Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry Says Bush, Cheney Must 'Apologize' Over Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:35 PM
Original message
Kerry Says Bush, Cheney Must 'Apologize' Over Iraq
Kerry Says Bush, Cheney Must 'Apologize' Over Iraq

Sun October 12, 2003 02:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry said on Sunday President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should apologize for misleading the American people about the war in Iraq and called the international fighting force there a "fraud."
Kerry criticized Bush and Cheney for justifying the war, in part, by saying Iraq was "on the road" to building nuclear weapons, which the senator said has been proven not to be true.

He also slammed the administration for not working adequately with the international community to win backing for the war and not building the broad military coalition in Iraq that was promised.

"I'm asserting very clearly that they misled America," Kerry said on ABC's "This Week" news program. "I think the president and Vice President Cheney should be apologizing to America," he added.

more....

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3599979

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't want to turn this into a Kerry bashing thread, but....
Where was John Kerry back in March, and why didn't he try to stop the war from happening when he had the chance? Good for him for seeing the light, but hell, the barn door is wide open, the horses are long gone, and now he comes out of the back door brandishing a lariat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. i'm not behind him, but it's nice to see him beating the correct drum for
once. and if he ends up being the candidate somehow, i say ANYONE BUT bUSH.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Bush is incapable of apology
I truly believe he's delusional to think that anything he does is automatically sanctioned by his god. I'm torn between him being a brain damaged psychopath or just a smug, self-righteous spoiled rich boy. Maybe both, but he doesn't think he's ever wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. They should apologize to the Iraqis too.
And John Kerry should be standing right next to them with his apology in hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cat Atomic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't want a fucking apology, John.
I want an impeachment. Or an arrest.

It makes me think of the time I let a friend crash at my house for a couple of weeks while she was looking for a new place. Two weeks stretched into 2 months, and she offered to pay rent. I refused, because that would've been an invitation to stay indefinitely.

An apology wouldn't solve anything, and it would only be something that Republicans would point at and say, "he already apologized! What more do you extremists want?!".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prolesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. You must have read my mind
Hundreds of soldiers are dead, thousands injured and even more Iraqis dead and injured. BILLIONS of dollars have been poured into a sinkhole.

No, I don't think an apology is adequate. :mad: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. i think it's well over a hundred billion dollars so far, with nearly that
much scheduled for next year as well. plus more that will come up in requests during the coming months, because everything always runs over budget in a "war."

and i am SO sick of this "war" thing, where they can say it's a war whenever it suits them, even though we haven't officially declared a war in over 50 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. We have discovered the missing link
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/evol-eth.htm

Charles Darwin

The biologization of ethics started with the publication of The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) in 1871. In this follow-up to On the Origin of Species, Darwin applied his ideas about evolutionary development to human beings. He argued that humans must have descended from a less highly organized form, in fact, from a "hairy, tailed quadruped ... inhabitant of the Old World" (Darwin, 1930: 231). The main difficulty Darwin saw with this explanation is the high standard of moral qualities apparent in humans. Faced with this puzzle, Darwin devoted a large chapter of the book to evolutionary explanations of the moral sense, which he argued must have evolved in two main steps.

First, the root for human morality lies in the social instincts (ibid. 232). Building on this claim by Darwin, today’s biologists would explain this as follows. Sociability is a trait whose phylogenetic origins can be traced back to the time when birds 'invented' brooding, hatching and caring for young offspring. To render beings able to fulfil parental responsibilities required social mechanisms unnecessary at earlier stages of evolutionary history. Amoebae, for example, which reproduce by division or frogs, which leave their tadpole-offspring to fend for themselves do not need the social instincts present in birds. At the same time as facilitating the raising of offspring, social instincts counterbalanced innate aggression. It became possible to distinguish between 'them' and 'us' and aim aggression towards individuals that did not belong to one’s group. This behavior is clearly adaptive in the sense of ensuring the survival of one’s family.

Second, with the development of intellectual faculties, human beings were able to reflect on past actions and their motives and thus approve or disapprove of others as well as themselves. This led to the development of a conscience which became "the supreme judge and monitor" of all actions (ibid. 235). Being influenced by utilitarianism, Darwin believed that the greatest-happiness principle will inevitably come to be regarded as a standard for right and wrong (ibid. 134) by social beings with highly evolved intellectual capacities and a conscience.

Based on these claims, can Darwin answer the two essential questions in ethics? First, how can we distinguish between good and evil? And second, why should we be good? If all his claims were true, they would indeed support answers to the above questions. Darwin’s distinction between good and evil is identical with the distinction made by hedonistic utilitarians. Darwin accepts the greatest-happiness principle as a standard of right and wrong. Hence, an action can be judged as good if it improves the greatest happiness of the greatest number, by either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain. And the second question why we should be good does not pose itself for Darwin with the same urgency as it did, for instance, for Plato (Thrasymachos famously asked Socrates in the Republic why the strong, who are not in need of aid, should accept the Golden Rule as a directive for action). Darwin would say that humans are biologically inclined to be sympathetic, altruistic and moral as this proved to be an advantage in the struggle for existence (ibid. 141).
(snip)

For some reason I don't think that last sentence fits when * is part of the conversation. I was looking for a link on the "origins of the apology" and this came up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shockingelk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bill O'Reilly too!
"Here's, here's the bottom line on this for every American and everybody in the world, nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But let's see. But there's a doubt on both sides. And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right? But I'm giving my government the benefit of the doubt."

Bill O'reilly
Good Morning America
March 18, 2003

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
10. with "go it alone" rhetoric - whistleass painted himself into a corner
the UN, in all likelyhood, won't send significant help until the whistleass apologizes

but in apologizing - it will "weaken" us in the eyes of the world

More importantly, this mis-administration is not driven by doing what is right for the country - it's driven by doing what is politically right. If the whistleass apologizes, it will be seen as capitulation and "wimping out" by the GOP base.

When Poppy Bush did not go all the way into Baghdad during the iraq-Kuwait war, much of his support fled because they saw him as a wimp

Politcally - the whistleass can't afford to 'apologize'

IMHO - we won't see any UN help as long as the whistleass remains planted in the oval orafice



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
11. Look who's talking...
...why, if it isn't John "Blank Check" Kerry -- who, if his protestations were sincere (a dubious propositon) was the only person Bush and Cheney really "misled" about their intentions.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC