New Orlean Reconstruction
Want to say something off topic? Something that has nothing to do with Trek? Post it here.
posted on January 19th, 2006, 4:36 pm
France and Germany have reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq, but if you were president, and some insane dictator may have a nuke pointed at your country, wouldn't YOU do something?
posted on January 19th, 2006, 4:56 pm
Last edited by ewm90 on January 19th, 2006, 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
if i thot it was a crdabule threat and thare was some sinsabule ifcood do of cores i would.
the fact is that we were persowing a diplametic efert to chage iraq be for the war. evin the UN exsprested conserns about invading iraq.
you should read this:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731/ - ms.N.B.C. msn.com
More British memos on prewar concerns
Officials deny intelligence that facts were fixed to invade Iraq
WASHINGTON — It started during British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign last month, when details leaked about a top-secret memo, written in July 2002 — eight months before the Iraq war. In the memo, British officials just back from Washington reported that prewar "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to invade Iraq.
Just last week, both President George W. Bush and Blair vigorously denied that war was inevitable.
“No, the facts were not being fixed, in any shape or form at all,” said Blair at a White House news conference with the president on June 7.
But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.
One, also from July 2002, says U.S. military planners had given "little thought" to postwar Iraq.
“The memos are startlingly clear that the British saw that there was inadequate planning, little planning for the aftermath,” says Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
And there's more. To prepare Blair for a meeting at the president's ranch in April 2002, a year before the war, other British memos raised more questions.
After a dinner with Bush’s then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Blair's former national security adviser David Manning, now Britain's ambassador to the U.S., wondered, “What happens on the morning after” the war?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thare was more than a nuff quetions rasted to imedily stop the invation. the quetion is why he did not.
+ when the dimacrats wher askted to ok the invaton of the war thay did not, thay gave the presadent the abullity to do more serching for weponds of WMD if thare was evadents of WMD than milatry ashion coud be brot to the tabuel. if i remiber crecly.
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
Monday, March 22, 2004 Posted: 1:34 AM EST (0634 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.
Days before the fighting began, Vice President **** Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.
"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."
Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge."
No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far.
Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."
Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.
"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."
The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.
"The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."
Blix said that during a meeting before the war with the U.S. president, Bush told him that "the U.S. genuinely wanted peace," and that "he was no wild, gung-ho Texan, bent on dragging the U.S. into war."
Blix said Bush gave the inspectors support and information at first, but he said the help didn't last long enough.
"I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.
Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.
Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.
"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.
ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."
"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."
ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.
"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."
the fact is that we were persowing a diplametic efert to chage iraq be for the war. evin the UN exsprested conserns about invading iraq.
you should read this:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731/ - ms.N.B.C. msn.com
More British memos on prewar concerns
Officials deny intelligence that facts were fixed to invade Iraq
WASHINGTON — It started during British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign last month, when details leaked about a top-secret memo, written in July 2002 — eight months before the Iraq war. In the memo, British officials just back from Washington reported that prewar "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to invade Iraq.
Just last week, both President George W. Bush and Blair vigorously denied that war was inevitable.
“No, the facts were not being fixed, in any shape or form at all,” said Blair at a White House news conference with the president on June 7.
But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.
One, also from July 2002, says U.S. military planners had given "little thought" to postwar Iraq.
“The memos are startlingly clear that the British saw that there was inadequate planning, little planning for the aftermath,” says Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
And there's more. To prepare Blair for a meeting at the president's ranch in April 2002, a year before the war, other British memos raised more questions.
After a dinner with Bush’s then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Blair's former national security adviser David Manning, now Britain's ambassador to the U.S., wondered, “What happens on the morning after” the war?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thare was more than a nuff quetions rasted to imedily stop the invation. the quetion is why he did not.
+ when the dimacrats wher askted to ok the invaton of the war thay did not, thay gave the presadent the abullity to do more serching for weponds of WMD if thare was evadents of WMD than milatry ashion coud be brot to the tabuel. if i remiber crecly.
