KERRY/EDWARDS gave legitimate answer to War ?

[merh]

For all of you who are angry with Kerry and Edwards for voting "for the war in Iraq" please know that Congress was duped, just as the American people were duped.

The WH and its admin and intelligence agencies assured Congress that SH had WMD, biological and chemical weapons and were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Kerry and Edwards both told 60 minutes that if they knew then what they know now, they would not have approved the military action. That is a legitimate response given the information they were feed in October of 2002.

If you don't believe me read House Joint Resolution 114 (October of 2002). * did not do what the Resolution called on him to do.

==============
HJ Res 114

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

(snip)

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection(a)to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either
(A)will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/H.J.Res.114_RDS.pdf.

[hansolsen]

1. CIA public docs on Iraq WMD scrubbed of caveats and qualifiers

Dem leaders in Congress had to know there was a difference between what they were getting in classified reports behind closed doors and what was being fed to the public. Why didn't they stand up and say -- wait a minute, you are not being told the full story>!

They knew! They were silent. They will carry that stigma to their graves.

Kerr and Edwards might be elected anyway, but that does not alter their darkest hour.

[merh]

2. How can you say they knew? Isn't the false information provided to

congress in 2002 the reason why they conducted the investigation into the CIA and released the first part of their report last week?

How can you be so sure that the admin did not lie to them the same way they lied to us?

It appears to me that Congress was lied to and that is why they are investigating the CIA intelligence failures, the FBI intelligence failures, and other intelligence failures after 9/11/2001 to date.

Why do people feel that Congress had to know the truth? I just don't get that. It is a repuke congress and that is why they will not bring charges against their own repuke admin, but you better believe, Congress was also lied to.

[hansolsen]

3. Haven't you followed the news today? CIA public reports scrubbed

The reports on Iraq WMD released to the public were scrubbed of all caveats, qualifiers and contradictions that were in the "classified" reports given to Congress.

This is prima facia evidence that the members of the intelligence committees and the Dem leadership, who all get those "classified" briefings and reports, knew that Bush was saying publicly the WMD evidence was "certain", when they all knew damn well the evidence was uncertain.

What is confusing about this? It is clear as a bell. They knew. And they were silent.

[merh]

4. I don't know, maybe I am just dense, but if they were scrubbed

then how do you know what they contained???? Are you psychic?

Intelligence committee members (Edwards) may have been informed of more than the entire congress, but not all members of congress were apprised of the misinformation. Not all were told of the lies.

Read the resolution - it sets out what congress was lead to believe and it provided that * would used diplomatic measures and that an attack would be last resort. We know he didn't do that now don't we.

We now know after 20 months that the WH has lied about the Al Qaeda/SH link, the WMD, the biological and chemical weapons. But, since there were parts of the report scrubbed, we don't know what Congress was told in 2002.

Resolution speaks for itself. That is what they voted on and approved.

[hansolsen]

5. Check out this thread -- shows what the Dem leaders must have known

My operative assumption is that the Dem leaders did read, or should have read, or were briefed on the "classified" reports on Iraq WMD.

The Seanate Report now tells us what was in those "classified" Reports, and clearly compares and contrasts what the differences were with the public reports. That is one of the key findings released yesterday.

So how can you say the members of Congress only knew what you and I knew -- i.e. they only payed attention to the published, public version of the NIE. That is a slimy rationalization at best.

[merh]

7. This has no link so I am not sure your source. (n/t)

[merh]

8. dupe

dupe

[hansolsen]

6. And here is another article laying out the same set of facts

Wahington Post reporter and national hero Dana Priest reports the CIA assessment of Iraq WMD released to the public was stripped of all caveats, and qualifiers.

My question is this: why didn't the Dem leaders in Congress inform the American people of this discrepancy at the time. Surely they knew. Surely the Dem members of the Intelligence committee knew. Why were they silent? I will keep asking until I get an answer.

Here is the link and opening grafs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul11.html


QUOTE
Report Says CIA Distorted Iraq Data
Senate Panel Cites Exaggerations in Paper Made Public in 2002
By Dana Priest

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 12, 2004; Page A01

In the only comprehensive assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction released to the public before the war, the CIA exaggerated and distorted the evidence it had given Congress just days earlier, according to the Senate intelligence committee's report released last week.
The White Paper, released Oct. 4, 2002, and based on a classified assessment given to Congress, was the public's only look at the intelligence that policymakers used to decide whether Iraq posed enough of a threat to warrant immediate military action.
Yet the 28-page public document turned estimates into facts, left out or watered down the dissent within the government about key weapons programs, and exaggerated Iraq's ability to strike the United States, the investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found.
******snip

[merh]

9. Again, this is no source confirming your assumption that

Kerry and Edwards knew the intelligence provided to Congress in October 2002 was faulty. They voted on the legislation (which speaks for itself as you would discover for yourself if you took the time to read it) that reflects that SH had ties to terrorist and the attack of 9/11 (now clearly a lied - after 20 months of investigation and debate) and SH had weapons of mass destruction and chemical/biological weapons (never found, still lookings).

Your sources are the media (which I do not put much credence in). Have you read the report? If it has been redacted, how the hell can you know what was redacted.

[hansolsen]

10. I have read the public NIE, which itself is thin gruel, hardly evidence

for war. The NIE contained little, other than Bush assertions that Saddam had weapons.

We now know, not from reporters, but from the Senate Report just released that the "classified" NIE contained many caveats, contradictions, and contrary analysis that never made it through to the public NIE.

The Senate report is full of specific examples of this intelligence, that was previously classified, that has now been made pulic. I can give you a link to the full Senate Report if you want.

We know Bush lied, not about the weapons per se, but about the "certainty" of the evidence. He claimed the evidnce was compelling, unambiguous, and overwhelming. He said, "Trust me, if you knew what I know, you wouldn't hesitate to go to way", in so many words, over and over again.

Meanwhile Senate Dems with access to those classified briefings and reports knew damn well the evidence was not "certain", was not compelling, was practically worthless, as George Bush, himself said on DEc 21, 2002. "Is this all you've got?"

So to repeat slowly, we know what was redacted, and what was hyped and restated, becasue the just released Senate Intelligence Committee report, released by Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, took great pains to declassify parts of the classified NIE previously made available ot Congress. We are now seeing what Kerry and Edwards saw back during the lead-up to the war. WE therfore can be certain that they knew Bush was misleading the American people.

I ask again, why were they silent?

[merh]

11. You do not know this - but please - give me the winning lotto

numbers since you are psychic.

On edit - I have been reading the 858 page report - there are some redacted sections, but not as bad as you have been lead to believe. It is rather bland and simply a history of the intelligence over the last 30 years.

Congress and the American people were lied to. Face it and move on.

[hansolsen]

12. Congress was told more than the American people were told

Bush lied allright, we are in agreement about that, but the Dem Leaders in Congress and the media Bigfoots in the press could have done more, much more to make those lies explicit at the time. Instead they laid down and let themselves be steam rolled by the Bush propaganda machine.

And why are you so willing to give the Dem leaders in Congress and corporate controlled media, a free pass on their conduct during the lead-up to the war? Can't they stand up for their errors in judgement. Are they immune from learning from their own mistakes?

And is this exactly how you want them to act the next time the Repub propaganda machine gets ramped up?? What are you afraid of - losing this election? Don't worry -- Kerry will win anyway because he is running against the worst incumbent in the nation's history.

But how will he govern, that is the question.

[merh]

13. And why is it that you find it so hard to understand

that the WH lied to Congress? They have said that if they knew then what they know now, they would not have voted for the use of force. Rockfellor, Kerry, Edwards, all have said this.

How will he govern, well that remains to be seen.

As I have posted before - Kerry was an anti-war activist long before the majority at DU knew what a computer was. I am willing to bet he will continue in his efforts to serve the nation.

[hansolsen]

16. I agree the WH lied to Congress, but am simply stating that the WH

attempt to shift all the blame to the CIA doesn't wash. The CIA classified reports to Congress were not the black and white lies that Bush told publicly, but a more nuanced look at the intelligence that included the fact that for all practical purposes, there was nothing there.

Here is another link from the LA Times outlining the "truth" found in the classified NIE given to Congress, that was suppressed in the Public NIE.

Here is the link, and a few grafs from today's story:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...detociadocument


QUOTE
Key Revisions Were Made to CIA Document
By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — In a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared before the Iraq ( - ) war, the CIA ( - ) hedged its judgments about Saddam Hussein ( - ) and weapons of mass destruction, pointing up the limits of its knowledge.
But in the unclassified version of the NIE — the so-called white paper cited by the Bush administration in making its case for war — those carefully qualified conclusions were turned into blunt assertions of fact, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence.

The repeated elimination of qualifying language and dissenting assessments of some of the government's most knowledgeable experts gave the public an inaccurate impression of what the U.S. intelligence community believed about the threat Hussein posed to the United States, the committee said.
Dedicating a section of its 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.

"The intelligence community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified white paper misrepresented their judgments to the public, which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments," the Senate panel's report concluded.
"The fact that the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario … I think was highly significant," the committee's vice chairman, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), said Friday.

