Teddy Kennedy in hot water for "Vietnam" remarks
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...powell_kennedy

Powell Cautions Kennedy on Iraq Remarks
1 hour, 5 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) cautioned Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to be more careful in criticizing the war in Iraq (news - web sites) after the Massachusetts Democrat called the conflict "George Bush's Vietnam."


Kennedy "should be a little more restrained and careful in his comments because we are at war," Powell said Tuesday on Fox News Radio's "Tony Snow Show."


Powell said debating the Iraq war was appropriate and an important part of American democracy. But, he said, "this is the also the time that we rally the nation behind the challenge that we face in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites)."


Powell acknowledged that he did not see Kennedy's speech because he was in Haiti, where he met with the country's interim government.


Kennedy said Bush misled the public about the war, the economy and education, compromising America's reputation at home and abroad.


"In this administration, truth is the first casualty of policy," said Kennedy, a prominent supporter of fellow Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s bid for the White House.


Kennedy spokesman David Smith said the senator "has an enormous amount of respect for Secretary of State Colin Powell and he understands why the secretary feels the need to defend the president's policies."

Politics Politics Politics from all involved, even though I think Gen. Powell tells it like it is when he is not forced to support W.

Powell better watch his mouth or someone might start bringing up his involvement in the Mai Lai (sp?) massacre.

I'm sure Teddy is terrified of Colin Powell. Let's get Harry Belafonte back out here to set him straight.

Ted Kennedy is the only Democrat with a backbone and that scares everyone, including other Democrats. Kerry needs to take a cue from his good pal and start screaming bloody murder.

Pfft. Powell is the one who sold himself to the company store, so he's just as much to blame as ChimpCo. A few years ago, I had a decent amount of respect for the man, but he's just become another puppet and I think he's positively pathetic. Talk about someone throwing their independence and intelligence out the window. He doesn't tell it like it is because he supports this admin. at all costs, no matter what. He's the one who lied to the UN; if he had any principles or morals, he would have resigned before this fiasco. He gets no sympathy and I hope he burns right alongside his other lying, scum-sucking comrades. I could care less how many medals he wears on his jacket, he's a traitor.

But, I'm just a hateful person, as the Repugs would say. Or, rather, a socialist pig. :laugh:

I wouldn't call you a pig....hateful, maybe.;)

Rob:cool:

:laugh:

But, here's the thing: I don't deny having hate for these people. I have lots of it, my man. If I didn't have such strong convictions when it comes to the death penalty, I'd like to string them all up my their throats and kill them. These people have run our country down the toilet and I find them to be embarassing, so much so that I'm ashamed to call them Americans. So, yup, I have plenty of venom and hate for these people. We should ship them all off to Iraq and let the Shiite's do what they want with them. :nod: But, I'm probably the only one who will clearly admit to such hate. :laugh:

Isn't it great to live in a country where you have the freedoms to express your opinions?:D

Misguided as they may be...:D ;)

Rob:cool:

Yup, and I can proudly express them with the full knowledge that this administration is doing nothing to protect them. :D ;)

Sorry, but I don't think the word "forced" applies here. He makes his choice every day.

- Jake

Don’t have the time to look all of these up but I know at least some of them are accurate having heard the statements. Interesting how quickly statements are forgotten when a campaign gets rolling!! :rolleyes:

Rob:cool:

______________________

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb
18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US 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." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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 redefine 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." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19,
2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept.
27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"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." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct.
9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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.. 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." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

True and I think it will hurt some of them. The problem to me is the American public en masse is not in tune enough to catch the difference. Pres. Clinton and his team did not lead us into a war where they knew the most inciting info. (the Niger nuclear stuff) was flatly false. W did this. Without the Niger stuff, no one would have "gone for the war." So, to sell the war as an exigent and necessary one, W lied. That is my problem with W as opposed to Clinton.

I hate to agree with a raging conservative, but Rob67 has a point. The Democrats are wimps. They're Republican Lite.

Still, it took the maniac in chief George Weed to bomb the feces out of a country that could barely feed its population. Now that takes guts: Get a 7-foot, 300-pound son of a gun to kick a ragged child in the ribs.

As for Colin Powell, I've never understood the attraction. He's shown time and gain that when the pressure is on, he will lie his posterior off to tow the line. I mean, this guy was an apologist for Vietnam long after everybody pretty much had concluded it was a terrible mistake.

