Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Something Russert said today.........

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ChocolateSaltyBalls Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:35 PM
Original message
Something Russert said today.........
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 06:36 PM by ChocolateSaltyBalls
What with all of the 'controversy' regard Obama's interview on MTP, I decided to check out the transcript myself and in doing so something that Russert said drew my attention more than anything Obama put forth.

Russert said:

"The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he (Saddam) was an imminent threat."


When exactly did Kerry or Edwards ever say this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. They both voted for the IWR
The IWR contains that statement as a preface in the list of justifications for invading IraqNam.

It's something they are going to have to live down (at least in my book)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChocolateSaltyBalls Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I would have thought that if one of them had actually said........
it, it would have been trumpeted far and wide when the whole "Did Bush every actually say imminent threat" debate was going on.

Russert said it as though it was an actual fact that they both uttered those words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. They voted for a document that said those words
Far worse, as far as I'm concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChocolateSaltyBalls Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Actually..........
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 07:03 PM by ChocolateSaltyBalls
Here (http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=... ) is the Iraq War Resolution, and nowhere (that I could find) are the words 'imminent threat'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Just Russert doing a subtle favor for rovebushco
since by IMPLICATION that is what a vote for the IWR was framed to be (by the whitehouse)... ergo... K/E both voted for it... ergo they said...

Not true - but if that gets slipped into the rhetoric enough times - that is what the public will here and then the criticism of bush/cheney per the Immenent Threat supposedly becomes moot.

Good catch - perhaps a round of emails to Russert asking for verification of those statements - and asking if he can not find that verified that he be more careful in his references in the future - lest he appears to be spreading GOP propoganda...

btw, I do have to agree that while I back them - I, too, remain troubled by the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChocolateSaltyBalls Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. This is what I trying to get across........
that they didn't say it, but now we have it being slipped into the national conversation through the back door, and before you know it it will be another one of those 'facts' that the right is has so much fun banding about.

It would be helpful if Tim Russert would refrain from putting words in Kerry and Edwards' respective mouths is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. I sent Russert an email that said...
"so, you got the memo from the White House saying to get this on air anyway you can." hehehe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. hehe - he really does need to know folks are listening
it could be that he is living amidst so much rw dc spin that he really didn't even realize that he jumped his logic ... if that is the case - even a few letters asking him to articulate upon WHAT he makes this assertion - will probably remove the whole line of discussion from his questions in the future. Either because he didn't even realize he had fallen for the spin (in which case he will have an aha moment when he CANT find documentation for that claim) - or because he realizes that he will be called on it - and without documentation - if he repeats it again - he will get more and more commentary on it (as happens with the growing left leaning net audience.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goddess40 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Immediate threat
I think it was Cheney or Rummy who said Iraq was an "immediate" threat which to me is worse than imminent. Also Blair said it would take only 45 minutes for Saddam to gear up and attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. I've read that document too
Now that you posted it, no more jocobin.

Please reply, jocobin. Where are the words "imminent threat" in the IWR?

If you are mistaken, please apologize for being inaccurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Where?
Please Post the Quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. But should they have to live ANYTHING down, if they were LIED to?
How can anyone really judge if any country is an "imminent threat" when they are lied to by the executive branch, which controls the investigative arm of the government? And, when this branch of government is putting such abnormal pressure on the investigative arm of government to come up with what IT wants, how can you expect the legislative branch of government to do it's job well?

We were ALL duped. We all expected Bush to restore honor and integrity to the White House. God knows they talked about this issue enough! This is the highest office in the land, after all!

And he lied. He LIED!

NOW, this issue is supposed to be a part of election politics? I don't THINK so, my friends. Let the blame rest where it lies: the exective branch--GW Bush and company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. are you kidding?
"We were ALL duped. We all expected Bush to restore honor and integrity to the White House"

you are not speaking for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. some astute poster
who is far better at cross referencing links than I, posted Kerry's speech before the Senate wherein he said (paraphrasing) I would give this power to the President only under the condition that he exhaust all diplomatic channels before resorting to force.

Gues what. . .* didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChocolateSaltyBalls Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Which is why Russert saying......
Kerry and Edwards said Saddam was an 'imminent threat' concerns me.

As far as I can tell, they didn't say it and it pisses me off that he said they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Have you read John Dean's book "Worse Than Watergate"?
He makes an eloquent and well researched arguement about teambush's handling of both the IWR - the lies told to congress... the guarantees made (going back to the UN, proving there is a immenent threat) to get the vote - he even suggests there is language in the resolution that states they would do this - and then the actual actions of the adminstration - including using as "evidence" (required in the vote) to go to war - the same exact evidence used for the IWR (in which it was required to have additional evidence) - and thus the administration violated the resolution... I am not recapping his argument well - but he suggests that there were REAL impeachable events involved.

Your question per Russert - really does nibble at the edges of this very REAL and BIG issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChocolateSaltyBalls Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. 'Worse than Watergate"........
is on my list, but at the moment I'm knee-deep in 'The Republican Noise Machine'.

I do however thank you for the recommendation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Book is so good - convincing and easy to read
that you ought to make a plan to pass it on as soon as you finish reading it. Have read a lot of good ones, but Dean's really stands out as having the potential to shift waivering minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. Anyone so inclined could run a campaign on Worse than Watergate...
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 10:03 PM by Gloria
Under the umbrella of "secrecy" he goes through every major issue, foreign and domestic.

I wish we had a campaign based on that book...........it is so CLEAR.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
15. Edwards Floor Statement ( missing is the word immenant, but it is implied)
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 08:26 PM by G_j
**the reason I remember this is that he is my Senator and I was paying attention to his statements on Iraq.
------------
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

Floor Statement by John Edwards

IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO
(Senate - September 12, 2002)

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 UN Security Council resolutions including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

These UN resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush Administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a UN Security Council resolution was impossible.

Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We must show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

Working with our allies, we must be prepared to deal with the consequences of success -- helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

Unfortunately, the Administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

Finally, the Administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.


We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.


We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.


And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grass-roots.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. he believed the same lies
that I did.

Those lies came from the White House.

Still, No Imminent Threat quote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. yes but
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 08:39 PM by G_j

it is splitting hairs to argue that he wasn't saying it in essence.

ie: "clear threat" "clear and present danger"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. Diplomatically
Edited on Mon Jul-26-04 07:15 AM by louis c
every phrase and every word has a different level.

Iran, North Korea, even Syria are all clear and present dangers.

None are an imminent threat that I know of.

Hence, they should be monitored, sanctioned, condemned, but not invaded or attacked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Kerry's floor statement 2002
I won't post it, but from my reading it is more measured and less hawkish than Edwards statement(above).

Kerry's floor statement
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. on an unrelated thread elsewhere
just earlier today was stating while I was disappointed in both Senators votes... I did distinguish between the two. Kerry was more measured in his rhetoric at the time of the vote... and was consistent in his reticence and somber tones of warning in the escalation towards the war - this was consistent. Edwards, on the otherhand, on the eve of the war - was very bellicose - the war was the right thing to do... he just would repeat a caveat that while we had to go to war - he would have worked harder to get more international support before going to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. yes there is a marked difference
in the tone of the two statements. Kerry is also after all, older and more experienced.
I remember being livid with Edwards at the time. Its taken me a while to get over the frustration of that experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. where did everybody go?
I expected at least some feed back on this? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace4all Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. looks like that killed the thread! LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC