Jump to content
DC Message Boards
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Human

John Kerry's Voting Record

Recommended Posts

Guest Human   
Guest Human

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislati...lative_home.htm

 

I am beginning to see why Kerry does not want to run on his record. Kerry even surprised me. I really have to say it "WOW".-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Vote to table an amendment to provide additional funding for the FDA's children anti-tobacco initiative, voted no.

 

Vote on an amendment to repeal the $50 billion tobacco industry settlement credit contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, voted yes

 

 

Vote on an amendment to add an additional $53 million to international narcotics control funding, voted no

 

 

Vote to kill an amendment that would increase funding for state juvenile court systems, establish juvenile drug courts, increase funding for certain law enforcement programs, increase penalties for certain gun offenses involving minors, and ban possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips by juveniles, voted no

 

Vote to increase penalties on certain drug-related crimes. The amendment would specifically target the manufacturing or trafficking of amphetamines and methamphetamines and possession of powder cocaine. It would also set stronger penalties for dealing drugs to minors or near a school. Voted no

 

On the first 2, both Bills passed. On the Third Bill it was tabled.

 

On the 5th passed. On the 6th Bill ,it;s still under study.

 

Now for more on Kerry's Record.

 

 

Vote to table an amendment to extend the repayment period for farmers to repay marketing loans and to remove the limits on the farmer's marketing loan rates.

Voted no

 

Bill Number: S 2159 - 105th Congress (1997-98)

Senate Passage Vote: 07/16/98 - Outcome: Passed

No further action was taken on this bill, never became law. HR 4101 passed instead

 

 

 

Vote to pass a resolution to give no enforcement authority or power to ergonomics rules submitted by the Labor Department during the Clinton Administration. These rules would force businesses to take steps to prevent work-related repetitive stress disorders such as carpal tunnel syndrome. Voted No

 

Bill Number: S J Res 6-107th Congress (2001-2002)

Senate Passage Vote: 03/06/2001-Outcome:Passed

House Passage Vote: 03/07/2001-Outcome:Passed

Presidential Action: Signed on 03/20/2001

 

 

 

Vote to table, or kill, an amendment to increase the amount of money appropriated for Juvenile Justice block grants from $100 million to $150 million. The increased funding would go towards increased law enforcement of juveniles. Voted yes

 

Bill Number: S 2260 - 105th Congress (1997-98)

Senate Passage Vote: 07/23/98 - Outcome: Passed

No further action was taken on this bill, never became law. HR 4276 passed instead

 

 

Vote to pass a bill that would impose fines and jail time on individuals who are convicted of sending out large quantities of unsolicited e-mail commonly know as Spam

Did not vote on this Bill at all.

 

 

Vote to pass a bill that would allow the use of the death penalty for drug traffickers who were convicted or murder, or ordering a murder. Voted no

 

Bill passed 65-29: R: 37-6; D 28-23

 

 

Vote to pass a bill that would protect crime victims' rights. The bill would provide victims of crime or their representatives the right to be heard at public proceedings. It would also call for judicial officials to take victims' safety into account when deciding the fate of defendants

 

Kerry was not around to vote on this Bill.

 

Bill Passed 96-1

Senate Passage Vote: 04/22/2004

 

 

Vote to pass the amendment that would extend to Nov. 30, 2004, the federal program to make available an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their state jobless benefits.

 

Kerry was not around to vote on this Bill.

 

Amendment passed 92-5 on 05/11/2004.

Senate Passage Vote: 05/11/2004- Outcome: Passed

 

 

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense if a fetus is injured or killed while carrying out a violent crime on a pregnant woman

 

Kerry Voted no.

 

Senate Passage Vote: 03/25/2004-Outcome: Passed

 

 

Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients

 

Kerry did not Vote on this Bill.

 

Senate Conference Report Vote:11/25/2003-Outcome:Passed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tiptoe39    0

When I was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa, the speaker at the ceremony told us, "I have one thing to ask of you all. Get into politics. And by politics I don't mean choose a pet cause. You need to get involved in the whole process of it. Understand that to put money toward one thing takes it away from another, and that there are comprimises that need to be made." Assuming that a no vote means a candidate is against what seems like the obvious good is a simplistic way of thinking. There could be issues about how money is appropriated. The bill could include other items that a candidate feels are not appropriate to lump in with the relevant cause. A candidate may change his/her vote on two seemingly similar bills because the terms are more or less agreeable in the second bill. Keep this in mind when you look at voting records and suddenly it will seem a lot less black and white. To me, a candidate who weighs the options carefully and votes thoughtfully on each individual bill is the better choice than one who seems to see everything in black and white.

 

Just MHO.

 

tiptoe39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Human   
Guest Human

Tiptoe39; When I looked into Kerry's voting record, I did not go to the RNC or DNC web sites. I actually did the research myself ( this way I could not be swayed by either party, I would know how he actually voted.)

 

In the last election I voted democrat, but I had to see why the republicans were eager, itching to see Kerry run on his voting record. When I got to see his entire voting record (I just shook my head in disbelief.)

 

The sad part is that I can actually keep on posting on Kerry's voting record, and it's something "groan". Don't go by what the parties are saying about Kerry, do the Research Yourself.

 

 

I always keep this thought in the back of my head, ( Those with sweetest tongue have the sharpest teeth.) That is why with Kerry's voting record ,that I will be voting Republican this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Swift Pencil Sudents for Truth   
Guest Swift Pencil Sudents for Truth

I did my own research my self and wow, That Idiot John Kerry record is just the opposite of what he said he would do and I also discovered that he hunts with a semi automatic rifle the same weapon he tried to have banned! How could any one Vote For that Idiot.

 

f you ever heard the song "everybody's Fool" That song was written about John Kery I think. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

I am amazed at the lies that come out of kerrys mouth,he doesnt even own up to his own voting record.dont blame him i would be ashamed too.the internet is a wonderful learning tool.those old double talk lines will not work anymore with any politicians.people who are serious about making an educated vote dont have to listen to any of the rhetoric and can vote as we all see fit.God help us all if kerry is voted in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American for truth   
Guest American for truth
Kerry's voting record does not seem that bad to me. In fact, its just the opposite.
Here is what I found from collecting performance evaluations from special interest groups who provide them, regardless of issue or bias.

[quote]
Senior and Social Security Issues

On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the National Association of Retired Federal Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Abortion Issues

On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Civil Rights

On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000  On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Education

2003  On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the National School Boards Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Environmental Issues

On the votes that the Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the National Parks Consevation Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Family and Children Issues

On the votes that the National Network for Youth considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Gender Issues

On the votes that the American Association of University Women considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Gun Issues

On the votes that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2003 in the House and 1991-2003 in the Senate when determining these scores.

Health Issues

On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Based on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the National Breast Cancer Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the American Medical Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Immigration

On the votes that the Californians for Population Stabilization considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Labor

On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 102 percent of the time. Those who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus.

On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Legal Issues

On the votes that the American Bar Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues

Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Arts and Humanities

On the votes that the Americans for the Arts considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Human   
Guest Human

American For truth; I am on several several Latino boards, and both democrat, and republicans agree with me that before bush my group "Latinos" were not even on the radar screen of the American scene.

 

Hey! Don’t get me wrong on those boards we have our differences (there is no question about that.)

 

 

By the way Which "National Hispanic Leadership Group "are you typing about????

 

There are several National Latino Groups, some are Republican, some are Democrats, and some are Independent.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way so everyone here knows, I am 20 years online.

 

Not out of choice, but out of survival. Being in a wheelchair "myself", I have to use technology to off set my disability.

 

Oh!! don't even tell me about stem cell research ( I have been hearing about that for the past twenty years, and the science is simply not there, nor will it be there for another 50 years.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andrey from NY   
Guest Andrey from NY

:o I think John Kerry needs to look at himself and say, what I am doing running for President of the United States of America, in fact he should say what did I do in congress that people actually keep voting for me during the 20 years. He will realize one thing, Integrity, integrity, integrity was not one of those things.

Pretty sad I would say for a senator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doris   
Guest Doris

Hey American. Thanks for showing me this. You changed my mind about Kerry.

 

For what I see is that Kerry is for the working folk and President Bush will bend over backwards for the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American for Truth   
Guest American for Truth

Hi Human,

I am a Latino as well. National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA).

is chaired by Charles Kamasaki of the National Council of La Raza.

 

You have a great voice. Keep searching B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Human   
Guest Human

I'm surprised La Raza supports Kerry now, considering he voted Yes on the 1996 (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act), which is often described as "draconian" by immigrants rights groups. IIRIRA made family reunification for immigrants harder and made legal and undocumented immigrants deportable for felony and some misdemeanor offenses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Human   
Guest Human

IN these elections I actually got more than I bargained for. Not just in congress did I see how both parties acted but also in doing the research myself.

 

I have 1 question to the DNC (but don’t give me the answer now, give it to me after these elections are over. This way “I hope” that I don’t just get a political answer from you, but the real reason as to why these elections mattered to you so much

 

 

 

). To the DNC, I saw Kerry’s Record, It is clear that even during the Clinton years that Kerry thought that Iraq had WMD”s, so why the ruse?

 

 

To the DNC, I know some one from your offices at the very least posts on these boards,: So I will wait till after the Election to read your reply, and I really do hope that you reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dilligafwyt    0

:o Oh my God, If anyone votes for Kerry then I might as well plan for dooms day. This guy is a complete Idiot. How can anyone want to vote for him? How can he lead our soldiers (whom by the way knew when they held thier hand up and vowed to protect america against all enemies foriegn and domestic that they may be put into wartime situation) when he can't even make a decision without going through the UN. What the heck is that? America needs to worry about covering thier own ass, and yes it would be great if the rest of the world helps in the War on Terror, but, we (you and I and everyone around us) need to realize that John Kerry will not stand up and fight for what america is he will coward to the terriorist (which if we do nothing will continue to kill -maybe one of your realitives next) if Americans do not stand up on NOV 2 and re-elect George W. Bush into the White House. And for all you undecided out there think about your family, who do you think would really stand behind them. John "I think I might, I don't know, what does the polls think"Kerry or George "If you mess with America, you better run backwards cause I'm gonna put a missle in your ass" Bush? Which would you feel safer behind, Me I know who I Choose, after all I want my kid to be able to grow up in a country that doesn't have to ask the UN if we can go to war and protect our selfs, after all they did kill first. Don't forget the lives lost Sept. 11th.

 

 

Vote on Nov 2 and please for my childs sake vote BUSH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW   
Guest LAW

To win the war on terrorism, America must be strong. I think everyone would agree with that statement. And America must be smart. I think everyone would agree with that statement as well. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

 

If this is going to be the deciding factor in the upcoming elections. The bantering on both sides needs to stop and the facts need to be straight forward.

 

The reason why I chose to post here on these discussion boards is I found some information on both candidates that I did not know. Therefore I will share some of I have found as well.

 

I am affiliated with no political party. I am just an American Citizen that spends to much time surfing the web and watching CNN. if you have any questions please feel free to post them here on this message board. Human and American for Truth I will be looking for both of your responses before the election.

 

Iraq on Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

The main issue for the war in Iraq was the threat from Saddam’s WMD. All other matters were at most, a minor afterthought.

 

11 September 2001 The progress Baghdad had made toward escaping sanctions changed following 11 September 2001. Saddam did not immediately understand this.

 

Refl ecting Saddam’s ill-formed understanding of the United States, Baghdad fully grasped neither the effect of the attacks on the United States nor their implications for Iraq’s position in the United Nations. The seriousness of the change in the international atmosphere and Iraq’s diplomatic position became clear to Saddam only after President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union speech. He saw a seriousness he had not earlier recognized. Still, he tried to bargain with the Security Council rather than outright accept new inspections. The dithering cost him.