***************snip

But the Senate committee's sharpest criticism of the unclassified document focused not on changes made in haste but on the systematic alteration of the classified version.
For example, the panel cited changes made in the section of the NIE dealing with chemical weapons:

"*******************snip
The Senate report also noted one instance in which a dissenting view was left out of the unclassified version.
***********snip

The committee's report describes not just sins of omission, but of addition.
*********snip

During a briefing before the report was released, one committee aide said the Senate panel had asked Tenet and Stu Cohen — who, as acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council, oversaw production of the NIE — who was responsible for inserting those words into the unclassified document.
"They did not know and could not explain," said the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A similar degree of mystery surrounds the larger question of exactly how the classified NIE morphed into its unclassified version.
************snip

One such difference, the committee reported, is that the classified version presented intelligence findings as assessments — usually beginning with the words "we assess that" — whereas the white paper omitted those words and stated the assessments as facts.
"We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF and VX," the classified NIE read, according to the Senate report.
The unclassified white paper read, "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX."
According to the intelligence committee report, staffers asked intelligence officials why words like "we judge" and "we assess" were removed during the declassification process.

They were told that, because officials believed the white paper would be made public as representing the view of the entire U.S. government, not simply an intelligence community product, it was more appropriate to take references to "we" out of the document. This was done, committee staffers were told, "purely for stylistic reasons."

I ask again -- why didn't our own leaders in the Congress tell us this at the time?? I have my theories; I would like to hear yours!

[merh]

17. WH is shifting the blame - Congress is trying to determine

(parts of congress) where the blame really lies. Most important portions of the report will not come out until after the election, does that tell you anything?

[hansolsen]

22. That tells me Pat Roberts is a lyin, cheatin Republican operative, and

I wish our fearless media interviewers would have the courage to ask Pat Roberts if he has thought about resigning.

The failures of the CIA, so documented in this Senate Intelligence committee report, all happened on Robert's watch as chairman of the committee. That committeee has oversight responsibility for the CIA. Where the hell was Pat Roberts when all this so called abject failure was going on.

Off with his head.

So say I.

[merh]

23. Agreed!

Sad thing is that repukes control all 3 branches. We have to defeat them all - we have to purge ourselves of their lies and power.

[hansolsen]

24. That's why I want to set our sights high. Win with a 60% clear majority

and a mandate to govern. Bring in the Senate for sure, and scare hell out of them in the House. We might be able to take the House too, if all Tom Delay's troubles, which are breaking right now, overturn the redistricting for the 2006 elections, or even piss off enough real Texans to punish Delay this time.

In order to win big, I believe Kerry needs to take more of a chance on Iraq. Repent his earlier vote, the same way many others are now doing (Rockefeller, for example), and start making noises about a clean sweep on middle east policy.

I dread the Kerry / Bush debates coming up this fall, if Kerry is still stuck with his wishy washy Iraq stance -- I cringe every time he tries to explain it. Bush'll kill him the same way Bush beat Gore in the last debates. Can't let that happen. Antidote is whole new set of bold middle east policies -- something new -- anything but the tired refrain trooted out so far.

This will annoy the Likud lobby in Washington, but that would be a small price to pay and a good thing overall, IMO.

[merh]

25. Be sure after the convention you post and let me know what

you think of his stance. I will be happy to continue this after his acceptance speech, if at that time he has not solidified his stance.

Enjoyed the discourse - have a great week!

[hansolsen]

26. Same feeling here. Enjoyed the debate. Will look you up after the

convention in Boston. Then on to New York -- the riots, er, I mean, protests, should be good.

Hans

[mondo joe]

14. They need to SAY they were duped!!!!

I was very put off by their 60 Minutes interview last night, and I thought they were trying to play it both ways. Their message on the ar vote is unclear and troubling.

They need to simply say IF WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW WE WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST IT.

[merh]

18. They did say that! (eom)

n/t

[mondo joe]

15. They need to SAY they were duped!!!!

I was very put off by their 60 Minutes interview last night, and I thought they were trying to play it both ways. Their message on the ar vote is unclear and troubling.

They need to simply say IF WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW WE WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST IT.

[hansolsen]

19. Yes, first Leslie Stahl let them deny Kerry is a flip flopper and then

She asked him if he is for this war or against it. He could not answer her yes or no. It made me squirm in my chair. His answer was the essence of flip flopping, dissembling, procrastinating, ball less political posturing, and probably cost him 5% in the polls.

Kerry's rope - a - dope, make no errors, admit no mistakes campaign might get him a 2% point viactory, if he is lucky. If he campaigned like John Kennedy, kerry could win over Bush with a 60% mandate to govern. Too bad he is not willing to take that risk.