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
Monday, March 22, 2004 Posted: 1:34 AM EST (0634 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.
Days before the fighting began, Vice President **** Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.
"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."
Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge."
No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far.
Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."
Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.
"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."
The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.
"The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."
Blix said that during a meeting before the war with the U.S. president, Bush told him that "the U.S. genuinely wanted peace," and that "he was no wild, gung-ho Texan, bent on dragging the U.S. into war."
Blix said Bush gave the inspectors support and information at first, but he said the help didn't last long enough.
"I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.
Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.
Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.
"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.
ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."
"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."
ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.
"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."
posted on January 19th, 2006, 7:31 pm
Of course the UN "expressed concerns" about invading Iraq! Heck, they "expressed concern" about the US interveneing in Kosovo too! Remember that?
FACT: The UN is A JOKE.
FACT: The UN is A JOKE.
posted on January 19th, 2006, 7:53 pm
Last edited by Casper on January 19th, 2006, 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
true, but now they're totally useless after the invasion of iraq. before they were a joke, but they still had some pull. now it's gone.
posted on January 19th, 2006, 8:01 pm
i seem to recall several high level demecrates including hilery clinton voting to go to war in iraq.
posted on January 19th, 2006, 10:07 pm
the UN is not a joke it serves a perpuse and duss it job. its far from a joke it mite not have all the resores it needs to do evry thing it wants but it serves it perpuses.
thay did what thay needed to do and than bush did not like the out come of thare inspections so he invated serise thay wert rong and bush brocke the rules that wher set up for a good reson.
dimacrats DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR thay voted for inspetions is the inspections showed that thare wher WMD than war coud be put on the tabule. wich is far from voteing GO TO WAR.
thay did what thay needed to do and than bush did not like the out come of thare inspections so he invated serise thay wert rong and bush brocke the rules that wher set up for a good reson.
dimacrats DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR thay voted for inspetions is the inspections showed that thare wher WMD than war coud be put on the tabule. wich is far from voteing GO TO WAR.
posted on January 19th, 2006, 10:33 pm
Do you know how much of America was in favor of the war, just two weeks after it started?
[font=Impact]80%[/font].
Yes, 80%. You tell me there wern't any democrats in that 80%!!!!!
[font=Impact]80%[/font].
Yes, 80%. You tell me there wern't any democrats in that 80%!!!!!
posted on January 20th, 2006, 3:07 am
Last edited by E34big6 on January 20th, 2006, 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
dimacrats DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR thay voted for inspetions is the inspections showed that thare wher WMD than war coud be put on the tabule. wich is far from voteing GO TO WAR.
If democrates did not vote for the war then way did 40 persent of the democrates vote for the uses of armed forces against Iraq
H J RES 114 YEA-AND-NAY
10-Oct-2002 3:05 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
...................Yeas....Nay...NV
Republican... 215 ......6 .....2
Democratic ...81 ....126 .....1
Independent .............1
TOTALS .......296 ....133 ....3
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
posted on January 20th, 2006, 3:18 am
Last edited by ewm90 on January 20th, 2006, 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
SHO260 yes if thare was cleer evadints that iraq had WMD you have to see how the bill was posde and that is not a side that i can trust it duss not look offishal and it mite be a privit site with out fare reporting - be carfulle how you get your facts from.
info be hind jone karry and uthers vote
frontline a offishal news show on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...kerry/iraq.html
keep in mind thay wher not givin the true thay wher givin bad inforamtion that the bush adminastratin pushed.
info be hind jone karry and uthers vote
frontline a offishal news show on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...kerry/iraq.html
keep in mind thay wher not givin the true thay wher givin bad inforamtion that the bush adminastratin pushed.
posted on January 20th, 2006, 2:46 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on January 20th, 2006, 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SHO260 yes if thare was cleer evadints that iraq had WMD you have to see how the bill was posde and that is not a side that i can trust it duss not look offishal and it mite be a privit site with out fare reporting - be carfulle how you get your facts from.
info be hind jone karry and uthers vote
frontline a offishal news show on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...kerry/iraq.html
keep in mind thay wher not givin the true thay wher givin bad inforamtion that the bush adminastratin pushed.