 

Washington was building a huge and expensive military force around Iraq. Efforts to secure access and support for potential military action were pursued. In the Security Council a new, tougher resolution was passed (UNSCR 1441). Momentum was building that would be increasingly hard to deflect. Belatedly, following the speech by President Bush at the UN General Assembly in September 2002, Saddam fi nally agreed to unconditional acceptance of the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors.

 

The work of UNMOVIC inspectors on the ground was pursued energetically and in a charged political environment. Iraq was surrounded by a large and expensive, military force. Sustaining such a force for any length of time would be impossible. It was not a stable situation, and Saddam realized his position far too late. [Charles Duelfer Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence]

 

The debate that began in 2002 was not over weapons, but over war. The issue was whether Iraq’s capabilities and its failure to cooperate fully with UN inspections by adequately accounting for its activities posed such a severe threat as to require military invasion and occupation

in early 2003.

 

Bush Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from

Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence

failures by:

  • Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.”
  • Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam
  • Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present
  • Misrepresenting inspectors’ fi ndings in ways that turned threats from minor to

Considering all the costs and benefits, there were at least two options clearly preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of “coercive inspections” backed by a specially designed international force.

 

Chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that “At the time of the American invasion…Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, was not seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program, and was not making any active effort to gain those abilities.” [New York Times, 10/7/04]

 

During 2002 and 2003, public government statements (including fact sheets from the State Department and the White House) increased steadily in the alarm they expressed over the extent of these programs and began to assert that the Hussein regime had operational ties to Al Qaeda terrorists. Some public statements went far beyond the NIE. For example, the NIE says “Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear weapons program” (emphasis added), whereas Vice President Cheney said in August 2002, “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons…Many of us are convinced

that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.

 

“[W]e now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. . . Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear

weapons fairly soon.” (Vice President Cheney, Remarks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, August 26, 2002)

 

The British Government’s dossier of September 2002 contained the claim based on an intelligence report that some chemical and biological weapons could be deployed by Iraq within 45 minutes of an order to use them. Much public attention has been given to the Prime Minister’s statement that he was not aware until after the war that this report should have been interpreted as referring to battlefield weapons.

 

Attention has also focused on the alleged scepticism of the then US Director of Central Intelligence, Mr George Tenet, about the report, which he is quoted in Mr Bob Woodward’s book, “Plan of Attack3”, as calling the “they-can-attack-in-

45-minutes ***Oh SH#T*”.

 

The intelligence report itself was vague and ambiguous. The time period given was the sort of period which a military expert would expect; in fact it is somewhat longer than a well organised military unit might aspire to. For those who interpreted it as referring to battlefield munitions, therefore, its significance was that it appeared to confirm that Iraq had both forward-deployed chemical and biological munitions and the necessary command and control arrangements in place to use them, rather than the period of time within which they could be deployed.

 

“[W]e do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.” (Vice President Cheney, NBC “Meet the Press,” September 8, 2002)

 

Iraqi detainees were a major source of information. Many WMD-associated figures have been detained at Camp Cropper where the so-called high-value detainees are incarcerated. Analysts questioned them repeatedly about aspects of the program and Regime decision making. Their answers form a large part of the data ISG has used in this report, but must be considered for what they are. These individuals have had long experience living under a severe Regime that imposed

harsh consequences for revealing state secrets and have no way of knowing what will happen to them when they get out. Certainly there are strong Regime supporters among the Camp Cropper population. The word inevitably circulates among them who is cooperative and who is not. Once released, such detainees may fear for their lives from Regime supporters.

 

It has been reported that some official statements relied on unverified claims from Iraqi defectors, rather than information gathered by UN inspections

or intelligence professionals. Several of the defectors provided by the Iraqi National Congress headed by Ahmad Chalabi were judged to be not credible after

the war began. An assessment by the DIA concluded that most of the information given by Iraqi defectors. was of little or no value, with much of it invented or

exaggerated.

 

Lacking hard evidence on Iraqi programs, government officials say they had to develop an outline of a threat picture, then accumulate “bits and pieces” of information that fi lled in that picture. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice explained on June 8 that the White House did not have one, single assessment, but rather formed a “judgment.” The judgment was “not about a data point here or

a data point there, but about what Saddam Hussein was doing. That he had weapons of mass destruction. That was the judgment.” This, she said, was a picture

they developed when they “connected a lot of dots from multiple sources.

 

Some official statements misrepresented the findings of UN inspections. For example, President Bush said, "The regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four

times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions."

 

“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. . .Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at

sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi

regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” (President Bush, Address on Iraq, October 7, 2002)

 

On July 22, Deputy National Security Advisor Steven Hadley said that he deleted a reference to Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium in Africa from President Bush’s October 7 Cincinnati speech based on a telephone call from Director

of Central Intelligence George Tenet and two CIA memos sent to himself—one of which was also sent to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Hadley said that this second memo detailed some weakness in the evidence, the fact that

the effort was not particularly signifi cant to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already had a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. The memorandum also stated that the CIA had been telling Congress that the Africa story was one of two issues where we differed with the British intelligence

 

". . . based on what we now know, we had opportunities here to avoid this problem. We didn’t take them . . . having been taken out of Cincinnati, it should have been taken out of the State of the Union."

 

Saddam assembled senior officials in December 2002 and directed them to cooperate completely with inspectors, according to a former senior

officer. Saddam stated that the UN would submit a report on 27 January 2003, and that this report would indicate that Iraq was cooperating fully. He stated that all Iraqi organizations should open themselves entirely to UNMOVIC inspectors. The

Republican Guard should make all records and even battle plans available to inspectors, if they requested. The Guard was to be prepared to have

an “open house” day or night for the UNMOVIC inspectors. Husam Amin met with military leaders again on 20 January 2003 and conveyed the same directives. During this timeframe Russia and France were also encouraging Saddam to accept UN resolutions and and to allow inspections without hindering them.

