John Kerry Should be President. We Can Make It So. Or Not.

[WiseMen]

John Forbes Kerry should be President. And we can make it so.

America is at war. It is at war around the world and it is at war within the homeland. The Republican administration has the nation in the grip of fear, and seems able and willing to use this fear to its own ends. However, it is now clear that if the Democratic party can make its bid for power on the basis of a enormous strength of new leadership and a compelling vision for the future, even a nervous electorate will vote for change.

Among a field of highly qualified candidates, only Senator John Kerry can be viewed as fully prepared to provide this new leadership when he assumes the Presidency. Kerry is implicitly Presidential. That has been the conclusion of most democrats. By Presidential I mean to refer to that quality of presence and that unambiguous grasp of matters of foreign and domestic policy that gives credibility as Head of State and Commander-In-Chief.


On the campaign trail, John Kerry has shown he can stand and deliver a passionate call to arms and thoughtful answers to the questions of our time. But, even more important, Kerry brings to the battle for the White House a personal history, and a record in matters of national security; social policy and governmental reform that allow him to speak with a clear voice without hypocrisy as he rallies the nation to a better way.

Personal Character

Graduating from Yale University, John Forbes Kerry, a wealthy, multilingual world citizen, had many options before him. Yet he answered his nation’s call to service and enlisted to fight and lead men in a dubious war in a distant land. He did this because he believed it was wrong to let someone, less fortunate, serve, fight and die in his place. For bravery, and sacrifice in a war he came to oppose, his nation gave him the Silver Star, Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts.

John Kerry followed his tour of military duty with a life of service, working to end the War in which he fought and leading a thank-less multi-decade effort to expose corruption in U.S. foreign policy, championing the environment, and pinch-hitting in the Senate for almost every cause that affected the lives of the poor and disenfranchised.

Kerry now asks the people he served to let him take the fight to George W. Bush, a man who ducked service to country when he was “young and irresponsible,” and now disserves his country in the office of the President.

Iraq War and National Security

In 1991 John Kerry opposed a war in the Persian Gulf because he saw U.S. militarization of the region as a potential long-term disaster. Kerry thought that the Gulf conflict was not just avoidable, but a war that should be avoided. In October, 2002 John Kerry voted for George Bush’s Iraq War Resolution (IWR) because he believed it was the only way to force resolution of the Iraq tragedy by restarting the U.N. inspection process. He believed the President of the United States when he said that war would be “a last resort”. At the time of the vote, he gave a substantial, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor, Kerry said he would strongly opposed any unilateral movement to war and that he did not believe that Saddam’s threat was yet imminent. He kept is word and led opposition during the U.N. debates against Bush’s “rush to war,” his reckless and incompetent foreign policy.

John Kerry says is was a mistake to trust the President on the IWR. He stumbled. Yet his decorated military service, his two decades of participation in international diplomacy as a leader in the Senate and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, allows him challenge George Bush’s conduct of war and foreign policy in a post 9/11 world and prepares him to quickly re-direct U.S. policy upon being sworn into office.

Domestic Policy

John Kerry gets the best scores from independent groups for his environmental record and for issues affecting the working poor. For thirty years Kerry has fought for labor rights, women’s rights and campaign finance reform. Kerry’s record is solid on education and social security. Despite significant political cost, Kerry has opposed capital punishment, the NRA and all the fat-cat special interest lobby groups camped out in Washington.

Few senators have maintained a record so widely regarded as above reproach – free of special-interest lobby deals or pork-barrel legislation. John Kerry’s legendary indifference to special interest initiatives has been widely slammed as arrogance, aloofness and even neglect of his “constituents.”

Government Reform

Kerry’s record of pubic service as a prosecutor, in State Government and as a senator has been long been open to scrutiny. John Kerry is the one with a passion for cleaning house. He has fought to expose covert government actions from South-East Asian and Central America, for public disclosure of campaign financing and for the freedom of Information in the nation’s capital.

Kerry has himself been a principal target of secret investigations carried out by the Nixon Administration in the 70's when Kerry led the anti-war effort.
In the senate Kerry helped shape and push the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, supported the ban on soft money and fought with Paul Wellstone for clean-government legislation

Much more that campaign rhetoric, it is the totality of John Kerry’s life of service and his record of making a stand on controversial issues that shows him to be ready to be a President for our time. The crises we face signal we must seek the best candidate for President not the campaign or campaigner we like the most. A fair review will tell: that person is Senator John Forbes Kerry. But, it will not happen, unless we chose to make it so.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. I'm still holding out for Clark, but if that does not work out....

then I'm with JFK!

:kick:

[ronnykmarshall]

3. I'll second that!

My Clark sticker ain't coming off my car.


But I'll clear a spot for a Kerry one if I need to.

[laruemtt]

18. me too ronny -

we can put the kerry sticker just to the left of our clark stickers so it'll read kerry/clark when kerry picks him for veep - that is a HUGE if only if it's not the other way around!

[ronnykmarshall]

38. I gonna make my own Kerry/Clark

I have a couple of extra Clark ones and if I get some Kerry ones, I'll make m' own ticket!!

[displacedtexan]

4. What a great attitude, you... you... Democrat!

BTW, Senator Kerry prefers JK. He doesn't want folks thinking he's cashing in on the initials.

I feel the same way. If JK doesn't win the nomination, I will gladly vote for the Dem nominee.

[WiseMen]

27. Hear he may pull out. Hope he is V.P.

[BL_Zebub]

39. JFK will be happy for your support, but he's not eligible to run

Seeing as he's no longer among the living. But I'll send a post card up to him in Purgatory to let him know his fans still care :)

[Padraig18]

2. We can indeed not make it so.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings, as they say.

Howard Dean for President in '04!

[KC21304]

5. Go for it ! I'm all for everyone staying in.

I love your picture.

[Padraig18]

7. Thanks!

As soon as I saw it, I said, "Yep, that's us!". :)

[WiseMen]

54. Love for campaign to go on. Just that Rove is Using our infighting

[creativelcro]

6. Go froggy!!!

:)

[dawn]

8. Right on!

I'm not ready to concede, yet.

[WiseMen]

34. Hey, You're a smart guy. You can do it.

[WiseMen]

40. Good Luck in Wisconsin

[RichM]

9. Nah, let's not.

Let me just quote the funniest part:

In 1991 John Kerry opposed a war in the Persian Gulf because he saw U.S. militarization of the region as a potential long-term disaster. Kerry thought that the Gulf conflict was not just avoidable, but a war that should be avoided. In October, 2002 John Kerry voted for George Bush’s Iraq War Resolution (IWR) because he believed it was the only way to force resolution of the Iraq tragedy by restarting the U.N. inspection process. He believed the President of the United States when he said that war would be “a last resort”.

- So, in 2002, US militarization of the region was no longer a "potential long-term disaster?"
- He BELIEVED the Pres of the US? What kind of fool would believe a lying sack of sh*t like Bush?
- He thought the IWR would "force resolution of the Iraq tragedy?" Oh, please. Why did he suppose Bush wanted it - because of his (Bush's) deep interest in "resolving tragedies" in other countries?

BTW, America is not "at war." It's involved in an insane attempt to take over the world, but this is not "war." There is virtually no one fighting on "the other side."

The thing with you Kerry people - you should just say, "Look, please vote for Kerry. We know he did a terrible cowardly opportunistic thing in voting for the IWR - but won't you please vote for him anyhow, to help defeat Bush?" If you said it like that, whimpering and begging, I might consider it. But trying to pretend that the IWR vote was anything but political cowardice is an insult to our intelligence.

[Padraig18]

10. Sllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssshhhhhhhhhh!

But well stated! :hi:

[WiseMen]

11. Thanks.

[Padraig18]

12. YW. No free rides.

As the front-runner, he should get accustomed to picking buckshot out of his arse now, because it will come in handy in November, should he be the nominee.

[Eloriel]

21. Amen, brother. Preach it!

[Sensitivity]

23. "Whimpering and Begging" Wow, sounds exciting! Not sure they will

go for it though.

[WiseMen]

25. Guess we need to have some reconciliation program here.

[quaker bill]

28. Thanks

So well stated that I don't feel the need to go further.

We can't make Kerry President. There are just not enough of us.

Kerry has to win over that 5 or 6 percent in the middle. His record and his policy proposals make this unlikely.

He is polling quite well right now, but the repugs have 140 million to spend trashing him before their convention. They have yet to begin the bombardment.

Per Ed Gillespie this evening: "Kerry is the one we wanted all along" "He was Michael Dukakis' hand picked Lt. Govenor"

[WiseMen]

33. Don't underestimate the power of net activist to turn the tide with the

right leader.

[goobergunch]

44. Yeah

Unfortunately, Kerry is not the "right leader" in question.

Dean 2004.

