Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, it's not irrelevant.

Methinks you're exaggerating his vehemence. I've lived in MA all my life (minus short stints in France and Florida ) and I've never heard him talk about Iraq and Saddam so vigorously. Yes, he's said Saddam should be removed, but those things are far from vehemently arguing about his ouster.

Yes, it is irrelvant because that was then and this is now. Do a google search for Kerry's statements from 1995 to 2003 on SH and his threat to the world. I think you will see he was fully supportive of Clinton's policy of removal of SH. Then, he supports W in removing SH. So, any prior 12 year old vote is irrelevant IMO, esp. considering Kerry was not running for Pres. then.

Then why did he give W carte blanche to do it? I mean Kerry was for the ousting of SH. I have no problem with that. I just think the D's attempt to spin it to where he was caught off guard by W's sudden actions once the vote was cast BS. Kerry knew exactly what he was doing IMO. I mean after 30 years in the beltway how could he not know. Yet, he is spinning it pretty hard now.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Then why did he give W carte blanche to do it? I mean Kerry was for the ousting of SH. I have no problem with that. I just think the D's attempt to spin it to where he was caught off guard by W's sudden actions once the vote was cast BS. Kerry knew exactly what he was doing IMO. I mean after 30 years in the beltway how could he not know. Yet, he is spinning it pretty hard now.

Hey, I don't disagree at all. The thing I disagree with is your assertion that Kerry, as president, would have invaded Iraq. Not only is that ridiculous, but it's laughable. It would've never happened and the idea wouldn't have even been tossed around.

And, NO, it isn't irrelevant. You're saying that Kerry was vehement and dead-set on ousting Saddam, yet he disn't support his ouster when he had the chance. Therein lies the hole in your argument.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Hey, I don't disagree at all. The thing I disagree with is your assertion that Kerry, as president, would have invaded Iraq. Not only is that ridiculous, but it's laughable. It would've never happened and the idea wouldn't have even been tossed around.

I will never buy that, esp. when the D.'s would have removed him under Clinton if they could have. Clinton kicked around the idea - so why is it illogical to assume Kerry would not have, esp. after 9/11, which afforded him the chance to do it. Granted it is not cut and dry and is all an assumption, but Kerry's prior statements do not, at the least, negate the possibility to wit:

"[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

"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 threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003


BTW - these are from http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php (know thine enemy )

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

And, NO, it isn't irrelevant. You're saying that Kerry was vehement and dead-set on ousting Saddam, yet he disn't support his ouster when he had the chance. Therein lies the hole in your argument.

No it is not. After the first Gulf War, Kerry, not surprisingly, changed his stance as the quotes above clearly demonstrate. So, I guess if he suddenly changed back to the 91 stance, then yes, he would not have invaded Iraq

[strandinthewind]

and if the rabid right wing site was not enough - here it is from the horse's mouth http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/s...2002_1009.html

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I will never buy that, esp. when the D.'s would have removed him under Clinton if they could have. Clinton kicked around the idea - so why is it illogical to assume Kerry would not have, esp. after 9/11, which afforded him the chance to do it.

Clinton had an Iraq regime change policy, but it was regime change from within. It wasn't changing regimes by invading their country and bombing the **** out of them.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

"[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

"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 threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003


BTW - these are from http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php (know thine enemy )

And...what do those quotes prove? Nothing. Yeah, it reaffirms that he kissed Shrub's ass when Shrub wanted to go to war, big deal. I've already said that I agree with that assessment. But as for the letter, show me the whole thing. That quote is so vague (what are the "suspect sites"?) that nothing can be gathered from it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No it is not. After the first Gulf War, Kerry, not surprisingly, changed his stance as the quotes above clearly demonstrate. So, I guess if he suddenly changed back to the 91 stance, then yes, he would not have invaded Iraq

Supporting Bush is '02 and '03 simply does not give any credence to your theory that Kerry himself would ahve invaded Iraq. It simply doesn't and I don't understand why you do not get that!!!!

[DeeGeMe]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I know, and I appreciate the concern. But on some things, I stick to principle.

I salute your strength and courage. I love NYC and all that but there is no way that I could stay there with that many Repugs in one place at one time! Screw the terrorists--these days the Rethugs scare me a hell of a lot more than OBL & Company!

[GypsySorcerer]

I disagree that the US should pull out of Iraq now. I believe that will only WORSEN the situation. Al-Qaida groups are already there...they are responsible for the killing of Nick Berg. Are we supposed to pull out at now and let these militant groups run rampant all over the country? Whether or not someone supported this war is irrelevant. We are over there, and we have to finish the job. Just because it isn't happening over night doens't mean we should pull out and quit.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I disagree that the US should pull out of Iraq now. I believe that will only WORSEN the situation. Al-Qaida groups are already there...they are responsible for the killing of Nick Berg. Are we supposed to pull out at now and let these militant groups run rampant all over the country? Whether or not someone supported this war is irrelevant. We are over there, and we have to finish the job. Just because it isn't happening over night doens't mean we should pull out and quit.

No, what needs to happen is a new president who will mend relations between us, the UN, and other countries that don't support us. Then, once the fences are mended, we need to turn over responsibility to the UN and share the mess with the rest of the world. Only then will the prospects of installing democracy in Iraq look less daunting and grim. One nation cannot do it alone and it's silly for Shrub to think that it can. Sovereignty being turned over on June 30th? I think not. Sovereignty is being turned over to the Iraqi interim government, which is populated by officials hand-picked by the US. Of course, the interests of the US will be of top priority; they would never appoint people that would ask us to leave Iraq because we'd have egg on our face and less oil. We will not finish this alone and we need the suppor tof the rest of the world. No more hoarding the oil and not sharing it, it isn't our oil to that with. Repair relations and make a REAL coalition.

[dissention]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._politics_dc_1

Analysts Say U.S. Threat Warning Is Back-Covering

1 hour, 19 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!
By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A vague new U.S. warning that al Qaeda may be planning a massive attack smacks of political back-covering and campaigning, not just a call for heightened vigilance, analysts and former government officials say.

Stung by accusations that the Bush administration ignored key intelligence in the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, officials may now be issuing warnings to prove to Americans they are on the ball this time, say terrorism analysts on both sides of the political fence.

"Apparently there were warnings over 9/11 and nothing came out to the public before that, and they've paid a dear price for that," said Jonathan Schanzer, a terrorism analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"They need to alert the public that there could be something coming down the pike, in which case, don't say we didn't tell you," he said.

One former national security official in the Bush administration told Reuters: "This is more butt-covering than anything else."

Critics say the new threat warnings may also just be a ploy to shore up the president's job approval ratings or divert attention from the increasingly unpopular Iraq (news - web sites) campaign.

But some analysts say the announcement on Wednesday that the United States had credible but unspecified information on possible terror attacks in the next few months would lead to tighter security and could act as a deterrent to militants.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said several upcoming events -- which include two major American holidays, a Group of Eight summit, political party conventions, and U.S. elections in November -- could be attractive targets for al Qaeda.

"It is certainly an appropriate cry for all of us to remain vigilant," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism analyst at the RAND think tank.

Asked whether he worried about skeptics who say "you're just protecting your behind," Ashcroft told a news conference: "I just don't think my job is to worry about what skeptics say. My job is to do everything I can to protect the American people and to help the American people protect themselves."

SEEKING MORE GUIDANCE

But beyond urging citizens to be on their guard, officials failed to suggest what Americans should do to help mitigate the threat. They said the government had no plans to raise the terror threat level or announce new precautions, and gave no details on when, where or how it might occur.

New York and Los Angeles, two of the biggest U.S. cities, said they had not been briefed on any new threats.

"Most people feel that just a generalized 'be concerned about things' is not that useful," said Randall Yim, head of the homeland security division at the government's General Accounting Office (news - web sites), the investigative arm of Congress.

"It's like the old Wendy's (fast food) commercial: 'Where's the beef?"' the former Bush administration official said.

Some critical voices say the government may also be hoping the warnings could score political points on national security that could boost President Bush (news - web sites)'s flagging popularity ahead of the November elections.

Schanzer said the administration was probably aware that the threat warning could help lift ratings, but said "they are not exploiting this in a way they probably could."

Still, "there's no doubt that increased activity on this front, leading up to the election, could strengthen the president's position," he said.

One prominent terrorism expert, who would only speak on condition of anonymity, said Bush may also be trying to staunch increasing criticism of the Iraq campaign by underlining the link in the public's mind between Iraq and security at home.

"The president is running as a war president, so the timing is interesting," he said, pointing to a speech by Bush on Monday that made frequent references to terrorist threats.

"I wonder if there's not a connection to the president's speech when he mentioned terrorism 18 times in the context of Iraq. Isn't this a very convenient way of linking back to the United States that Iraq is part of the broader war on terrorism?" he said.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, what needs to happen is a new president who will mend relations between us, the UN, and other countries that don't support us. Then, once the fences are mended, we need to turn over responsibility to the UN and share the mess with the rest of the world. Only then will the prospects of installing democracy in Iraq look less daunting and grim. One nation cannot do it alone and it's silly for Shrub to think that it can. Sovereignty being turned over on June 30th? I think not. Sovereignty is being turned over to the Iraqi interim government, which is populated by officials hand-picked by the US. Of course, the interests of the US will be of top priority; they would never appoint people that would ask us to leave Iraq because we'd have egg on our face and less oil. We will not finish this alone and we need the suppor tof the rest of the world. No more hoarding the oil and not sharing it, it isn't our oil to that with. Repair relations and make a REAL coalition.

Diss, what you said sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, the UN is possibly the wimpiest organization in existence right now, which is really too bad.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Al Gore should shut the hell up.

His endorsement of Dean was the beginning of the end. Is he going to do the same to Kerry?

When is he going to realize that the public simply doesn't like him? Go home, Al! Oh, right, he can't. They hate him in Tennessee too, so much so that they gave the vote to Dubya in 2000.

Oh so now you're pissed at him for endorsing Dean? Cripes, anything but putting the blame squarely where it belongs-on Howard.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Diss, what you said sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, the UN is possibly the wimpiest organization in existence right now, which is really too bad.

But the question is, why is it wimpy? Because they're sick of us and our schtick. If a real leader would go to the UN with open arms and ready to embrace and listen, it would work like a charm. The US needs to get rid of the ego and the politics and be willing to make the effort to make Iraq work. It's going to take a miracle to establish democracy in Iraq, which is why one country CANNOT do it whatsoever. We don't have the manpower, the will, or the right leader to do it.