Oh, this ones a gem.
First, he uses the horrible excuse of how "he can't trust that website" (which negates everything in his sig, because we can't trust those sites, either)
Then, he presents info from ultra-liberally-biased PBS and expects us to take it as fact, then he tells us that we should move the topic back some and keep talking about how "Bush is a liar" because hes afraid of where this topic is going.
In summary, we can tell by this desperate post of excuses that hes treading on thin ice, and is worried that this is a debate he might lose if he doesn't keep on the offensive.
posted on January 20th, 2006, 11:28 pm
i will look for a nuther sores later i dont have time now.
posted on January 20th, 2006, 11:32 pm
I believe it was this topic in which you were saying that Democrats didn't 'okay' Iraq, so here I go:
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
You tell me those arn't Democrats.
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
You tell me those arn't Democrats.
posted on January 21st, 2006, 1:19 am
those are sownd bites, karry never has a short speach. thes are bite of speeches that do not esasery resflect what the repersintotive was tring to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP:
colin pall.
Powell Denies Rift Over Iraq Invasion
Secretary Defends the War, Says U.S. Got Rid of 'a Horrible Dictator'
By Peter Slevin and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 6, 2004; Page A06
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered a spirited defense of U.S. foreign policy and the war in Iraq, telling a convention of minority journalists in Washington yesterday that he was "solidly behind" the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
Speaking to Unity: Journalists of Color hours after Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry told the gathering that the Iraq war represented a failure of diplomacy, Powell replied: "We haven't had a failure in Iraq. We have gotten rid of a horrible dictator."
Asked about his experience being on the losing end of important foreign policy debates, Powell said "there was no split" over the invasion of Iraq once the Bush administration concluded Hussein had violated the final demands from the U.N. Security Council.
"I can assure you that I have in no way been constrained, contained or kept on the outside of our discussions," Powell said.
Kerry took a brief detour from his travels in the Midwest to address Unity, a consortium of four minority journalism associations. He focused attention on domestic issues and divisions of race, class and ethnicity, and he promised to run a more inclusive White House.
He pledged to fund federal programs that target a broad array of groups, from Native Americans to Filipino American veterans to Hispanics and African Americans without health care. He also promised to use his White House pulpit to press for an increase in the number of minorities holding prominent media jobs.
Noting that people of color are "only a tiny fraction" of editors, anchors and executives, Kerry challenged management to do better. He promised to appoint Federal Communications Commission members who will see that "small and minority-owned broadcasters are not consolidated into extinction."
The blue-blooded Democrat from Massachusetts, competing against an equally well-heeled president raised in Connecticut, told Unity he is the candidate who can best connect with minorities in the United States.
"Above all, who is truly committed to bridging the divides in this country that continue to separate, sometimes willfully, intentionally and politically . . . race from race, group from group, region from region?" Kerry asked. "I am also aware -- how can you live in America and not be aware? -- of the special challenges facing people of color."
In one of Kerry's biggest applause lines, he said every black vote would count in future elections. In 2000, many black voters were denied the right to vote as a result of breakdowns in registration and vote-counting systems.
"The harsh fact now is that in the last election more than 1 million African Americans were disenfranchised in one of the most tainted elections in history," Kerry said. "We have to see to it in November that every vote counts -- and every vote is counted."
Kerry measured his words carefully when asked to discuss actor Bill Cosby's admonition that black Americans take greater personal responsibility for their children instead of blaming others or the government if their children do not succeed. He said the comedian was being "excessively exclusive" by focusing on personal responsibility without acknowledging the protective role government must play.
"I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange [prison] suit," Cosby said in May remarks that created an intense debate. "Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? . . . In all of this work, we cannot blame white people."