 

In January 2003, Iraq’s National Assembly passed a law banning WMD, a measure that had been required under paragraph 23 of the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Plan approved under UNSCR 715—and one Iraq had refused to pass despite UN requests since 1991.

 

On 14 February 2003, Saddam issued a presidential directive prohibiting private sector companies and individuals from importing or producing biological,

chemical, and nuclear weapons or material, according to documentary evidence. The directive did not mention government organizations.

 

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003

 

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in March 2003 that U.S. officials knew the location of Iraq’s WMD: “We know where they are.”

 

British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries:

 

The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that

pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium to Iraq

between 1999 and 2001. The IAEA has discussed these reports with the

Governments of Iraq and Niger,both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part,Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger,and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries,including Niger, in February 1999,which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger,and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis,the IAEA has concluded,with the concurrence of outside experts,that these documents,which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger,are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.

[international Atomic Energy Agency GOV/INF/2003/10 Annex of 7 March 2003]

 

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in

centrifuge enrichment. Moreover,even had Iraq pursued such a plan,it would have

encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium

tubes in question. [international Atomic Energy Agency, ‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq:An Update’, 7 March 2003]

 

Operation Iraqi Freedom

 

Q What can he, the President possibly accomplish with the people from Spain and Britain that he cannot -- face-to-face, that he can't do over the phone? These people are already with you. What is the purpose of this trip?

 

DR. RICE: These are the co-sponsors of the resolution at the United Nations. They have been co-sponsors from the very beginning. Face-to-face is sometimes the best way to do diplomacy, and the three believe that it was time to get together. And they're very grateful that they are going to be hosted by the Portuguese.

 

This is an opportunity to assess where we are. It is an opportunity to think about the ways in which the United Nations security process can come to a conclusion because it is time to bring it to a conclusion. They will look at all of the possibilities. And I will tell you everybody has been on the phones and will be on the phones this weekend. But it is time to come to a conclusion that says to Saddam Hussein, it is time for you to disarm or be disarmed; it is time for you to finally comply with Resolution 1441, which is one final chance to disarm.

 

Resolution 1441 wasn't one last final chance to be inspected, or one final chance to make a little bit of progress. It was one final chance to disarm. And they will chart a way forward, but the moment of truth is coming here, and it's time for the co-sponsors to get together and discuss it. (Remarks by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Outside Arab Television Studio, March 14, 2003)

 

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This weekend marks a bitter anniversary for the people of Iraq. Fifteen years ago, Saddam Hussein's regime ordered a chemical weapons attack on a village in Iraq called Halabja. With that single order, the regime killed thousands of Iraq's Kurdish citizens. Whole families died while trying to flee clouds of nerve and mustard agents descending from the sky. Many who managed to survive still suffer from cancer, blindness, respiratory diseases, miscarriages, and severe birth defects among their children.

 

The chemical attack on Halabja -- just one of 40 targeted at Iraq's own people -- provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world. He is among history's cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world's most terrible weapons.

 

Recognizing this threat, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Saddam Hussein give up all his weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Gulf War 12 years ago. The Security Council has repeated this demand numerous times and warned that Iraq faces serious consequences if it fails to comply. Iraq has responded with defiance, delay and deception.

 

The United States, Great Britain and Spain continue to work with fellow members of the U.N. Security Council to confront this common danger. We have seen far too many instances in the past decade -- from Bosnia, to Rwanda, to Kosovo -- where the failure of the Security Council to act decisively has led to tragedy. And we must recognize that some threats are so grave -- and their potential consequences so terrible -- that they must be removed, even if it requires military force. (President Bush, Radio Address, March 15, 2003)

 

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. (President Bush, Address to the Nation on War with Iraq, March 17, 2003)

 

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” (President Bush, Address to the Nation on War with Iraq, March

17, 2003)

 

General Amir al-Saadi, one of Iraq’s top scientists and liaison to UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, in an interview just prior to his surrender to U.S. authorities on April 12, said that Iraq did not have illicit WMD programs: “Nothing, nothing. . . I’m

saying this for posterity, for history, not for defending the regime . . . Time will bear me out. . . There will be no difference after the war is over . . . I was knowledgeable about those programs, those past programs, and I was telling the truth.” Since entering into U.S. custody, he has not spoken in public.

 

“We did not know at the time—no one knew at the time in our circles—maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was

information that was mistaken.” (National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, NBC “Meet the Press,” June 8, 2003)

 

On July 9, 2004, Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, told reporters that intelligence used to support the invasion of Iraq was based on assessments that were "unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."

 

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the leading Democrat on the 18-member panel, said that "bad information" was used to bolster the case for war.

 

"We in Congress would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now," the West Virginia Democrat said.

 

Roberts listed several points emphasized in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that were "overstated or "not supported by the raw intelligence reporting."

 

Among these were that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, had chemical and biological weapons, and was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents.

 

He also said the intelligence community failed to "accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to policymakers."

 

Rockefeller said that the "intelligence failures" will haunt America's national security "for generations to come."

 

"Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower," he said. "We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

 

GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.

 

In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was illegal. Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal." "Since the war he has been emphasizing the need for nations on the Security Council and the UN membership as a whole to pull together, saying it is in everyone's interest that stability be restored to Iraq," the spokesman said. "So once the invasion took place, he did not look back, he looked forward." [september 16, 2004]

 

On October 8, 2004 a senior member of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet has apologised for using inaccurate intelligence to justify launching the invasion of Iraq. Trade and Industry Minister Patricia Hewitt said she was speaking for the Prime Minister and the whole cabinet.

 

Iraq and Al Quaeda

 

Fragmentary and uncorroborated” intelligence reports suggested that in 1998 there were contacts between Al Qaida and Iraqi intelligence. Those reports described Al Qaida seeking toxic chemicals as well as other conventional terrorist equipment. Some accounts suggested that Iraqi chemical experts may have

 

been in Afghanistan during 2000. But in November 2001, the JIC concluded that:

. . . there is no evidence that these contacts led to practical co-operation; we judge

it unlikely because of mutual mistrust.

