John Kerry's response to Paul O'Neill

[InformedSource]

This is not posted as a pro-Kerry item. I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is. I just wonder of President Junior will participate in debates with whoever the Democratic candidate is, with questions like this there to be asked:

John Kerry Responds to Secretary O’Neill’s Iraq Charges

January 10, 2004

For Immediate Release
Des Moines, Iowa -

“These are very serious charges by a former high ranking Administration official. We already knew the Administration failed to focus on the threat from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. We already knew the Administration broke every promise they made to work through the U.N., use the resolution to enforce inspections, build a coalition, and plan for peace. But Secretary O’Neill’s revelations would mean the Administration never intended to even try to keep those promises. It would mean they were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world. It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter their already damaged credibility as never before.”

[Stephanie]

1. I don't think that's what it means

Why does he repeat "alone, alone"?

The point is that they were planning to get their war on as soon as they took office. And that all of the excuses they offered were bogus. It was not because "everything changed after 9/11."

I love Kerry but I think he communicates poorly. He's not on point here.

[Gin]

7. "Bush gets his war on..." thought of this while reading the responses.

gin

[are_we_united_yet]

2. "...because they threaten to shatter their already.."

damaged credibility as never before.” Strong words but not strong enough if you read it from a legalise perspective.

[pocoloco]

3. In my wildest dreams I cannot for the life of me imagine bush*

debating Kerry, much less Clark.

[dfong63]

4. Bush's capacity to lie, mislead, and bamboozle

... will not even be seriously tested in such a debate.

and Kerry would be in a weak position to raise such issues because he backed the IWR and still refuses to admit it was a mistake.

[RainDog]

5. For those of us who were paying attention

way back when, we knew that every argument Bush put forward was a lie...as much as it is possible to know these things as people outside of the inner circles of power.

But nothing is absolutely certain, even now, concerning WMD issues, or how that issue can be manipulated (see the current "Danes find weapons" misleading headlines.)

so I suppose Kerry is trying to play to people who have no followed this issue from day one...but by doing that, he risks losing those of us who could look at the evidence available before the invasion and infer that Bush was lying his ass off.

This is why Dean has had so much support up front.

I have no doubt Kerry could make an excellent president, but he has not had the fire in the belly to rally the dem base on issues which so many of us are REALLY PISSED OFF about...

and Iraq is the number one issue.

He should attack Bush about the Iraq invasion much, much more, emphasizing that the US took resources (troops, money, time) away from the hunt for Al Q --and why? --is Cheney's Energy Policy Task Force Iraqi Oil spoils the real reason??

...and then point to Cheney's Halliburton racking in the dough from this preordained war,

...and point out that Bush's lies about Iraq are part of a pattern of deception, and lead into the economic mess Bush has created and exacerbated by his policies...

in other words, if Kerry wants to make a statement about O'Neill, it should have some bite. If he wants to win, he has to be a fighter...not against Dean, but against Bush.

[fjc]

6. It would mean what everyone strongly suspected at the time.

O'Neill merely confirmed it.

[Nancy Waterman]

8. I think Kerry's reply is just fine

He points to the most significant fact in what O'Neill has said. Not only did Bush lie about WMD and not do what he promised to do regarding inspections and working with allies, but this information confirms that this had been planned since day one, and Bush NEVER had any intention of doing what he said. It is really quite serious for all the attempt to push it under the rug andminimize it. Yes, we all knew all these things because we are internet junkies and follow everything carefully, but many in Congress took a while to realize the extent of the perfidy. O'Neill's revelations lend credence to the worst interpretation of what has happened around the Iraq war and its aftermath.

[fjc]

9. Fine, in retrospect.

But I still feel that congress abdicated one of its highest responsibilities when it rolled over for this war, and Kerry is one of those people. I like Kerry. I wish he were doing better in this campaign, particularly in his own back yard of New Hampshire. But he's not, I think, precisely because he, among others, did not have the courage to keep Bush's feet to the fire of international inspections as a condition of the go-ahead for war. That is why, I believe, he is not doing as well as he should be, as well as his stature would indicate he could be. There were plenty of indications at the time that Bush et al were rushing us to war, and that alone should have been enough for people of good conscience to stand up and be steady advocates for cool headedness. Instead, they fell vulnerable to the charge of not being patriotic enough, a charge that alone should have been enough to make people like Kerry deeply suspicious of Bush's motives.

[Snappy]

10. Weak.

That is a weak response. Kerry should have saved his money and dropped out. He is a good person but he just doesn't have what it takes to garner confidence from voters as a viable candidate. He is a fairly good Senator though.