"I understand exactly where Bill is coming from in his comment," Kerry said. "It may be excessively exclusive in the breadth of it, in the sense that it sort of targets just the responsibility side, but that's an important side."
Kerry said government and society are to blame, too, for not providing adequate assistance and protections to minorities.
"We also need to do the things we need to do as a society to empower those people, have plans for those kids, to make the world safer," Kerry said. "It's all of us together."
President Bush is to address the Unity convention today.
After Kerry departed and Powell's turn came, the secretary of state insisted that Bush administration's foreign policy is more multilateral than its critics at home and abroad contend -- and more effective. He said that if the United States had not deposed Hussein, the Iraqi leader would have developed unconventional weapons.
"We would have faced those weapons at another time, at another place," Powell said.
Before the invasion, Powell expressed doubts in administrative channels about the wisdom of the war and the president's understanding of its implications, but he said yesterday that he was "solidly behind what the president found he had to do last spring when he undertook Operation Iraqi Freedom."
"And I'm pleased that that dictator is gone," added Powell, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "He's been a thorn in my side for the last 12 years, too, I can assure you."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2004Aug5.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerrys Senate Web page:
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764
Let’s be straight about Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in ****. But that was not the reason America went to war. The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise. I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally. We are where we are. The President’s flippant “bring it on” taunt to the insurgents has found a meaning beyond his wildest expectations, a painful reality for troops who went for too long without protective armor. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure, and the mission the President once declared accomplished remains perilously incomplete. To set a new course, we must be strong, smart, and honest. As we learned painfully during the Vietnam War, no president can sustain a war without the support of the American people. In the case of Iraq, their patience is frayed and nearly to the breaking point because Americans will not tolerate our troops giving their lives without a clear strategy, and will not tolerate vague platitudes or rosy scenarios when real answers are urgently needed. It’s time for leaders to be honest that if we do not change course, there is the prospect of indefinite, even endless conflict - a fate untenable for our troops, and a future unacceptable to the American people and the Iraqis who pray for the day when a stable Iraq will belong to Iraqis alone. The path forward will not be easy. The administration’s incompetence and unwillingness to listen has made the task that much harder, and reduced what we can expect to accomplish. But there is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives. With so much at stake, we must follow it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP:
colin pall.
Powell Denies Rift Over Iraq Invasion
Secretary Defends the War, Says U.S. Got Rid of 'a Horrible Dictator'
By Peter Slevin and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 6, 2004; Page A06
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered a spirited defense of U.S. foreign policy and the war in Iraq, telling a convention of minority journalists in Washington yesterday that he was "solidly behind" the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
Speaking to Unity: Journalists of Color hours after Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry told the gathering that the Iraq war represented a failure of diplomacy, Powell replied: "We haven't had a failure in Iraq. We have gotten rid of a horrible dictator."
Asked about his experience being on the losing end of important foreign policy debates, Powell said "there was no split" over the invasion of Iraq once the Bush administration concluded Hussein had violated the final demands from the U.N. Security Council.
"I can assure you that I have in no way been constrained, contained or kept on the outside of our discussions," Powell said.
Kerry took a brief detour from his travels in the Midwest to address Unity, a consortium of four minority journalism associations. He focused attention on domestic issues and divisions of race, class and ethnicity, and he promised to run a more inclusive White House.
He pledged to fund federal programs that target a broad array of groups, from Native Americans to Filipino American veterans to Hispanics and African Americans without health care. He also promised to use his White House pulpit to press for an increase in the number of minorities holding prominent media jobs.
Noting that people of color are "only a tiny fraction" of editors, anchors and executives, Kerry challenged management to do better. He promised to appoint Federal Communications Commission members who will see that "small and minority-owned broadcasters are not consolidated into extinction."
The blue-blooded Democrat from Massachusetts, competing against an equally well-heeled president raised in Connecticut, told Unity he is the candidate who can best connect with minorities in the United States.
