished. Popular support for the IWR simply wasn't there, but Kerry kowtowed to Bushco anyway. Why, so an unpopular, unelected president wouldn't badmouth him? Sheesh friend, most Dems with a spine would consider Bushco badmouthing an honor, and a sign that they are doing their job. Instead, Kerry and the rest of the spineless Dems rolled over and pissed on themselves in fear that the big bad Bush would say mean things. Sheesh, with "leaders" like that, we don't need an opposition party, the Dems are doing a fine job of selling all down the river by themselves.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. I don't seem to hear any complaints from Massachusetts, except....

...a very small amount of background noise from those that are GOPers or disgruntled Dems.

That's similar to what I see happening on this board.

By the way, can you point out any single vote where Kerry would have made a difference by returning from his extremely busy campaign schedule to cast his one vote?

[MadHound]

79. LOL friend, how easily you dismiss the majority of people

In Massachusetts.
Don't you think these people might be complaining?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=589>
Or these fine folk?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=590>
How about these people?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=1224>
And these wonderful people?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=482>
I suppose you'll casually dismiss these folks.
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2767>
And them
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=854>
Are these folks "disgruntled Dems"?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=917>
Or GOPers?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=976>
A minority eh?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=996>
Starting to look pretty major to me friend.
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=1099>
Certainly more than just "background noise"
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=1166>
In fact these people are so pissed, they're doubling up!
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=1167>
And these good people are fasting for peace.
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=1197>
From the colleges to Cape Cod.
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=1201>
And Salem too!
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=1326>
Still think these folks are in the minority?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2043>
Starting to look like a serious majority friend.
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2044>
And I bet they're none to happy with Kerry's IWR vote too.
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2046>
So much so, they're teaming up to make their voices heard.
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2278>
Do you still think that Kerry was doing his job?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2430>
Or representing the will of his constituents?
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2427>
Somehow I doubt it friend.
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2822>
It looks like my point is made
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2837>
That the majority of people, both in Massachusetts and elsewhere,
<http://www.meer.net/uofp/calendar.php?calid=2875>
Were against this pre-emptive, illegal, and immoral war. Like I stated before, messages to Congress were running 280-1 against the IWR. Polls taken before the vote showed that the vast majority of people didn't wish to jump to any decision until the inspectors were finished. Why did Kerry not do his job, and represent the will of his constituents? He failed to do his job, and we want to reward him for that by handing him the highest office in the land? What guarantees do we have that he will do his job there? None, friend, and that is the sad fact. This is what happens when there is a precipitous rush to go ABB. We wind up with a candidate who is only slightly less worse than the one he is replacing.

As far as your last question goes, I don't think what his voting record while campaigning makes any difference to the point I'm trying to make, which was Kerry's ongoing and continued willingness to back the Iraq war. Perhaps you can elaborate.

[Carolina]

97. Touche, MadHound

I'm in your corner. Kerry was then and now a Senator representing the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and his duty in October of 2002 was first and foremost to REPRESENT THEM. They were against IWR and any war!

His 'aye IWR vote was craven politics that is now biting him the back. And all the spinning, all the words of defending him here and elsewhere, all his own convoluted explanations don't change that simple truth.

Had he done the right thing then he could proudly say to the nation:

Just as I stood up for the constituents of my state in 2002, I will stand up for you, the American people in 2004!

or

I stood up in 1971, I stood up in 2002 and I will continue to stand up for YOU, the American people.

[maxrandb]

102. You know, this is just effing rediculous

If he voted to AUTHORIZE * to GO TO THE UN and to take whatever action he deemed necessary, how is that VOTING FOR THE WAR?

At this time, probably 70% of the people in MA thought Osama and Saddam were holding hands and whispering sweet nothings in each others ears. Funny, Rummy's the one I've seen shaking Saddam's hand and smiling with him.

I will say this again. The way the American people were frothing at the mouth to "kick some towel-head butt", if the DEMS had fought against this, you can be sure that we would have the following with the new 75 - 25 repuke majority in the Senate.

- Marriage Ammendment
- Overthrow of Roe V Wade
- Every effing knuckledragging Judge Roy Moore in the country filling the judiciary
- War with Syria, Iran, and probably North Korea with the dark skinned and the poor getting their asses shit at, while Jenna and Babs see how much Jaggermaster they can down in one setting.
- Complete and total repeal of every single labor protection and enviromental, and health care initiative enacted since FDR
-and Raygun on Mt Rushmore and on every piece of money in you dwindling wallet, or pocket.

Kerry did not order our troops to war!
Kerry did not have his VP sniffing around the CIA to ensure "they got it right"!
Kerry did not give so much power to his SECDEF and AG that you could be snatched out of your bed at night and huddled off to GITMO!.
and Kerry did not degrade this country to the point that OUR troops thought it was fun and fine and dandy to shove a broomstick up someones ass because they were different than us!

not edited for spelling because I'm so pissed I can't see straight. Tell you what...vote for Shrub, but don't tell me how Kerry, the Senator from MA, is as culpable as * for sending us into Iraq.