[JIC, 28 November 2001]

 

“[T]here clearly are contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq . . . there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and

that there’s a relationship here.” (National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, PBS “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” September 25, 2002)

 

In November 2003, the former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter was

reported to have told journalists that, in the late-1990s, the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) ran “Operation Mass Appeal” – an alleged disinformation campaign to disseminate “single source data of dubious quality” about Iraq, in order to “shake up public opinion”.

 

Mr Ritter was quoted as follows:

"I was brought into the operation in 1997 because at the UN . . . Isatonabody of data which was not actionable,but was sufficiently sexy that if it could appear in the press could make Iraq look like in a bad way. I was approached by MI6 to provide that data,I met with the Mass Appeal operatives both in New York and London on several occasions. This data was provided and this data did find its way into the international media. It was intelligence data that dealt with Iraq’s efforts to procure WMDs,wi th Iraq’s efforts to conceal WMDs. It was all single source data of dubious quality,which lacked veracity. They took this information and peddled it off to the media,internationall y and domestically,allowing inaccurate intelligence data to appear on the front pages. The government,both here in the UK and the US,would feed off these media reports, continuing the perception that Iraq was a nation ruled by a leader with an addiction to WMDs. [bBC News, 12 November 2003]

 

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists,

including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none

we have ever known.” (President Bush, State of the Union, January 28, 2003)

 

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner.

This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.” (President Bush, Radio Address, February 8, 2003)

 

The New York Times reported in June that two of the highest-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in custody, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, both told interrogators that Iraq and Al Qaeda did not carry out operations together.

 

The UN Monitoring Group on Al Qaeda released a draft report in June that found no link between Iraq and the terrorist group. The committee’s chief investigator said, “Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links. . .

 

The president and the vice president, however, continue to assert the links by implication. Vice President Dick Cheney said in October: “Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror—hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.

 

The president presented this possibility as the ultimate danger and the centerpiece of his case for war. The most strongly worded of many such warnings came in the 2003 State of the Union speech: “Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none

we have ever known.” In fact, however, there was no positive evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD or agents to terrorist groups and much evidence to counter it. Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and

fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infi del and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow.119 The fact

that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been

periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda.

 

The 9-11 Commission found that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks on America and that no “Collaborative Operational Relationship” existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. [9-11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04]

 

Here is an excerpt from Thursday, October 6, 2004 Vice-Presidential Debate:

 

SENATOR EDWARDS: Yes. Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it, your own Secretary of State has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There's not. And, in fact, the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is tenuous, at best. And, in fact, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. We need to be straight with the American people.

 

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11. But there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years.

 

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Gwen, the story that appeared today about this report is one I asked for. I ask an awful lot of questions. That's part of my job as Vice President. A CIA spokesman was quoted in that story as saying they'd not yet reached the bottom line and there's still debate over this question of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein. The report also points out that at one point some of Zarqawi's people were arrested, Saddam personally intervened to have them released, supposedly at the request of Zarqawi.

 

But let's look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi. We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kurmal, where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use. We know he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages. He is, without question, a bad guy. He is, without question, a terrorist. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he's in Baghdad now after the war. The fact of the matter is that this is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that's exactly what we'll do.

 

Here is an excerpt from Thursday, October 14, 2004 Presidential Debate:

 

SENATOR KERRY: Yes. When the President had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught, dead or alive, this President was asked, where is Osama bin Laden? He said, I don't know, I don't really think about him very much, I'm not that concerned. We need a President who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

 

MODERATOR: Mr. President.

 

PRESIDENT BUSH: Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course, we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

 

The Iraq Cleanup

 

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was off by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. Neither number bears any relationship to the facts. By the administration's own minimal standards, just 5,000 soldiers have been fully trained. And of the 32,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program.

 

Our soldiers (some of whom are my good friends) are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times – a 400% increase.

 

Falluja…Ramadi… Samarra … even parts of Baghdad – are now “no go zones”… breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi’a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who’s accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

 

Violence against Iraqis… from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation … is on the rise.

 

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

 

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

 

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

 

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

 

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

 

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they’re sitting on the fence… instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

 

Here is an excerpt from Thursday, October 6, 2004 Vice-Presidential Debate:

 

SENATOR EDWARDS: Well, let's start with what we know. What we know is that the President and the Vice President have not done the work to build the coalition that we need -- so dramatically different than the first Gulf War. We know that they haven't done it, and we know they can't do it. They didn't, by the way, just reject the allies going to lead up to the war; they also rejected them in the effort to do the reconstruction in Iraq. And that has consequences.

 

What we believe is, as part of our entire plan for Iraq -- and we have a plan for Iraq. They have a plan for Iraq, too, more of the same. We have a plan for success, and that plan includes speeding up the training of a military. We have less than half of the staff that we need there to complete that training. Second, make sure that the reconstruction is sped up in a way that the Iraqis see some tangible benefit for what's happening.

 

And by the way, if we need to, we can take Iraqis out of Iraq to train them. It is not secure enough. It's so dangerous on the ground that they can't be trained there, we can take them out of Iraq for purposes of training. We should do whatever has to be done to train the Iraqis and to speed up that process.

 

That works in conjunction with making sure the elections take place on time. Right now the United Nations, which is responsible for the elections in January, has about 35 people there. Now, that's compared with a much smaller country, like East Timor, where they had over 200 people on the ground. You need more than 35 people to hold an election in Cleveland, much less in Iraq. And we -- and they keep saying the election is on schedule, this is going to happen. The reality is we need a new President with credibility with the rest of the world, and who has a real plan for success.

 

Success breeds contribution, breeds joining the coalition. Not only that, I want to go back to what the Vice President said. He attacks us about the troops? They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.

 

MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

 

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, Gwen, it's hard to know where to start, there's so many inaccuracies there.