Colin Powell is a disgrace.

In my opinion, pointing to "supportive" comments made by other politicians is merely smoke-screening.
Many people made up their minds based on information we were lead to believe, by the Bush Administration, was trustworthy.

So the question isn't whether or not anyone else agreed with the war in Iraq (and need I remind anyone, that voicing an opposing opinion to this "conflict" was being regarded as damn-near treasonous by many, just as recently as last year), but whether or not our involvement in Iraq, as pushed for by the Bush Administration, was/is justified.

AND - it is not even that I do not think ousting SH is or was justified - I do; it was the lying and circuitous route the liar known as W took to get there when IMO and the opinion of the UN for 11 years, he did not have to take it. But, he did. That is why IMO he should not be elected. :cool:

Moreover (can you tell I am into it today :laugh: ) - All politicians use this smoke creen crapola. It is the nature of the beast. ;) :D :cool:

I understand that side of it but I still contend that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have to convey the same information to the Legislative Branch as they do to the Executive Branch. If Bush lied purposefully to lead us into war then he should answer for it, I agree. But there is nothing that leads me to believe that this was more then an intelligence lapse. Did the Bush administration act on it? Sure. Was it the only means of justification?? Absolutely not. It was a part of their overall case.

Again, do we not have a current probe into the lack of action leading up to 9/11? Isn’t the main criticism that nobody did anything about the intelligence ahead of time? I would look at Iraq this as preemptive action based on the intelligence at the time. And, I am for it.

I say let us learn from Neville Chamberlain and never fall prey to appeasement again.

Rob:cool:

On the contrary, the press has consistently been reporting that Dick Cheney and several other WH big wigs were told the information was false PRIOR to the State of the Union address in which W HEAVILY relied on that bit of false information. The WH admits now, after the fact, that "oops - they were wrong" - and then they say "well, it does not really matter because SH was a bad guy." True, SH was a bad guy, but W and Blair could not have sold this war to the American people and/or the world without making the threat immediate and direct. The only way to do that was to keep the nuke stuff in even though they all knew and now admit was bogus.

We were not appeasing SH, we were controling his every movement, apparently successfully, unlike Hitler.

:cool:

I always admitted to being Conservative but I am hardly “raging!!” For one thing, I hold no religious affiliation, I’m completely against censorship.

I think those are two traits that have to be associated with the “raging” right. If that is considered “raging” around here then maybe the problem is that some of us are too far to the left! I have my fair share of battles with the religious right.:D

I am most definitely a moderate Conservative, I wouldn’t even classify myself as a Republican. I do this crazy thing called thinking outside the party lines…;)

Rob:cool:

I have to say...
 

Ditto for me...And I have/will until the day I die (Probably of Boredom)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thanks, I needed a laugh. :wavey:

I cry foul (HEY :laugh: its been about a week since I cried it and YOU said it last :cool: :wavey: )

Based on what I have seeen in his posts, I think Rob does not tow the R party line.

If I may, I think Rob. like a lot of other R's, sees his party hijacked by the religious right and no longer for a less intrusive and smaller govt. W certainly is not for those formerly R ideals. Rather, he is a big spender and wants to shove his religion down the throats of all Americans. Interestingly, most D's have demonstrated in the way they vote that they want W's ideals as well.

Long live the Liberitarians!!!!

:cool:

P.S. just becuase someone is not wildly liberal does not mean they cannot be a mild R :shrug:

Karen Hughes was still spewing the nuclear b.s. on Larry King last night.

Hehehehe...
 

I thought I read your quote as "Long live the librarians" :laugh: :laugh:

I know - I watched it. I do not think like her, but she is good, I'll give her that.

I think the intelligence over 11 years did suggest SH was attempting or had attempted to build a nuclear bomb. So, she was correct on that point. It is the Niger info. that was the blatant lie to sell the war.

You just had to interrupt my Randi Rhode's listening to reply to this. :rolleyes: :laugh:

If he sees his party being hijacked by the religious right, tough ****. He's the one that voted for Dubya and it's Dubya's agenda. I have no sympathy. Dubya is a part of the religious right and is practically their leader, to say otherwise would be pure horse****. The Repubs haven't been for smaller government for YEARS. For YEARS, Jason. You'd have to be living under a rock to think that they did. So, if he sees Dubya shoving all of this down the throats of Americans, why the full support? :confused:

I'm a raging liberal, I won't try to deny it. And, as a raging liberal, I'm of the mind that any Shrub supporter is coked out of their gourd. ;) :laugh:

Re: Hehehehe...
 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yes, it was an intentional and subliminal message to our handsome and talented resident librarian Johnny Stew!!!!!