That's like saying Ryder is responsible for Timothy Mcveigh.

[Malva Zebrina]

74. war is the most serious undertaking any country can take

I do not buy a singe excuse--not one.

It was wrong, it was selfish, it was scheming, it was THE WRONG THING TO DO

To offer some Machiavellian excuse, such as he wouild never had gotten elected if he had opposed it is poppy cock.

It is magical thinking. It is fortune telling. Look where it got him--into a corner with no definitive direction to take about Iraq. The contempt of many Democrats who will have to h old their nose to vote for him. and lack of trust--the man who played the beltway politics far too long, imo.

Those of us who know the truth and stick by it and question or criticize KErry and Edwards because of that ill advised vote, are patriots. We have a duty to question it.

Kerry is not the ideal candidate--he is the weakest becausue of this vote, imo, but he is what we got.

I would have preferred a man who is not afraid and tippy toeing around playing some political strategy.

So, I am ABB also.

and this is also a part of the political strategy, is it not? We are forced to vote for Kerry and he knows it.

[Forkboy]

82. Fucking arrogant response Don

Why don't YOU go away.This kind of "my way or the highway" shit is for the other party,remember?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. It was a politically motivated vote for war.

That's been clear for nearly 2 years. This tidbit only verifies it. However, I'll still be voting for the "most liberal democratric presidential nominee in the history of the Universe."

[LSK]

48. Kerry needs to stop being inconsistent!!

Yes I read post 6. But still Kerry should get his story straight on this one or just not go there.

Bush is enough of a BOZO. Kerry should just be quiet and let Bush sink himself. I know people who think Kerry waffles too much and is not trustworthy. I kinda see their point. Kerry really needs to be more careful about stuff.

[Bridget Burke]

54. Kerry waffles too much?

Let me guess. In 2000, you pointed out that Gore lied a lot. And he was so stiff.

[Cooley Hurd]

56. ...and those goddamn EARTHTONES!

...don't forget the earthtones! :evilgrin:

[AlGore-08.com]

84. The difference is that Kerry actually did this and Gore did not lie

All of the so called "Gore lies" were manufactured by the media out of misquotes - - or Gore told a truth and it was labeled a "lie" by the GOP and then the media gleefully parroted the GOP blast faxes as "truth". Of all the "lies" that were hung around Gore's neck, the only one that Gore actually made was that he said he'd visited a Texas wildfire with the FEMA director, and he actually went with one of the director's deputies.

The smear campaign against Gore was four years long, and it was possible due to the active collusion of the national media.

In this instance, Kerry isn't accused of not reading a report he actually read. In this instance, he's not accused of voting for something that he didn't vote for. His aides confirm he did not read the 90 page NIE. He did vote for the resolution. It's part of the public record.

In this instance, it isn't the AP and the WashPost and the NYT and Faux and CNN and ABC and NBC and CBS and NPR reporting this story endlessly for four years. It's less than 100 folks commenting on 1 wire story posted on 1 Internet discussion board.

To compare this thread to the historic smear campaign against Gore is not reasonable, to say the least.

And, in case any body's missed it, Kerry is bashing Smirk for doing the exact same thing that Kerry did - - failing to read the 90 page NIE prior to making a decision about whether to invade Iraq.

If Smirk had started this, flaming Kerry for not reading the entire 90 page NIE before voting and then it was revealed that hey - - Smirk didn't read it either before deciding Iraq needed to be invaded, everybody would be screaming "HYPOCRITE!!" and punching out their TVs.

Log off of DU and find some undecided voters - - or some Smirk voters - - and try to convince them to vote for Kerry based on this article alone. Try to explain to them why any specific action is horrible when Smirk does it but is brilliant/necessary/beneficial when Kerry does it.

Has the reverse every worked for you? Have you ever been convinced to vote for a Republican because they bashed a Dem for doing something wrong, and then excused a Republican who did the exact same thing? Almost certainly not.

Why should that sort of flawed logic be convincing just because it's being used to support a Democrat?

[July]

65. Why do people believe the RW's version of Kerry?

"Kerry waffles too much and is not trustworthy" is a message the right wing has been trying to sell for some time now. Why do people take this as truth? They are aware that the right wants to beat Kerry in the election, aren't they? So where's some healthy skepticism toward the right's characterization of their adversary?

