John Kerry to bring Downing St. Memo to the Floor!

[saracat]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3771437&mesg_id=3771437
Kerry rocks! Wanna bet he is working with Conyers??????

[rox63]

1. Our guy rocks!!!!

:yourock: :kick: :woohoo:

[TayTay]

2. Kerry, Iraq & DSM

This is also a smoking gun for Kerry. That IWR vote that has given him so much trouble was based on a provable lie. This is no conjecture without documentation, this is real. The * people lied to the Senate. This memo proves it. The Senate debate was about the President using all means necessary to get Iraq to comply with the UN Resolutions and that only if he couldn't get Iraqi cooperation should he use military force.

The President lied to the Senate. The President lied to John Kerry. There were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no threat to the security of the United States and the whole thing was a thin setup from the get go. Kerry called it 'bait and switch' and he is right. The Senate was baited with September 11th and false reports of mushroom clouds and all that bullshit. Lies, Lies, Lies.

I hope Kerry goes after * tooth and nail. That lying bastard has caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of human beings because he felt like he needed a war. If I were Kerry I would hit him on this as hard as possible and make lying, provably lying, to the United States Senate the main point.

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

[TayTay]

4. Hmmm, text stuff

From the Downing Street Memo:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

John Kerry, Oct 9th, 2002, Senate floor debate:

Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq --seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.

Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms--and there are many in this body and beyond--can take heart in the fact that those questions and those criticisms have had an impact on the debate. They have changed how we may or may not deal with Iraq . The Bush administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism. Today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property. Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq .

The administration began discussion of Iraq by almost belittling the importance of arms inspections. Today the administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world's many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction. That is why arms inspections--and I believe ultimately Saddam's unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections--is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world.

That is the way in which you make it clear to the world that we are contemplating war not for war's sake, and not to accomplish goals that don't meet international standards or muster with respect to national security, but because weapons inspections may be the ultimate enforcement mechanism, and that may be the way in which we ultimately protect ourselves.

Iraq War Resolution, passed by the Senate on oct 10, 2002

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

[TayTay]

10. Kerry OpEd, NYTimes, 9/6/2002

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. A, p 23 09-06-2002
By John F. Kerry

WASHINGTON

It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the implications of war for themselves rather than keep the focus where it belongs -- on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own.

There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war.

The question is not whether we should care if Saddam Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue of utilizing the procedures of international law and community -- institutions American presidents from across the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to global security.

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

Okay, how did the Downing Street Minutes violate this?

[ginnyinWI]

3. It's proud of him I am!

If anyone can stick it to the lying chimp and his gang, the man who brought us the Iran-Contra investigations, etc. can! Go Johnny go!

Someone on one of the other threads said that if he can bring down *, he should get the next nomination. He'd be doing something good politically as well as (primarily) serving the causes of truth, justice and the American way!

[Dr Ron]

5. Message spread

I posted the story on the Unofficial Kerry Blog and LUTD earlier today.

Finally this afternoon Buzz Flash picked it up from LUTD, which is really spreading the message on line. I see that Kos and at least one smaller blog I found used this to bash Kerry, but hopefully most people picking up this story will think well of Kerry for it.

Most people coming to LUTD from links such as Buzz Flash's typically just read the linked story, but a handful do stay around, or go to the ad for the Unofficial Kerry Blog, helping to promote JK on line.

[LittleClarkie]

7. I posted it over at DailyKos

I got some good responses, and it was a recommended diary for a while. But still there was garbage in it. Idiots.

There are about 10 Kerry supporters over there. I think they subscribe to me, because they'll generally show up in my threads. I will continue to post over there at least for them.

[elshiva]

6. RIGHT ON!

:toast:

[Firespirit]

8. That made me smile.

Kerry rocks, and Conyers rocks. Awesome. :loveya: :loveya: I am going to have to get video footage when he does this.


And BTW, the haters on that thread can take Teresa's advice.

[katinmn]

9. I can't wait for this. I see it as an exhoneration for JK

We were all lied to. I hope he hammers that home loud and clear for the people who haven't a clue. I know he will be gracious and diplomatic but I hope people get the message.

I'm going to ignore the political coverage of this and focus on the fact that we have a leader speaking the truth, making the truth known.

[whometense]

11. Rude Pundit on the Downing Street

memo/minutes; some days he is just brilliant.

There's many reasons why the Downing Street Memo has gotten so little attention in America beyond Left Blogsylvania, despite the fact that it says that the Bush administration "fixed" the intelligence around its desire to bomb the living shit out of Iraq, "fixed" it like a cheap mafia thug fixes a warehouse boxing match. We could point to the corporate media, the post-Rather memo fake-out, and more. But remember: the Pentagon Papers were published in the middle of 1971. Nixon still got over 60% of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes in 1972.

The Rude Pundit thinks this: the American public, in growing numbers, knows in its heart that they've been lied to, just like in Vietnam, and that Americans are being killed for those lies, just like in Vietnam. But fear is a powerful thing: deep, psychological, repressed fear - that if the truth is not held back, then the monsters of anarchy must be unleashed. It is better to take down a President for something a great deal more prosaic than war crimes and mass murder. Because what does it say about us if our leader is guilty of such things?