[Toot]

20. The reason I can't accept this concept that Kerry and Edwards...

were duped along with others in Congress is because Bob Graham got the same info they did, but he voted against the IWR. So, if Graham could see that it was a crock why couldn't K/E.

I'm voting for Kerry just because we need to get rid of Bush.

[hansolsen]

27. Yup. N/T

[Larkspur]

21. Two thirds of the House Democrats voted AGAINST IWR

Kerry and Edwards have no valid excuse to have voted for the IWR. The did it because 1) they wanted to look tough on defense (Kerry erroroniously voted against the 1991 war and Edwards needed to establish credentials) and 2) AIPAC and Israel wanted that war.

[hansolsen]

28. Yes, yes, yes. N/T

[greatauntoftriplets]

29. Perhaps they should have read Will Pitt's book ....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893956385/qid=1089659338/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8485349-7025524?v=glance&s=books

[EndElectoral]

30. Leahy and Byrd weren't duped. Read Leahy's speech below before the vote

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200210/100902.html

Reading the history Kerry was reluctant but then went along with it. It was a mistake an now he is having to deal with a press who only sees that bill as a Congressional War Resoution rather than what it was - a hope that the President would act responsibly. For that I blame Kerry and Edwards. There is nothing this man has ever done that was responsible and they got suckered into it. they need to fess up and say we were duped and we apologize to the american people for that vote. Bush will never apolgize so they take the moral highground. Kerry is looking stubborn on it and I know why, but it is never goingto play in the press, because they don't want to let it play. Lesley Stahl cut him off with her narratiion while he was trying to explain the vote. He got duped. Simple as that.

But read Leahey's response. Damn, he's a good Senator. Anyone that can get to Cheney scores points in my book, but this speech before the Iraq vote is like looking at the future.

[Zhade]

31. Sorry - *I* was NOT duped.

Why? Because I listened to people like Scott Ritter.

I researched the shelf life of whatever chemical weapons Hussein might have had, and found them to be too short to still be active.

I read about Kamel, the defector who was selectively quoted that Hussein did have WMDs, but not quoted on the fact that he had destroyed them.

I read more than I thought possible about the entire situation. I wasn't duped. Neither were millions of people around the world, and neither, I'm sorry to say, were members of Congress.

But fine. Let's pretend this blatantly dishonest allegation happened. Here's what it would mean, were it true:

We cannot fault Republicans who voted for the war.

After all, they were "duped" too, right?

[EndElectoral]

32. Not ALL were duped! Byrd'speech magnificent!

"I continue to have faith in our system of Government. It works. I continue to have faith in the basic values that shape this country, this Nation. Ours was a great country before it became a great nation. Those values do not include striking first at other countries, at other nations. Those values do not include using our position as the strongest and most formidable Nation in the world to bully and intimidate other nations.

There are no preemptive strikes in the language of the Constitution, I do not care what other Senators say. Those values do not include putting other nations on an enemies list so we can justify preemptive military strikes.

Were I not to believe in the inherent ability of the Constitution to withstand the folly of such actions as the Senate is about to take, I would not stop fighting. Yes, he is 85. I will be 85 years old 41 days from now if the good Lord lets me live. But don't you think for a moment I can't stand on this floor all the rest of this night. I like to fight when I am fighting for the Constitution and for this institution. I will fight until I drop, yes, fight until they hack my flesh to the bone. I would fight with every fiber in my body, every ounce of my energy, with every parliamentary tool at my disposal -- and there are parliamentary tools at my disposal; don't you ever think there are not -- but I do believe the Constitution will weather this storm. The Senate will weather the storm as well.

I only hope that when the tempest passes, Senators will reflect upon the ramifications of what they have done and understand the damage that has been inflicted on the Constitution of the United States.

Now, those people out there believe in the Constitution. And I have been very disappointed to have stood on my feet -- an 85-year-old man, standing on his feet, and pleading with his colleagues to stand up for the Constitution -- I have been disappointed that some of them seem not to have listened at all. That is a real disappointment. It isn't Robert C. Byrd who counts; it is the Constitution of the United States. And but for that Constitution, they would not be here, I would not be here, and you, Mr. President, would not be here. It is that Constitution.

And we all take an oath, a solemn oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In the greatest oration that was ever delivered in the history of mankind, the oration "On the Crown," delivered in the year 331 B.C. by Demosthenes in his denunciation of Aeschines, he asked this question: Who deceives the state?

He answered his own question by saying: The man who does not speak what he thinks. Who deceives the state? The man who does not speak what he thinks.

I believe we ought to speak what we think."