[corporatewhore]

13. Wont somebody please think of the childeren!!!!!!!

the children sweatshops who are basically slaves that kerry gave his stamp of approval when he voted for NAFTAGATTWTO...permanent trade relations with china

[WiseMen]

26. For the sake of the children, we have to beat Bush

[Politicub]

48. I don't understand you people

who can justify voting for someone other than the Democratic nominee for president, especially if you are casting your vote for the children.

The fact is - we will be presented a binary choice come November. It will be * vs. the eventual Dem nominee. For our children and prosperity, we have a moral obligation to vote for the eventual Dem nominee.

No one is perfect or pure, but any of the remiaining Dems in the primary race would be a stop to *'s insane administration. * will have nothing to loose if he is re-elected. If you think our country has seen the worst of it, you haven't seen anything yet.

[LiberalBushFan]

14. If Clark drops out by my primary,

and if I'm assured Kerry won't choose Edwards as VP, then I'll vote for Kerry in my primary. Otherwise I stay home till the GE.

[Raya]

16. Clark needs to be V.P.

[WiseMen]

32. I agree that Edwards is not the right guy for Pres or V.P.

[WiseMen]

35. Sorry to hear you man has pulled out. I think he just ran out of money

and steam.

[oasis]

15. Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans will make it so.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

20. You can't mention post count.

That's considered a personal attack, Raya.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sensitivity]

24. Ok Wisemen, nicely said. But its not over till its over.

[WiseMen]

53. Guess we just found that out

[IndianaGreen]

29. Does Kerry believe, and will he fight, for gays having equal rights?

Yes or No?

[oxymoron]

Uh...yeah.

You mean like he has his entire career? I don't see any reason to think he will stop.

His rating from the HRC:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/2004_Candidates.htm

[IndianaGreen]

31. He did not sound that way when it came to gays getting a marriage license

He flubbed on an interview, and mumbled some nonsense about marriage being a religious thing, as if only religious people were the ones that got married.

Kerry already told the Washington Post that he was giving the Miami Cubans veto power over US policy towards Cuba.

I am not even sure that Kerry won't try to topple Chavez in Venezuela as Bush has tried to do.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[BL_Zebub]

36. I'll vote for "Or Not"

A Bonesman bankrolled by FAUX News who voted for the war, the Patriot act, and No Child Left Behind is not someone I would vote for.

[BurtWorm]

37. What an insulting idea!

Kerry needs us more than we need him.

[WiseMen]

41. I am sure he will be fighting for your vote.

[goobergunch]

45. He'd better start soon

Kerry hasn't exactly been going out of his way to be pro-progressive in the last year or so, IMHO.

[Padraig18]

42. I choose NOT! n/t

[Tinoire]

43. Today, on the issue of the war in Iraq, it is John Kerry who is all pious

John Kerry is UNFIT to be President of the United States and UNFIT to represent the OLD Democratic Party. New Dems maybe but defintely not Old Dems.



V.S.



I'm with the OLD American Century where good old-fashioned Democratic values are good enough!
----

Today, on the issue of the war in Iraq, it is John Kerry who is all pious rectitude.

<snip>


"I think the administration owes the entire country a full explanation on this war - not just their exaggerations but on the failure of American intelligence," Kerry said following the stunning announcement by David Kay, the Bush administration's former lead investigator in Iraq, that "we were all wrong" about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in that country. The problem for Sen. Kerry, of course, is that he, too, is culpable in the massive breach of public trust that has come to light regarding Iraq, WMD and the rush to war.

Almost 30 years after his appearance before the Senate, Sen. Kerry was given the opportunity to make good on his promises that he had learned the lessons of Vietnam. During a visit to Washington in April 2000, when I lobbied senators and representatives for a full review of American policy regarding Iraq, I spoke with John Kerry about what I held to be the hyped-up intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. "Put it in writing," Kerry told me, "and send it to me so I can review what you're saying in detail."

I did just that, penning a comprehensive article for Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control Association, on the "Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq." This article, published in June 2000, provided a detailed breakdown of Iraq's WMD capability and made a comprehensive case that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat. I asked the Arms Control Association to send several copies to Sen. Kerry's office but, just to make sure, I sent him one myself. I never heard back from the senator.