"Above all, who is truly committed to bridging the divides in this country that continue to separate, sometimes willfully, intentionally and politically . . . race from race, group from group, region from region?" Kerry asked. "I am also aware -- how can you live in America and not be aware? -- of the special challenges facing people of color."
In one of Kerry's biggest applause lines, he said every black vote would count in future elections. In 2000, many black voters were denied the right to vote as a result of breakdowns in registration and vote-counting systems.
"The harsh fact now is that in the last election more than 1 million African Americans were disenfranchised in one of the most tainted elections in history," Kerry said. "We have to see to it in November that every vote counts -- and every vote is counted."
Kerry measured his words carefully when asked to discuss actor Bill Cosby's admonition that black Americans take greater personal responsibility for their children instead of blaming others or the government if their children do not succeed. He said the comedian was being "excessively exclusive" by focusing on personal responsibility without acknowledging the protective role government must play.
"I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange [prison] suit," Cosby said in May remarks that created an intense debate. "Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? . . . In all of this work, we cannot blame white people."
"I understand exactly where Bill is coming from in his comment," Kerry said. "It may be excessively exclusive in the breadth of it, in the sense that it sort of targets just the responsibility side, but that's an important side."
Kerry said government and society are to blame, too, for not providing adequate assistance and protections to minorities.
"We also need to do the things we need to do as a society to empower those people, have plans for those kids, to make the world safer," Kerry said. "It's all of us together."
President Bush is to address the Unity convention today.
After Kerry departed and Powell's turn came, the secretary of state insisted that Bush administration's foreign policy is more multilateral than its critics at home and abroad contend -- and more effective. He said that if the United States had not deposed Hussein, the Iraqi leader would have developed unconventional weapons.
"We would have faced those weapons at another time, at another place," Powell said.
Before the invasion, Powell expressed doubts in administrative channels about the wisdom of the war and the president's understanding of its implications, but he said yesterday that he was "solidly behind what the president found he had to do last spring when he undertook Operation Iraqi Freedom."
"And I'm pleased that that dictator is gone," added Powell, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "He's been a thorn in my side for the last 12 years, too, I can assure you."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2004Aug5.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerrys Senate Web page:
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764
Let’s be straight about Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in ****. But that was not the reason America went to war. The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise. I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally. We are where we are. The President’s flippant “bring it on” taunt to the insurgents has found a meaning beyond his wildest expectations, a painful reality for troops who went for too long without protective armor. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure, and the mission the President once declared accomplished remains perilously incomplete. To set a new course, we must be strong, smart, and honest. As we learned painfully during the Vietnam War, no president can sustain a war without the support of the American people. In the case of Iraq, their patience is frayed and nearly to the breaking point because Americans will not tolerate our troops giving their lives without a clear strategy, and will not tolerate vague platitudes or rosy scenarios when real answers are urgently needed. It’s time for leaders to be honest that if we do not change course, there is the prospect of indefinite, even endless conflict - a fate untenable for our troops, and a future unacceptable to the American people and the Iraqis who pray for the day when a stable Iraq will belong to Iraqis alone. The path forward will not be easy. The administration’s incompetence and unwillingness to listen has made the task that much harder, and reduced what we can expect to accomplish. But there is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives. With so much at stake, we must follow it.
posted on January 21st, 2006, 5:06 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on January 21st, 2006, 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
One quote down, 8 more to go.
Oh, and that doesn't change the fact that Kerry himself admitted that he believed that there were WMDs in Iraq.
Oh, and that doesn't change the fact that Kerry himself admitted that he believed that there were WMDs in Iraq.
posted on January 21st, 2006, 11:16 pm
i dont have tme nore the desiser to go proving every bit of disinformatin that is posted. if you wont the realy truth you can look it up.
his mistake is that he trusted the presadent i shere he wont make that mistake agin.
his mistake is that he trusted the presadent i shere he wont make that mistake agin.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yandex [Bot] and 12 guests