Kerry says Bush misled Americans on war

[Devi]

Joyce ... he heard you man!

''I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally,'' he said.

Levity???

[DaryLLL]

Yay, Kerry!

proud to be from Massachusetts,

[Quirky]

Hmmmm....although I will vote for whatever Dem gets the nod and will be out campaigning for him, this sounds like a big ol' spinaroo to me.....CYA all the way. "I voted for the war...I'm glad Saddam is gone....but maybe it was all a big mistake..."

Hmmmm.

[Joyce in the mts.]

Devi, YES!

I saw this and I hear it and acknowledge it.

However, I have to be as "wait and see" on this as Jane. (Jane I am with you!)

There were those whom, using the same info they all had previous to the vote for extended war powers, voted against. What did they know that Kerry didn't; what motivated their courageous nay votes? Did they have nothing to lose, and knew that we had PLENTY to lose? Should these others have been more concerned with the impact of voting nay on their presidential campaign hopes? Should they have been willing to go for broke and speak out for the sake of saving our country?

It all remains to be seen. Sen. Kerry is being very careful.

I am not all that impressed, but it is movement in the right direction. He really didn't say what I was hoping for. And this to me, makes him look perhaps, forgive me for saying it, weak.

I prefer not to parse his words, but take them as a whole. They seem extremely tentative and conditional to me. But that is just me. It makes me uncomfortable, but again...just me.

I am still open and waiting to hear fire and passion and truth unvarnished, rather than marketing strategy.

Joyce in the mts.

[Joyce in the mts.]

This is an interesting article, mostly about Edwards...but read the entire article...it does say more.

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=5038

[Devi]

Originally posted by Jane
Hmmmm....although I will vote for whatever Dem gets the nod and will be out campaigning for him, this sounds like a big ol' spinaroo to me.....CYA all the way. "I voted for the war...I'm glad Saddam is gone....but maybe it was all a big mistake..."

Hmmmm.

Jane~thanks for the reply. John Kerry is very careful not to call his decision a 'mistake.' He states that he doesn't appreciate making a decision based on lies and I think that's a reasonable statement.

Joyce~I understand your point, but being 'careful' isn't a necessarilly a bad thing. Neither is 'marketing strategy.' And I don't 'personally' see either of these as a 'weakness' ...

I think we need the complete package to go after Shrub. Bush is setting records for fund raising while we don't even know who is opponent will be.

I still like/support Howard Dean, but at times I wish he were 'more' careful, KWIM?

Im soooo with you on Edwards. I really love the idea of 'college' for all, but he has no passion...

[Devi]

Truthout..

Dean, Kerry: 'Bush Misled America on War'

"I think the president owes this country an explanation because what the president said was not entirely truthful, and he needs to explain why that was," Dean said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Dean cited a number of statements made by Bush and other senior administration officials about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the dangers that the regime posed to the United States. The candidate said the claims were made even though officials knew they weren't true.

"We need a thorough look at what really happened going into Iraq," Dean said. "It appears to me that what the president did was make a decision to go into Iraq sometime in early 2002, or maybe even late 2001, and then try to get the justification afterward."

Bush spin..."Bush fired back at his critics who have suggested that the administration inflated prewar intelligence data on Iraq's weapons program as a justification for war. He said the most overlooked fact is that "the people of Iraq are free."

Dean/Kerry "Bush misled America on War"...

[Quirky]

I guess where I'm coming from is I feel Kerry is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. I think there were enough questions being asked about the quality of the intelligence before the vote in Congress that Kerry could have expressed his reservations at the time and even voted against based on not enough information. To me, his statements now smack of trying to straddle the fence: currying favor with the opponents of war while still having a record of voting for it.

I would love to see Edwards put on a better show. Mainly because I think Kerry has a geographical problem: like Dukakis or a modern-day Kennedy, I think a liberal northeasterner just doesn't have the appeal to the rest of the country.

I wish the field of Dem candidates were narrower, and I wish the convention were *now* so we could have a candidate and spend the time between now and the election sharpening the message and really going after Bush, instead of focusing on the infighting between candidates. With the Repubs laughing all the way to the bank.

[RowansDad]

Originally posted by Jane
I would love to see Edwards put on a better show. Mainly because I think Kerry has a geographical problem: like Dukakis or a modern-day Kennedy, I think a liberal northeasterner just doesn't have the appeal to the rest of the country.

Dukakis and Kerry are really completely different political animals. First, Dukakis had no national juice, was governor when the nickname 'Taxachusetts's was first coined, absolutely stammered over the infamous 'what if your wife was raped' question during debates, ran on the Massachusetts Miracle, JUST as the state's economy was heading to the tank, and, speaking of tank, his handlers allowed this (http://home.millsaps.edu/~mcelvrs/Dukakis_tank.jpg).

Dubya's peeps wouldn't be able to use anything like that with Kerry: http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/p...y/061603.shtml

The Dukakis campaign of '88 was amatuer hour:
http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...148069,00.html
and I'm pretty sure the Kerry campaign has learned from it:
More here: http://www.hughhewitt.com/past_news_...ton_Globe.html

IMO, Edwards is a bit of a political lightweight, can be attacked by Dubya as an opportunist (how long has been senator), inexperienced and, worst of all, a former trial lawyer!

[Devi]

Jane said~I guess where I'm coming from is I feel Kerry is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. ... To me, his statements now smack of trying to straddle the fence: currying favor with the opponents of war while still having a record of voting for it.

Couldn't agree with you more Jane...But if WMD are planted or found then what ???

Also, lets not forget that 75% of the American public was in favor of war after Bush's 'get outta town by sundown' ultimatum to SH. So...how does a candidate who 'knew' all along (like Dean) appeal to those that were horns waggled with out basically calling them idiots? Which, by the way, represents most of America.

I think what it comes down to is whether or not WMD are found (or planted) and ... whether or not "Weaponsgate," becomes the scandal it should.

I think the more 'outspoken' and bold candidates like Howard Dean will make leaps and bounds if the senate investigation plays out like it should and no WMD's are found.

But...If the Bushies are able to spin, as they have been, and down play the issue... Kerry may be a 'happy medium' and perhaps more 'electable' then those that were most outspoken from the beginning???

Also Kerry never approved of how Bush handled the War. *i.e. with out UN approval etc...

BTW, I still see Dems like Lieberman eating more then cake, KWIM?

So lets cross our collective fingers and hope it doesn't come down to BUSH vs. LIEBERMAN in 04' ? :Puke