Two years later, in the buildup toward war that took place in the summer of 2002, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which Kerry sits, convened a hearing on Iraq. At that hearing a parade of witnesses appeared, testifying to the existence of WMD in Iraq. Featured prominently was Khidir Hamza, the self-proclaimed "bombmaker to Saddam," who gave stirring first-hand testimony to the existence of not only nuclear weapons capability, but also chemical and biological weapons as well. Every word of Hamza's testimony has since been proved false. Despite receiving thousands of phone calls, letters and e-mails demanding that dissenting expert opinion, including my own, be aired at the hearing, Sen. Kerry apparently did nothing, allowing a sham hearing to conclude with the finding that there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein had WMD. ((Hamza's testimony is pasted at the end of this post so you can see what a CHARADE he presented! There is NO way ANYONE was misled and if they were- they are not smart enough to be President! Never mind what that unprincipled DLC says! ))

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0209-03.htm
http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/218.html

===
VETERANS FOR PEACE
Veterans Working Together for Peace & Justice Through Non-violence. Wage Peace!

Military Families Speak Out and Veterans for Peace members meeting with Senator John Kerry's Staff

Military Families:

On Thursday, March 6, members of Military Families Speak Out and Veterans for Peace met with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's staff in Boston. Because Senator Kerry has announced that he is running for President, and because he was one of the founders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, we wanted to find out more about his current position on war in Iraq (he voted for Bush's war resolution in October, 2002).

We raised a number of issues in this meeting, but boiled it down to two questions that we wanted immediate answers to:

(1) Does Senator Kerry believe that George Bush should be making the decision whether or not the U.S. invades Iraq?

(2) Does Senator Kerry believe that NOW is the time for our kids and loved ones to start coming home in body bags -- which will happen if this decision to go to war is unconstitutionally left up to George Bush?

The reponse from Senator Kerry's staff: "He voted the way he voted in October; he stands by that vote."

We left the meeting and reported back to the press and a group demonstrating against the war outside. Our press conference was covered by several TV networks and print media.

While we were not at all happy with the response we got from Senator Kerry's staff, at least it was finally some kind of answer rather than absolutely waffling, ducking and covering.

Tomorrow, in commemoration of International Women's Day, there will be a large Women Against the War demonstration outside of Senator Kerry's office at noon.

We encourage everyone to keep the pressure up on our members of Congress who have abdicated their responsibility to discuss and debate the most momentous decision a nation can make: the decision about taking a country to war. It is time to bring democracy back to the United States.

In Peace and Solidarity,
Nancy Lessin and Charley Richardson
www.mfso.org

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/msfo_vfp_kerry_030306.htm

==

What is Veterans For Peace?
Veterans For Peace is a national organization founded in 1985. It is structured around a national office in Saint Louis, MO and comprised of members across the country organized in chapters or as at-large members. There is an annual convention in August for members from across the nation. Members receive periodic VFP publications.

The organization includes men and women veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, other conflicts and peactime veterans. Our collective experience tells us wars are easy to start and hard to stop and that those hurt are often the innocent. Thus, other means of problem solving are necessary.

Veterans For Peace is an official Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) represented at the UN.

A brief history of Veterans for Peace:

July 8, 1985
VFP founded and incorporated in Maine by Jerry Genesio (USMC/56-62), Judy Genesio, Rev. Willard Bicket (USA/WWII), Doug Rawlings (USA/Vietnam) and Ken Perkins (USN/Korea) who were disturbed by the militancy of the United States and its violent intervention in the affairs of other nations.

More: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/about.htm

===

This REALLY needs to be read. There is NO WAY in hell that Kerry was "mis-led"/ NONE of them were "mis-led". At least Lieberman and Edwards have the courage of their convictions and don't try to plead TEMPORARY INSANITY.

HEARING OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY,
VETERAN AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE

September 24, 2002

<snip>


REP. KUCINICH: Dr. Hamza, I have a map of the region here. It's Iraq, and it's up on the screen. Can you tell this committee where Iraq's nuclear sites currently are located?

MR. HAMZA: Actually, that's -- Congressman, that's not the point right now. The point is --

REP. KUCINICH: So you cannot tell where the sites are?

MR. HAMZA: Nobody can actually.

REP. KUCINICH: Okay.

MR. HAMZA: Because the sites are now mostly underground, according al-Haideri, who defected recently and built some of those sites. The sites --

REP. KUCINICH: You say they're underground. Do you know where they are underground?

MR. HAMZA: They are all over the country. They are within civilian infrastructure and government infrastructure.

REP. KUCINICH: So you're saying there are nuclear sites all over the country?

MR. HAMZA: Yes.

REP. KUCINICH: Underground?