LONG LIVE JOHNNY STEW!!!!!!!!

:cool: :cool: :cool:

KAREN HUGHES IS F*CKING CRAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZYYYYYYY!!!

I watched her last night with my jaw on the floor! I was shocked at how stupid, insane, ignorant, and self-serving she came across as! What a nut job!!! We don't hear from the crazy sow for two years, but now that she's coming out with a book, it's Karen Hughes TV!!

:rolleyes:

Well, I know that. I was just saying that not all people who vote for a R candidate believe all the religious crapola that goes with it. I think and pardon me Carne;) , most Americans vote for the lesser of two evils as they see it. For a moderate R, that probably was W over Gore because W, at least in rhetoric, was closer to the R prociples than Gore. N'est pas?

I get that, but what I'm saying is that if someone who supports Dubya complains about his religious agenda, tough tacos. Vote for another candidate that won't do that. ;)

Most Americans like and believe her. Again, I knew what she was doing, but most Americans see her as smart and to the point - sort of like you view Teddy K. - if that helps :cool:

P.S. My fav. is how quick she was to align herself to the Clinton admin. to give validity to W regarding the WMD. However and not suprisingly, she failed to mention Clinton never lied about it to bring America into by W's own logic, and unnecessary war with Iraq.

I agree. But, the problem to me is the D are pretty much just as guilty at the Religious stuff as the R's a la the Defense of Marriage Act. So, that issue is kind of moot. Perhaps things will hopefully change and the D's will find a spine instead of just reacting.

Thankfully, I see her as an opportunistic bitch. ;)

And every semi-tough question that that softy Larry King asked was responded to by blame to everyone else BUT ChimpCo.

What I don't understand is how the American people can take this ****. Do they actually believe that ChimpCo isn't responsible for anything, like the WH is saying? It defies logic!

Politicians with...
 

a religious agenda are as attractive/appealing to me as Al Gore & Dick Cheney doing the "full Monty"...Absolute BARF-AGE!!!!

Religious agenda's dont get my vote.

ITA - like I said earlier, the Dems need to take some cues from Ted Kennedy. He's the only one with a backbone.

Re: Hehehehe...
 

Well, I'm all for that!!! ;) :D

You two are doing an admirable job speaking on my behalf :laugh: but let me jump in and just mention that *most* conservatives lie somewhere just right of the middle. I look at the far Religious right (as most do) as nothing more then the Ying to the far left’s Yang; i.e. mostly irrational and also minorities in their respective parties. Do I think that the party is being hijacked? Not entirely. Of course they will try to push their agenda, as would the far left extremists.

The main reason I support Bush is that I agree with his proactive approach to the war on terror and regardless of the Left’s spin, I think he acted admirably after 9/11. This is the pressing issue of our time. Economies always go up and down regardless of who is in office and I don’t hold Bush (or any president, for that matter) personally accountable for jobs. If anything, 9/11 had a tremendous negative impact on our economy. I have felt it in my family. In light of that, I think we are doing quite well economically given what has happened.

And, Kennedy is a blowhard. Always has been. Talk about some off the wall statements. I even heard him say something to the effect that “Bush’s spending makes Democrats look fiscally sound!” Didn’t he admit that Democrats are huge spenders?

And, I agree with conservative economics and have concerns with the Admin’s spending. Tax cuts have been great, though.

As for my vote…there isn’t a better candidate running then Bush, IMHO. Otherwise, I would vote for him/her.;)

Rob:cool:

Re: Re: Hehehehe...
 

Doggoneit, Jason... I'm running out of money to keep paying you for these ego-strokes! You'll either have to stop, or start working quid pro quo! :p :laugh:

I'm sorry, but I still firmly believe that ANY president in a Post-9/11 world will HAVE TO BE strong on the war on terrorism.
Bush is not the be-all and end-all of go-to guys when it comes to something of that magnitude.

And, in all honesty, I really think that to vote for him on that one single point... when he has been absolutely ineffectual on everything else that matters... is very short-sighted.