[maddezmom]

67. only the RW believes that version

;)

[pathansen]

57. We sound just like Republicans criticizing Kerry!

KERRY IS OUR ONLY HOPE IN GETTING RID OF BUSH!
LEts focus on his strengths, not weaknesses.
Kerry needs our full support right now in spite of any mistakes he makes because he is under tremendous attack from the Bush team.
We know that from the very beginning Bush was obsessed with getting us into a war with Iraq long before 9/11 and was looking for any excuse (Paul O'Neil's statement).
Kerry is only one in 100 senators whereas Bush is our designated leader.
Bush has been on vacation more than any other President so he had plenty of time to read the reports.
Bush is responsible for the CIA intelligence because he
appoints who is in charge.

[NNN0LHI]

58. Some people are too stupid to realize the wingnuts are pushing this crap

The more they talk shit about the Dem nominee on this issue the more transparent they become. Notice you never see these same people criticizing the Chimpanzee...for nothing? That ain't no coincidence.

Don

[Langtree]

89. Think about what you are saying ...

A democratic society, and a healthy Democratic Party, depends on people being able to criticize their candidates and leaders. Kerry needs to know what issues are important to his electorate, and criticism is the most effective way to let him know that he needs to perhaps reassess his priorities. It is right and correct to express dissatisfaction with a candidate, and one of the distinctions between a fascist society and a free society.

Just because people criticize a candidate doesn't mean that they won't, in the end, vote for him. The alternative, blindly following a candidate because he is your party's nominee, is taking your responsibilities as a voter for granted.

[leesa]

68. What a surprise. I'm sure none of the traitors in the Senate did.

[gasperc]

75. WAIT, WAS THE REPORT PROVIDED TO THE SENATE TO READ

wasn't this a report to the president and he cited it as reasons to go to war. From John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" he states clearly that IWR had two key provisions that the president submit evidence to congress that Iraq had WMD that they could use and that it was an immediate threat. Three months later, Bush merely cited Congress's resolution that Iraq may have WMD and if so all action necessary should be used. Congress never did a finding of fact nor did the president, other than cite the NIE report which as we are NOW finding out was very skeptical of Iraq's WMD stockpiles.

[NashVegas]

76. The Article Seems to Skirt That, Don't It?

Gosh, don't tell me the press is being lazy!

[Selwynn]

78. Yes, nice catch here.. article seems to avoid that point

[Carolina]

99. whatever the administration

presented to Congress should have been challenged and debated before any votes were cast. Debate was strikingly lacking and it is clear many didn't and don't read however much or little was/is reported.

This is all the more damning for all of them but especially for the so-called opposition party, our guys and gals, since it points all too glaringly to the fact that they all should have voted NO!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

81. Please read posts 6 & 35 before

passing judgement. It's easy to forget the surge of rash "security" initiatives that occurred following 9/11.

The press needs to be reminded of this as well.

[KoKo]

85. Is Senator Byrd the ONLY one who read it? Was it really a "done deal"

and that's why the others failed to bother to read it? Same thing with Patriot Act. If these elected officials of both sides are not reading documents then why the hell are they there? Did leading Democrats side with the PNAC'ers and that's why they didn't bother?

This is really disgusting. If we knew the intelligence was bad out here in "internet land" because we read then why shouldn't our leading Senators and House Members spend the same amount of time "Working and Reading." They have paid staff to read for them, if they can't do it.

I think "I didn't read it" is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Imagine a kid saying that to their teacher about a homework assignment.

:eyes:

[Q]

88. Representatives are too busy to read this stuff...

...and spend more time raising money and kissing lobbyist's asses than doing the People's work.

- I'm convinced that MOST senators have forgotten what PUBLIC SERVICE is all about. They seem to interpret it as WINNING and staying in office until they're 100.

[Langtree]

90. I think it's gutsy for you to post this, as it has led to one of the ...

more interesting discussions we've had on DU in quite a while. You had to know you'd get burned for it, but you posted it nonetheless - cool!

[Carolina]

91. Kerry's IWR vote

was what turned me from a Kerry supporter in 2002 into a draft Clark proponent and then a Clarkie. KERRY KNEW better. He knew what the Bushies were like from Iran-Contra, he had inside info from Scott Ritter, and he abandoned his DUTY to his MA constituents who were nearly unanimous in their opposition and let him know so via calls and faxes. Moreover as Robert Byrd so correctly and eloquently pointed out to all his colleagues, by ceding such authority to Bush, they were forsaking their Constitutional duty.

This is Kerry's blowback!

No matter what he said then or says now, this is a fucking albatross that will be hard to spin (and his senatitis words don't help him since the more he explains, the worse it gets). Plain and simple, Iraq was a mistake and he should say so. It's not how Bush "went about it" that's WRONG. It's that he did it at all and that the Congress allowed it to be done (oh, yeah that's right John Conyers, y'all don't read what you vote on ---sheesh). No WMDs, no connection to 9/11 (how many times and how many people have to point out that 15/19 hijackers and Osama hailed from Saudi Arabia!!!)... Now we have needless slaughter and destruction.

As for Edwards, at least he voted according to his NC constituency.