MR. HAMZA: Underground.

REP. KUCINICH: But no one knows where they are?

MR. HAMZA: Nobody knows. Some are above ground, some underground, some in civilian infrastructure. Nobody -- that's why inspection is problematic right now.

REP. KUCINICH: You know, I'm certainly in agreement with members of this committee who favor inspections. But I'm just trying to establish -- the witness says that there are nuclear sites, they're underground and no one knows where they are. So --

MR. HAMZA: Not necessarily underground. I said some may be underground, some above ground.

REP. KUCINICH: Do you know where the ones above ground are? Can you tell us?

MR. HAMZA: They are no longer where they were. Nobody knows outside Iraq right now exactly where the sites are located. They are spread, fragmented and hidden.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, when --

MR. HAMZA: That would be an easy job if somebody knows and can tell you right away and you just go there.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, linguistic construction is a marvelous science and when we say that there are sites above ground, that is a flat declarative sentence and it implies that we know where the sites are.

MR. HAMZA: No, I said they could be. I said nobody knows. They could be above ground, they could be underground. A recent defector told us he built 20 underground, but that doesn't mean that these sites are all there is. So nobody knows.

REP. KUCINICH: Okay. They could be underground, they could be above ground, nobody knows?

MR. HAMZA: Correct.

REP. KUCINICH: They could exist, they may not exist. Nobody knows and that's why we're talking about inspections. Now, what's the -- because as a member of Congress my concern is that we have proof. Proof is proof. I think the Canadian prime minister said that in a couple of different languages. And so I'm interested if the witness has any proof as to where they are underground, or where they are above ground; not that there may be weapons above ground or underground.
Now, can you tell us, Dr. Hamza, what's the current status of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program? And in your answer, not only information about fissile material everyone speaks of, but also its tamper materials, electrical materials, explosive materials, arming systems and the equipment to process these into a weapon.

MR. HAMZA: What you have in the nuclear weapon program, since already I said there is not a single defector that came out of Iraq from the core of the program. That goes for all weapons of mass destruction, since 1995. So what you have now is what you had before the Gulf War: circumstantial evidence. Purchase of equipment, some second or third tier defectors who tell us some -- like al-Haideri, the civil engineer. Lots of indicators, including equipment purchases, intercepted purchases, activity of certain groups. So what we have is what you have always in a nuclear weapon. The Indian test in 1974 -- there were no proof and everybody was talking about circumstantial evidence.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, let me ask you this. What kind of a weapon is Iraq trying to build: a Hiroshima bomb, you know, a gun-type uranium device? Or a Nagasaki bomb, or a plutonium implosion device, a thermonuclear bomb, a radiological bomb, or all of the above?

MR. HAMZA: It's both nuclear and radiological. We already tested. That's been explained by the inspectors who already were there. Iraq tested the radiological bomb in 1988, but tested it in the desert, not in a building or an environment where --

REP. KUCINICH: What year was that, sir?

MR. HAMZA: 1988. And that was --

REP. KUCINICH: And does it have that same facility now? Does it have that same --

MR. HAMZA: No, no. It was one test -- one major test and one small test, and the tests were non-conclusive. I'm not saying it was an effective weapon at the time. It was tested in the desert, it was tested as a weapon of war and it proved to be not as effective as it should be. But as a weapon of terror, it's another story. Now, as for nuclear weapons, Iraq -- inspectors found that out also. They have documents and everything was revealed, you don't just have to take just my word for it. Iraq was working, and is working I believe, on making an implosion device of the Hiroshima type or size. And --

REP. KUCINICH: When was that?

MR. HAMZA: It was when I was there and it continued, I believe.

REP. KUCINICH: Did you work on that?

MR. HAMZA: Yes. I worked on the design.

REP. KUCINICH: And when were you there?

MR. HAMZA: Yes.

REP. KUCINICH: When?

MR. HAMZA: I was till 1994.

REP. KUCINICH: And you were working on that at 1994, and when is the last --

MR. HAMZA: No, 90 --

REP. KUCINICH: When is the last time you were working on that?

MR. HAMZA: I worked on it last time before the Gulf War. But I believe, according to the people I also saw, work continued till 1994.

REP. KUCINICH: Was this a facility that inspectors later on saw?

MR. HAMZA: Yes. It is in El Ethir (ph) facility. Inspectors were there, they destroyed the facility and destroyed some of the equipment. They had what is called then -- was declared to be a smoking gun, which was a design -- a workable design for a nuclear weapon. And so the knowledge base is there. The research done is more or less complete. What is needed is just the fissile material.

