KerryGoddesss need Kerry Info

[fedupinBushcountry]

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/pl/021103kerry/im:/051121/480/macs10211212120;_ylt=AtF.DjZ2.G47BLK_gzrmm75saMYA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., speaks during a news conference in Boston, Monday, Nov. 21, 2005, to respond to Vice President Dick Cheney's comments on Iraq. (AP Photo/Chitose Suzuki)

Do you know what he said?

[Mass]

1. Here...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/11/21/kerry_accuses_bush_cheney_of_misleading_in_iraqi_war_run_up/

Kerry accuses Bush, Cheney of `misleading' in Iraqi war run-up

By Glen Johnson, AP Political Writer | November 21, 2005

BOSTON --Sen. John Kerry said Monday Vice President Dick Cheney is "misleading" the American people when he asserts Congress saw the same prewar intelligence as he and President Bush did before approving the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


"That is just plain, flat, not true," said the Massachusetts Democrat, who was his party's 2004 presidential nominee.

And in a pointed rebuttal to a speech delivered by Cheney only hours earlier, Kerry accused Bush and Cheney of concealing critical dissenting information before Congress voted in October 2002 to support military action in Iraq. Kerry was among those who voted yes.

And, as it is Glen Johnson writing, a lot of falsehood as well:

Kerry has laid out a plan for the withdrawal of American troops, tied to the achievement of benchmarks by the Iraqi government. His vice presidential running mate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, declared last week "I was wrong" to vote in favor of the war, but Kerry has resisted making a similar statement.

Despite his remarks, Kerry also refused to say Bush and Cheney lied to the American people.

"Never used that word; don't like the word," he said. "It's a question of intent and other kinds of things. They've misled America and they're still misleading Americans. You can fight about the words."

[fedupinBushcountry]

2. I was just going to post

about this comment:

Kerry has laid out a plan for the withdrawal of American troops, tied to the achievement of benchmarks by the Iraqi government. His vice presidential running mate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, declared last week "I was wrong" to vote in favor of the war, but Kerry has resisted making a similar statement.

What is up with that mischaracterzation? Why is she allowed to print a lie.

[Mass]

3. Glen Johnson, ex-Boston Globe reporter.

I think TayTay or whometense can tell you more about that.

[Mass]

4. Here it is.

A good example of how this person is.

When Kerry had his cancer, he (she?) was outraged that Kerry had not informed the Globe before his family.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021303.shtml

[fedupinBushcountry]

6. How sick

and they call themselves journalist. I was just out in the forums was Kerry on CNN?. I missed it.

[Dr Ron]

5. It's not a lie

The author just misled us. :)

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. I got your point

Dr. Ron. I should slap myself I just argued that word out in lalaland.

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. Look who else says the word "misled"

"The Vice President has been at the center of this Administration's campaign to misled; the public and the Congress about the war in Iraq," stated Kucinich after sending the letter. "The Vice President has used his tremendous influence to spread false and misleading statements and attack those who seek accountability from this Administration. It is far past time for this Congress to seek answers from the Vice President. No Administration official is above Congress accountability. This Congress and the American people deserve nothing less from a man of such power and influence."

It is out in GD, and of course no mention of the words he used.

[karynnj]

11. This is the perfect definition of why he doesn't say lie

"Never used that word; don't like the word," he said. "It's a question of intent and other kinds of things"

This really really says so much about Kerry - and he is totally right. "Lie" depends on the intent of the speaker.

[kerrygoddess]

9. Got it right here - Kerry Responds to Latest Attacks by Dick Cheney

I was just going to post it!

Kerry Responds to Latest Attacks by Dick Cheney

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - November 21, 2005

BOSTON – Senator Kerry delivered the following response to the latest attacks by Vice President Dick Cheney this morning. Below are Senator Kerry’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

“Vice President Cheney is rewriting the reason the Administration went into Iraq.

“Instead of engaging in this kind of political spin, the White House should be trying to fix the problems their three years of incompetence have caused. There’s no time to wait. Half the Iraqi population thinks it’s okay to attack Americans, over 80 percent of the population wants us gone — and this information comes from our one significant ally in Iraq, Great Britain.