Which is why the Rude Pundit believes, hopes beyond rational hope, that other 'Gates are going to develop around George W. Bush, 'Gates that will move in tighter and tighter until they become increasingly strangling. And that's why this is a very interesting little development in the Jack Abramoff scandal: it seems that the White House was allowed to be used to fundraise for Abramoff's and Grover Norquist's various causes/pocketbooks.

Ahhh, the sweet relief of dirty money. Now there's something we can actually get our heads around.

// posted by Rude One @ 10:02 AM

[TayTay]

12. Ahm, I don't want to rain on the parade but

This is but one speech. And I am beyond thrilled that he is doing this. But it is a small step, not the tipping point.

I expect (and I could be wrong, who died and elected me Gawd) that Kerry will use this as an occasion to call for Congress to exercise their oversight powers and hold some friggin hearings. The cowardly Rethugs in Congress are afraid that if they show any weakness and actually try to hold the Admin accountable for their lies, misuse of power, failure to account for missing funds and equipment and gross mismanagement of the entire war they will be seen as disloyal to that idiot in charge.

Remember, during the campaign, lots of horrible things about this Admin and their bungled war effort came out. There were not WMD, the aluminum tubes that Condi said were the right size only for nukes, weren't the right size at all and so forth. So be happy that someone is showing some balls and bringing this up, but the Rethugs still hold all the cards and will try and ignore it. They don't want to hold hearings ever. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Kerry should call for the Dems to hold their own hearings (even if they don't have subpoena powers.) Then he can show up for the hearings and make some points that might get on the news. But the press is not wild about this story. Don't forget, they were cheerleaders in the war effort and any questioning that gets too close indicts them as well. So be happy, and also be part of the 'reality-based community.' as well. (Protect your heart, sweeties.)

[Dr Ron]

14. Tipping points are hard to predict a head of time

"But it is a small step, not the tipping point."

Probably not, but you never know when the tipping point might be reached. While it is a long shot, Kerry bringing attention to this just might make a difference.

[TayTay]

15. Your lips to Gawd's ear.

I want this to be so. I want it so badly it hurts. But this is such a tough time to be bringing this stuff up and I am afraid that Kerry will get saddled with unrealistic expectations. He is but one senator and he can't single-handedly provide the tipping point. (The people do that.)

I am very proud of him for doing this. (Based on those nice glowing reviews from the indy papers in MA, he is serving his constituency very well and doing what he was elected to do.)

Every person who brings it up makes a difference. I make a difference when I send an e-mail out and copy my hubbie, who then forwards it to his friends and so forth. Kerry's actions will provide me with more talking points and e-mails to send out. Little by little, those ripples build.

[Klimmer]

13. Dear President Kerry, since you are looking into the memo . . .

why not go all the way? Remember your thorough and well executed investigations of the past into BCCI, and Iran Contra/CIA and how it all lead to the Bush crime family? Amazing how the Bush crime family's influence and fingers are into everything. Want to know who really had JFK assassinated? Watch the DVD "JFK2."

JFKII (video/DVD):
http://www.jfkii.com /

DVDs on 9-11 and JFK assassination (Bush Crime Family connection):
http://www.rbnlive.com/videodvd.html
Reviews about JFK2 and free downloads:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread135335/pg1

Eyeopening. Wasn't Bush senior in a very instrumental position in the CIA then?

The Bush Administration is a house of cards ready to fall big time.

You think lying about how early they really decided to go to war, and what their reasons for going to war were (all based on fabrication and a pack of lies) is big time and impeachable? Yea, you're right it is. You think stealing 2 elections was difficult? It was a walk in the park for these evil-doers. But why not follow the evidence all the way and try them for treason and murder? 9-11 was an inside job. Follow the ample evidence. As Deep Throat said, "follow the money."

I personally have just woken-up to this reality. I couldn't wrap my head around this for the longest time. But the science, the physics of it not happening the way they officially said it did convinced me. Measurable physical evidence and facts don't lie. The evidence is overwhelming. The 9-11 Commission Report was a white-wash. Go for where this round of crimes really begins . . .

Q: How were they ever going to get the American public fired-up and ready to go to war? A: 9-11 had to happen. The Bush Administration made it happen. They got their war, pipeline, oil fields, military bases, corporate war profiteering, and a radical fascist right wing neo-con government, Patriot Act and so much more. What are thousands of lives worth to these people? Nothing.

:nuke:

Here is a start:

Coalition of Scientists and Engineers look at the Evidence of 911 (Great Resource):
http://www.physics911.net

Hunt and Spot the Boeing! Test your perception (French Site):
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

"Pentagon Strike" --- a Video describing the Pentagon attack (very good):
http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk /

NYFD Firemen discuss explosions prior to WTC towers collapsing:
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
http://www.letsroll911.org

"9-11 in Plane Site: The Director's Cut" (video/DVD):
http://www.911inplanesite.com /
Article:
http://www.911inplanesite.com/911article.htm

David Ray Griffin, author, at Madison Univ.(full speech):
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/download/griffin_madison_full_25.wmv

Video analysis of the South Tower WTC attack, showing a missile launch
just before aircraft impact (several MSM sources show this on their
video of the event as well):
http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=16

Google, search, read, study and learn. The 9-11 truth movement is happening . . . how long have we been sleeping?:boring:

:wow:


:hi: Hi everyone! I've been away from DU and the John Kerry Group for awhile, but I've been busy learning more and more. NGU.

John Kerry is my President.

(Edited to fix links and add one)

[wisteria]

16. Hi! n/t