REP. KUCINICH: To your knowledge, were there ever any United States companies that provided Iraq with materials or with equipment that was used in any nuclear weapons?

MR. HAMZA: There were attempts. No, not major pieces of equipment.

REP. KUCINICH: Anything -- for example?

MR. HAMZA: I don't know of any that the U.S. itself -- but the Germans did supply us with some of the equipment we used to test and develop the nuclear weapon.

REP. KUCINICH: What was provided?

MR. HAMZA: By the U.S. government -- by the U.S. sources?

REP. KUCINICH: By the German government, you were saying.

MR. HAMZA: By German and other sources, we had Japanese sources, we had fast cameras that --

REP. KUCINICH: When was that?

MR. HAMZA: That was in '89/90.

REP. KUCINICH: That was a time that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be presenting some documents to this committee that will show that according to information provided through --

MR. HAMZA: I was not here. I don't know.

REP. KUCINICH: -- the State Department that there was United States companies involved in sending over certain materials to Iraq to assist them in the development of this program. Now we know they were destroyed. And I would take it, based on your testimony, that you're willing to agree that even the programs that you worked on were destroyed. Nevertheless, I think it's valuable to have you here to talk about what it was like before they were destroyed.
The only other thing I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is to -- just for the purposes -- when we began this, I have some of Mr. Hamza's statements that are verbatim transcripts of CNN on October 22, 2001, that establish his position on some of these issues that have come up here. I want to tell Mr. Hamza I'm glad you came before this committee. But at the same time, I think it's very important that none of your experience -- which is valid, it's your experience -- be interpreted by the media today as being proof of the current existence in Iraq of useable weapons of mass destruction, of the ability to deliver those weapons. You know, that's my concern.
I'm not going to discount your proof when you worked for Iraq's weapons program. I'm sure that what you know about that program is marvelous. But I'm equally sure, based on the intelligence that I've heard from my country's intelligence agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, that Iraq does not currently have useable weapons of mass destruction. And that's what I have to go on. So I appreciate your --

MR. HAMZA: You mean nuclear or otherwise?

REP. KUCINICH: I'm -- Dr. Hamza, please. I'm saying that I'm taking my position based on information I received from our Central Intelligence Agency. So thank you for being here, and I'm going to ask the chair if he'd be so kind as to include in the record these statements from CNN, as well as an article where -- we always have to be cautious in these hearings about information that's brought forward in a climate which is potentially inflammatory, because a few years ago Congress was presented with information about the Iraqi government being involved in troops storming hospitals, stealing incubators and leaving babies to die on the floor. It turned out that incident, which was brought to inflame the American public, was not true.
I'd like to submit that into the record too. These hearings are always very interesting. I want to thank the chair.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hgrc-092402.htm

[WiseMen]

46. What's the Point. Kerry has OPPOSED THE WAR Before, During and After

That is well documented. What more do you want.

[Tinoire]

47. He didn't oppose squat.

ALL of Kerry's positions have been for the advancement of US imperialism. Voted FOR the war (tries to weasel out hand-wringing that he was "misled"). Supports the occupation. Sorry. No vote for Kerry.

[polpilot]

50. Pro-war DLC's candidate.... Pro-war Kerry. Dean is the ONLY viable

candidate (Sorry Kucinich) who opposed Bush & the Bush doctrine. The DLC now has Kerry who has indicated he may bring in Jim Baker if he's the president. Woweee!!!!

Dean '04..The Anti-Iraq War...Anti-Establishment Candidate

[hellhathnofury]

49. Howard Dean should be President.

But, it will not happen, unless we chose to make it so.

After all, his initials are HBD.

[polpilot]

51. Dean was the defacto leader of the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War demo

leader until the DLC establishment with help from several interests (The 'Roll Clark Out In Front on Dean' strategists being just one). He will ALWAYS be the one who changed the nominee race and created at least a questioning of Bush. I've supported him since he was at 0% and will support him at -5%. At least I don't have to try to defend a pro-war, pro-DLC candidate to my repub antagonists.

Dean '04..The Anti-Iraq War...Anti-DLC candidate

[hellhathnofury]

52. I agree completely. I'll just avoid them more if Kerry is nominated.

I'm with the Dean wing until he tells me to go away.

I'm entitled, Ted Kennedy did it, or so says John Kerry. The joys of sarcasm.