“Iraq’s political leaders today called for a timetable for foreign troops to leave Iraq. We should seize this opportunity to force the Iraqis to accept more responsibility for their own country. Iraqis should be policing Iraqi streets, Iraqis should be searching Iraqi homes, and Iraqis should be fighting for Iraq.

“Secretary Rumsfeld agreed with me, and announced publicly they are going to withdraw the troops they put in for the election and the referendum, and bring it back to 138,000, just as General Casey has submitted plans to the Pentagon for a phased withdrawal of troops. Americans want the truth, Americans want leadership that is equal to the sacrifice of our troops, and they want real answers about how we are going to protect our troops and how we are going to be successful in Iraq.

“Again today, Vice President Cheney is trying to avoid the real debate. He continued to insult those of us who think there’s a better way in Iraq. No matter what the Vice President says, asking tough questions isn’t pessimism, it’s patriotism. I believe that during wartime we should ask the hardest questions of all. It’s the only way to do what’s right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

“The Vice President continued to mislead America today by saying Congress saw and heard the same intelligence the White House did. We did not.

“Does the Vice President deny what the White House has already admitted — that the President made false statements about Iraq’s nuclear program in the State of the Union address even though the CIA told them three times not to? Does he deny that top Administration officials repeatedly made statements about Iraq training Al Qaeda in weapons-making, despite the fact the Defense Intelligence Agency has already concluded the source was likely a fabricator?

“It’s also wrong to continue to pretend that the Intelligence Committee has determined the intelligence on Iraq was not misused by the Administration. That is why Democrats have been pushing the Senate Intelligence Committee to complete a thorough and balanced investigation into the issue, and it’s why Democrats were forced to shut down the Senate and go into closed session to make the Republicans take this issue seriously.

“No one has less credibility on Iraq than Dick Cheney. His top national security advisor has been indicted. He led the march to war. He fought to kick out the inspectors because they weren’t finding any weapons of mass destruction. And he’s been on the attack - instead of searching for the truth - ever since.

“The Administration should call off their attack dogs, which have been tearing into Jack Murtha - a Marine for 37 years who lives and breathes concerns of our troops, and who acknowledges what our military knows — the huge problem we face of a long term, massive American presence in Iraq. I won’t stand for Swift Boat-style attacks against Jack Murtha. And I won’t stand for their continued misleading, about Jack Murtha and about the truth.”

Q & A TRANSCRIPTION

Question 1: Do you believe that the troops should withdraw from Iraq?

KERRY: Over a period of time under proper circumstances, and I have laid out a plan for that. My plan is based on success. I’ve laid out a plan where you establish a series of very specific benchmarks for Iraqi performance, and with each benchmark, our troops should be able to return home. Clearly I’ve laid out a way where we could have made very different choices in Iraq, and I regret that this administration has never reached out to work in a bipartisan way, and has never done the work necessary to put these steps in place.

Question 2: Do you think that can been done in six month time frame?

KERRY: It can be done in about a year. My plan, others have different plans, but in my plan is about a year or so.

Question 3: Do you think the vice president lied to the American people?

KERRY: I’ve never used that word, I don’t like the word. I’ve said he misled America and they continue to mislead America

Question 4: What’s the difference?

KERRY: I think misleading is a question of intent, I think they misled America and are still misleading America. You can fight about the words.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=1223

[Mass]

10. Interesting distinction between lying and misleading.

and he uses the Iraqi political leaders to push the idea of a timetable. This is good too.

The only problem that Kerry has here is that he should say what happens if the benchmark is not met (but this has been my pb with this plan all along).

And he avoids the question about other plans nicely.

[rox63]

12. It's also a matter of decorum and dignity

We all know that Kerry believes they are a bunch of liars. And he is very good at communicating that without using the 'L' word.

[beachmom]

13. The short answer to your question (not meeting a benchmark)

Would be that the troops would stay. And this is why the Out Now antiwar fringe hate his plan. However, the whole way he would approach the war is vastly different from * (like no more search and destroy missions) that it's hard to say if the results would be different. I think the main difference from * is he is advocating giving the Iraqis a swift kick in the butt, that they need to be a real soverign nation with their own army, and that we're not going to be there forever.

I think his plan is far more responsible than *'s vague stay forever plan, but Kerry obviously wants success. He's willing to lower the bar on some stuff in the interest of getting the troops home sooner. But much to the chagrin of the antiwar crowd, he still thinks it can work if the proper steps are taken in the next 6 months.

I will be perfectly honest that Kerry's, McCain's, Murtha's, Feingold's, and *'s approaches may all have the same result: humiliation and defeat. There's only so much you can do with the mess we're in. As much as Kerry wanted to be president now and face the challenges, there are moments like this when I just think on a personal basis he's better off not having to deal with that awful war. Catch 22: stay there and more American troops die OR leave and be called weak and a coward. Odds are there will be no success in Iraq for years and years to come. The question is, do we want to be part of the civil war or not.

[Mass]

14. As much as I think a plan like that would have worked had Kerry been

president, it would not work with Bush as president.

This is why I favor a withdrawal NOW. I dont think that you can take the proper steps with Bush president. So what is the point of offering a plan that will not work rather than asking for a real withdrawal.

(dont flame me, I still love Kerry, I just dont believe that this is the plan to promote with * at the bar).

[TayTay]

15. What happens next is implied by Sen. Kerry, not explicit

Kerry was at great pains to mention the situation when the Democrats shut down the Senate. That action was not just a gesture for it's time, but a warning to the Rethugs that the minority does retain some powers in the Senate and can call upon them in the future to 'shake things up.'

If nothing happens and we stay on the same course in Iraq, Kerry has said that Congress will get much more involved and try and force the President's hand. This action, 5 -6 months from now would happen in an election year, and would involved a fierce national debate that would severely damage the ability of the Rethugs to do anything more than reply to the Iraq situation. The Rethugs would have no other conversation, in an election year, than the failed policy in Iraq, the continuing loss of US troops and the intractable situation in IRaq. This is a powerful threat.

I agree that this was subtle, but it is there and it is a real threat. The Dems could bring the entire Senate to a complete standstill and demand that nothing get done until the Iraq situation is addressed and some sort of withdrawal plan from the Admin put forward. It's not Kerry's style to directly threaten in an explicit way. But that doesn't mean that the threat is not there. It is. If I were Bush, I would listen.

[karynnj]

19. OMG I absolutely missed this and you're right he went out of his

way to talk about taking the Senate into closed session and why it was necessary. The implied threat is beautiful because few will even see it - so they can't call him on it. (No wonder they are going after him more than anyone else.)

I had wondered if it was maybe trying to get the public to demand change or at least giving an alternative. But, you are right - they don't want a troubled Iraq policy front and center in mid and late 2006.

You are brilliant.

[TayTay]

20. Republican vs Democratic strategy for '06

What is John Kerry doing lately when he speaks out? He is making the following points, over and over and over so that even the media gets it:

We were mislead into war. We must find out if that misleading was intentional. (If it was, that is a very serious problem. Kerry hasn't said this, but that is an impeachable offense.) In order to find out if the intelligence was intentionally doctored before it got to Congress, we need impartial hearings. (Why is Sen. Kerry still bringing up the DSM, though not by name? Why is Sen. Kerry talking over and over about the first Senate Select Intelligence committee and the idea that the committee didn't get all the intel and didn't explore whether or not that intel was cooked.)

The last thing the Repubs want, in an election year, is a huge hearing before Congress that will be saturation covered and whose express purpose is to examine what went wrong in the build-up to the war, why we never found WMDs and what Bush and Cheney and all the neo-cons knew and when they knew it and why they didn't share that info with Congress or with the American people. What are the Republicans hiding?

The Repubs will do everything in their power to stop hearings from occurring because they have only a downside for Repubs. (It keeps Iraq in the public dialogue, it damages the Admin's image and it prevents the Repubs from talking about their wedge issues for '06.)

This is inside baseball, to an extent. The public is seeing the discussion about withdrawal, which, as we all know, is not going to happen because the ones who control the levers of power are not in favor of it. However, this is not Nov of 2004, it is Nov of 2005 and the Rethugs have lost a great deal of power in the court of public opinion. They do not have the political leverage with the people to force their issues and only their issues onto the national stage anymore. I don't think they can avoid hearings and Sen. Kerry's remarks are all about forcing hearings. (This is the Dems trump card - what are you afraid of and come clean with the people.)

The Repubs are left with their old talking points: Democrats are unpatriotic for questioning the war and for daring to suggest that the President was less than truthful with the American people. (Not working, btw.) The Democrats are soft on defense for wanting to 'cut and run.' Not true, as the whole Murtha uproar proves. The Rethugs had to retract their smears against Murtha because they are so obviously false. What other cards do these folks have to play?

IF I were a Dem in DC, I would press this 'mislead' meme as much as possible. It implies the need for a fact-finding commission, it implies that the American people can't trust these folks and it divorces the Rethugs from their prime arguments for continuing the war. IMHO, that's what I see in what Sen. Kerry is saying. (The subtext, if you will.)

[ginnyinWI]

21. so many scandals, so little time!

The Dems really have a smorgasbord to choose from.
The CIA Leak case, which is far from over (new grand jury coming up), Phase II--how the WH specifically used the intelligence to march us to war, and now the Abrahamoff-Scanlon corruption scandal beginning to heat up. I heard some pundit say that this will be the biggest corruption scandal seen in 100 years, with over 60 Congresspersons potentially involved! It's going to be big, because Scanlon is going to "sing" to save his hide.

I think Repubs are becoming aware of the corruption in their party--maybe they knew it before-- but still thought *'s leadership was worth it to protect us from "terra". Now they see an incompetent "katrina" administration which is losing the war and being run by ideologues and cronies (ahem--Harriet Miers), and are ready to wake up and smell the coffee.

And this is where Kerry and the other Dems come in. America is ready to face reality and see the need for change.

[TayTay]

23. I agree. The Rethugs are in real trouble.

They have stuff biting them in the arse from all angles.

Abramoff. (Unfortunately, Harry Reid took Abramoff money, sigh!)
CIA Leak Case
Iraq corruption and the reconciliation money that was misspent
Ohio and Coin-gate
Halliburton and the reconstruction in the Gulf. (Halliburton's subsidiary hired illegal immigrants to do the work then never paid them. We shouldn't be rebuilding the Gulf with slave labor.)

The Dems have an embarrasment of riches here. And all of this is beside the ongoing debacle that is Iraq.

Remember, in the last election, the Dems TOOK the social issues like the economy and health care and so forth. Kerry lost the women's vote on the security issues. Those are now gone from the Rethugs, they have lost credibility.

[karynnj]

22. Why is Clinton seemingly working against this ?

He seemed to downplay the idea that Bush deceived the American people in what was quoted from Westcester College.

[whometense]

24. Just had to post this

bit of comic relief:

[karynnj]

25. If this doesn't prove the tide has turned, I don't know what would.

[whometense]

27. I agree.

It's a beauty, isn't it?

I was poking around on Slate to find a link to it, adn was amazed by how many cartoons are out there right now mocking Darth and * - and not mocking in a gentle way, either.

Check it out: http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?topicid=51&image=0

[ginnyinWI]

28. Wow--what a difference one year makes!!

I love that cartoon--says it all.

[ProSense]

26. Great post!

This is titilating stuff! Easy to miss those subtle threats (because, you know, the Democrats are doing nothing.

[Mass]

16. New version of the AP article - Glen Johnson not allowed to lie after all

totally. Now, he just ignores when Kerry said the first time that he would not vote like that to only quote the last time, at the end of this week on CNN.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/11/21/kerry_accuses_bush_cheney_of_misleading_in_iraqi_war_run_up/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

His vice presidential running mate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, declared last week "I was wrong" to vote in favor of the war. Last week on CNN, Kerry said, "I would not have voted for that resolution given what we know today.

[fedupinBushcountry]

17. Hmmmm

isn't that interesting, I wonder what made him change. Maybe he got some e-mails and phone calls. I hope so, because that is what is needed to get truth in reporting.

[wisteria]

18. Your absolutely correct, never underestimate the power of the

complaint.