 

The fact of the matter is the troops wouldn't have what they have today if you guys had had your way. When you talk about internationalizing the effort, they don't have a plan, basically -- it's an echo. You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this. No, we had 34 countries then, we've got 30 today. We've got troops beside us.

 

It's hard, after John Kerry referred to our allies as a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed" to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate in this process. You end up with a situation in which

 

-- talk about demeaning, in effect, you demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it's wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, oh, by the way, send troops. It makes no sense at all. It's totally inconsistent. There isn't a plan there.

 

Our most important ally in the war on terror in Iraq, specifically, is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session of Congress that I presided over, with the Speaker of the House, and John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with -- where he came and he thanked America for our contributions and our sacrifice and pledged to hold his election in January -- went out and demeaned him, criticized him, challenged his credibility. That is not the way to win friends and allies. You're never going to add to the coalition with that kind of attitude.

 

MODERATOR: Senator Edwards, 30 seconds.

 

SENATOR EDWARDS: Thank you. The Vice President suggests that we have the same number of countries involved now that we had in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War cost the American people $5 billion. And regardless of what the Vice President says, we're at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President -- the coalition casualties -- are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration.

 

MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President.

 

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Classic example, he won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of our Iraqi allies. It's their country, they're in the fight, they're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job, and for you to demean their sacrifice, that strikes me as --

 

SENATOR EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not --

 

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: -- beyond the pale. It is, indeed. You suggested that somehow --

 

SENATOR EDWARDS: No, sir --

 

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: -- they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future. We'll win when they take on responsibility for governance, which they're doing; and when they take on responsibility for their own security, which they increasingly are doing.

 

Who is Mr. Zarqawi?

 

He may not be quite the prolific terrorist mastermind that the Bush administration claims. Just as little is known about the Iraq insurgency, there is little known about his organization, the Tawhid and Jihad movement. Estimates vary on the size of his group, anywhere from 50 to 100 "foreign fighters" and former Saddam Hussein loyalists to as many as 1,000.

 

Bush said that “Zarqawi’s the best evidence of a connection [from Saddam] to Al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda.” However, a new CIA report says “there is no conclusive evidence that [saddam’s] regime harbored” Zarqawi. Donald Rumsfeld admitted that he had “not seen any strong, hard evidence that links [saddam and Al Qaeda].” [bush Remarks, 6/15/04, Miami Herald, 10/5/04; Rumsfeld Remarks To The Council On Foreign Relations, 10/4/04]

 

Many intelligence officials in Europe doubt that the man jailed 13 years ago for sexual assault in Jordan possesses the organizational skills or manpower muscle to launch even a small percentage of the nearly 100 insurgents' attacks that occur across Iraq daily.

 

In fact, in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Zarqawi was virtually unknown to anyone other than Jordanian intelligence officials, who saw him as a dangerous militant with a strong desire to turn Jordan into an Islamic state.

 

Mr. Zarqawi was literally introduced to the world in February 2003 when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the United Nations that Mr. Zarqawi was a "collaborator and associate" of Mr. bin Laden's. Mr. Powell also described him as a Qaeda chemical weapons expert who had relocated to Baghdad with Saddam Hussein's blessing and organized a cell of 20 operatives there.

 

 

911 A Day America Will Always Remember

 

The chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 stated publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented.

 

The civilian and military defenders of the nation's airspace-FAA and NORAD-were unprepared for the attacks launched against them. Given that lack of preparedness, they attempted and failed to improvise an effective homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge.

 

The world now associates the bin Laden name with Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect be hind the terror atrocities of Sept. 11. As President George W. Bush leads an intense international manhunt for Osama, few Americans realize that Osama's eldest brother, Salem, was one of Bush's first business partners.

 

In the 1980s, young Muslims from around the world went to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in a jihad (or holy struggle) against the Soviet Union. A wealthy Saudi, Usama Bin Ladin, was one of them. Following the defeat of the Soviets in the late 1980s, Bin Ladin and others formed al Qaeda to mobilize jihads elsewhere. [911 Commission Final Report]

 

Bin Ladin stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Islam's holiest sites, and against other U.S. policies in the Middle East. [911 Commission Final Report]

 

The day began with the 19 hijackers getting through a security checkpoint system that they had evidently analyzed and knew how to defeat. Their success rate in penetrating the system was 19 for 19.They took over the four flights, taking advantage of air crews and cockpits that were not prepared for the contingency of a suicide hijacking [911 Commission Final Report]

 

George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, on the morning of 9/11. They were on Carlyle Group business just a few miles from where hijackers supposedly acting on behalf of Osama bin Laden would fly a plane into the Pentagon.

 

Chief financier of the hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11. He also met with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of the attacks, who would later go on to head the first 9/11 investigative committee.

 

President George Bush, on August 6th of 2001, was told in his briefing that America was going to be attacked by al Qaeda and they may use airplanes.

 

Tora Bora

 

The Afgan war like no other. In an evolutionary leap powered by Information Age technology, US ground soldiers were mainly employed as observers, liaisons, and spotters for air power - not as direct combatants sent to occupy a foreign land. The success of the US was dazzling, save for the fight for Tora Bora, which may have been this unconventional war's most crucial battle. For the US, Tora Bora wasn't about capturing caverns or destroying fortifications - it was about taking the world's most wanted terrorist "dead or alive." [March 04, 2002 Christian Science Monitor]

 

As the US intensified its airstrikes on Tora Bora, US and Afghan helicopters started to arrive with supplies for the Afghans. Also - as was its pattern elsewhere in Afghanistan - the US began enlisting local warlords. Two - Hazret Ali and Haji Zaman Ghamsharik - would become notorious in the battle for Tora Bora. [March 04, 2002 Christian Science Monitor]

 

Both Mr. Ali and Mr. Ghamsharik say they were first approached by plain-clothed US officers in the middle of November and asked to take part in an attack on the Tora Bora base. [March 04, 2002 Christian Science Monitor]

 

"We looked at the entire spectrum of options that we had available to us and decided that the use of small liaison elements were the most appropriate," says Army Col. Rick Thomas in a phone interview from US Central Command Headquarters in Tampa, Fla [March 04, 2002 Christian Science Monitor]

 

As a counterbalance to Ali, the US chose another powerful regional warlord, Ghamsharik, whom they had lured back from exile in Dijon, France, in late September. Known to many as a ruthless player in the regional smuggling business, Ghamsharik was given a rousing party on his return, including a 1,000-gun salute. He became the Jalalabad commander of the Eastern Shura. But he still didn't have the support of his own Afghan tribesmen (Khugani). Many of them, in fact, were proud to admit that they worked for Al Qaeda inside the Tora Bora base as well as in several nearby bases. [March 04, 2002 Christian Science Monitor]

 

From the start, Ghamsharik was clearly uncomfortable with the power-sharing arrangement. Ali's men were Pashay - no relation to Ghamsharik's own Pashtun followers. He called his rival Ali "a peasant," and said he could not be trusted.

 

The rift between the two men would seriously hinder US efforts to capture Al Qaeda's leadership. Although backed by the United States, the Jalalabad warlords would have to determine by themselves - while sometimes arguing fiercely - how best to go after Tora Bora's defenders.

 

And on Nov 29, Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC's "Primetime Live" that, according to the reports that were coming in, bin Laden was in Tora Bora."I think he was equipped to go to ground there," Mr. Cheney said. "He's got what he believes to be a fairly secure facility. He's got caves underground; it's an area he's familiar with."

 

Meanwhile, in the weeks following bin Laden's arrival at the Tora Bora caves, morale slipped under the constant air assault. One group of Yemeni fighters, squirreled away in a cave they had been assigned to by the Al Qaeda chief, had not seen bin Laden since entering on Nov. 13.

 

But they say bin Laden joined them on Nov. 26, the 11th day of Ramadan, a warm glass of green tea in his hand. Instead of inspiring the elite fighters, he was now reduced, they say, to repeating the same "holy war" diatribe.

 

Around him that day sat three of his most loyal fighters, including Abu Baker, a square-faced man with a rough-hewn scruff on his chin."[bin Laden] said, 'hold your positions firm and be ready for martyrdom,' " Baker told Afghan intelligence officers when he was captured in mid-December. "He said, 'I'll be visiting you again, very soon.' " Then, as quickly as he had come, Baker says, bin Laden vanished into the pine forests.

 

Between two and four days later, somewhere between Nov. 28 to Nov. 30 - according to detailed interviews with Arabs and Afghans in eastern Afghanistan afterward - the world's most-wanted man escaped the world's most-powerful military machine, walking - with four of his loyalists - in the direction of Pakistan.

 

On Dec. 11, in the village of Upper Pachir - located a few miles northeast of the main complex of caves where Al Qaeda fighters were holed up - a Saudi financier and Al Qaeda operative, Abu Jaffar, was interviewed by the Monitor. Fleeing the Tora Bora redoubt, Mr. Jaffar said that bin Laden had left the cave complexes roughly 10 days earlier, heading for the Parachinar area of Pakistan.

 

Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them.

 

"The border with Pakistan was the key, but no one paid any attention to it," he said, leaning back in his swivel chair with a short list of the Al Qaeda fighters who were later taken prisoner. "And there were plenty of landing areas for helicopters, had the Americans acted decisively. Al Qaeda escaped right out from under their feet."

 

Meanwhile, back in Jalalabad, the Afghan warlords enlisted by the US to attack Tora Bora were also cutting deals to help the Al Qaeda fighters escape.

 

In the shoddy lobby of the Spin Ghar Hotel in downtown Jalalabad on Dec. 3, Haji Hayat Ullah - a member of the Eastern Shura who, according to both Afghan and Pakistani sources had long ties to bin Laden - asked for the "safe passage" for three of his Arab friends.

 

After a 20-minute discussion with Commander Ali, which was overheard by the Monitor in the empty hotel lobby, a deal was struck for the safe passage of the three Al Qaeda members.

 

The battle was joined, but anything approaching a "siege" of Tora Bora never materialized. Ghamsharik says today that he offered the US military the use his forces in a "siege of Tora Bora," but that the US opted in favor of his rival, Hazret Ali.

 

Indeed, Mr. Ali paid a lieutenant named Ilyas Khel to block the main escape routes into Pakistan. Mr. Khel had come to him three weeks earlier from the ranks of Taliban commander Awol Gul.

 

"I paid him 300,000 Pakistani rupees [$5,000] and gave him a satellite phone to keep us informed," says Mohammed Musa, an Ali deputy, who says Ali had firmly "trusted" Khel.

 

"Our problem was that the Arabs had paid him more, and so Ilyas Khel just showed the Arabs the way out of the country into Pakistan," Mr. Musa adds.

 

A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader. Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units. [April 17, 2002 Washington Post]

 

With the collapse of the Afghan cordon around Tora Bora, and the decision to hold back U.S. troops from the Army's 10th Mountain Division, Pakistan stepped in. The government of President Pervez Musharraf moved thousands of troops to his border with Afghanistan and intercepted about 300 of the estimated 1,000 al Qaeda fighters who escaped Tora Bora. U.S. officials said close to half of the detainees now held at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were turned over by the Pakistani government. [April 17, 2002 Washington Post]

 

BUSH: “And [Osama Bin Laden is] just – he’s a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match…So I don’t know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I…I truly am not that concerned about him.” [bush Remarks, 3/13/02]

 

Here is an excerpt from Thursday, October 8, 2004 Presidential Debate:

 

SENATOR KERRY: Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place, and the right time was Tora Bora, when we had him cornered in the mountains. Now, everyone in the world knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was the reason Congress gave him the authority to use force -- not after excuse to get rid of the regime.

 

PRESIDENT BUSH: Of course, we're going to find Osama bin Laden. We've already got 75 percent of his people, and we're on the hunt for him. But this is a global conflict that requires firm resolve.

 

The President said twice that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data. [October 1, 2004 FactCheck.org]

 

Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

[October 1, 2004 FactCheck.org]

 

Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, thanked the presidential candidates for the "great ideas shared during the debates." [Al-Jazeera TV, 1/10/2004]

 

On the tape, still under analysis by the CIA, Mr. al-Zawahiri notes that the presidential debate remarks were a "terrific brainstorming session for our associates who seek targets of opportunity to advance the cause of our peaceful religion."

 

Mr. Zawahiri said he appreciated the "virtual invitation" implied in the following statements::

-- "The president hasn't put one nickel - not one nickel - into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems."

-- "95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected."

-- "Civilians get onto aircraft and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed.

-- "And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists."

-- "The president, also unfortunately, gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure."

 

No president can promise that a catastrophic attack like that of 9/11 will not happen again. But the American people are entitled to expect that officials will have realistic objectives, clear guidance, and effective organization. They are entitled to see standards for performance so they can judge, with the help of their elected representatives, whether the objectives are being met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest David M from North Carolina   
Guest David M from North Carolina

My question is if the Americans, Brits, and Spanish know that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and no positive ties to Al Queada on March 7 why did we go to war a week later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Human   
Guest Human

""We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and others, Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Dec. 16, 1998

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"

 

 

David; John Kerry serves on the intelligence committee. The democrats have played so much with the intelligence in terms of civil rights that they gutted what was once a Real Agency. You also have to understand how information with in the United State Branches is composed.

 

 

Before 9/11 the information was gathered by bureaucrats who are good academics, who can compose academic papers, BUT who are Not Experts in the various fields needed. (I give them credit, they can play a great game of politics, but that's it.)

 

Hey!!! The bureaucratic game in the intelligence field continues, the CIA, and FBI are still hiring munchkins (Dear God they are not even rookies.).

 

I've done my time in the foreign field, you can keep it.

 

If I sound angry "well I am", I know some of the what the United States considers "Experts" (an expert in the United States Eyes, has to appease both the democrats, and the republicans,) that's what the United States has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW   
Guest LAW

David M from North Carolina,Oct 19 2004, 06:06 PM

 

My question is if the Americans, Brits, and Spanish know that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and no positive ties to Al Queada on March 7 why did we go to war a week later.

 

Human,

You avoided David's question.

 

Your response was

David; John Kerry serves on the intelligence committee.

 

Human,

Senator John Kerry currently does not serve on the intelligence committee.

Senator Kerry served on the U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence from 1993-2001. He currently serving in the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

The Committee evaluates all treaties with foreign governments.

 

Human Wrote:

The democrats have played so much with the intelligence in terms of civil rights that they gutted what was once a Real Agency. You also have to understand how information with in the United State Branches is composed.

 

Human,

What does that mean? Please clarify your statement.

 

David,

The fact is that when it comes to National Security, the buck stops at the White House, not anywhere else. It's disturbing that the White House continues to lay blame for intelligence failures solely at the steps of the intelligence community, yet takes no responsibility for its own failings. They tell us that reforms need to be made in the intelligence community yet they have done little to make any real changes.

 

Here is Senator Kerry's Record and Statements

 

S.AMDT.680 to S.936 To require an intelligence analysis of POW/Mia issues.

Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 7/7/1997) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 7/11/1997 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SP 680 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

 

S.AMDT.681 to S.936 To establish authority concerning the provision of certain comparative agreements on air defense in Central Europe.

Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 7/7/1997) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 7/11/1997 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SP 681 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

 

Senator Kerry is currently a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations which evaluate all treaties with foreign governments.

 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN KERRY

 

Regarding: Administration officials stopping efforts to freeze assets of Saudi Arabian charities alleged to support terrorism

 

Friday, August 1, 2003

 

“In May of this year, I called on President Bush to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabian charities for money laundering. Recent press reports have stated that individuals linked to the Saudi Arabian government provided funding for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. Now it is being reported that Bush Administration officials have stopped efforts to freeze the assets of some Saudi Arabian charities which likely support terrorism. As long as al-Qaida retains access to a viable financial network, it remains a lethal threat to the United States and our interests around the world.

 

“Continued inaction by the Bush Administration to stop the flow of money from Saudi Arabia to al-Qaida and other international terrorist organizations threatens the security of the United States and may put American lives at risk.”

 

In response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Senator Kerry worked with Senate Banking Chairman Sarbanes and Senator Levin to develop a package of anti-money laundering provisions which included his bill the International Counter-Money Laundering and Foreign Anticorruption Act. These anti-money laundering provisions were included in the USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in October 2001.

 

In May 2003, Senator Kerry asked President Bush to name Saudi Arabia as a primary money laundering concern (using the authority provided by his bill) and to impose enhanced due diligence on financial transactions involving Saudi Arabian financial institutions, charities and high net-worth individuals to determine whether any transactions pose an unacceptable risk of being related to the finance of terrorism.

 

Kerry Calls for Investigation into Department of Defense's Treatment of U.S. Troops

 

Thursday, March 6, 2003

 

"What's the message we're sending to our troops around the world today and those prepared to fight in Iraq? . I intend to keep the pressure on until we have answers and the certainty that we're keeping faith with our troops," says Kerry

 

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to reports that the Department of Defense (DOD) has failed to uphold a post-Gulf War law requiring it to develop and implement a medical tracking system for service members deployed overseas, Senator John Kerry today called for an investigation of the DOD by the General Accounting Office (GAO).

 

“To ensure that the Department of Defense is upholding its obligations to our troops, I am calling on the General Accounting Office to investigate,” said Kerry. “And I intend to keep the pressure on until we have answers and the certainty that we’re keeping faith with our troops.”

 

On November 18, 1997, President Clinton signed into law Public Law 105-85, which required the DOD to develop and implement a medical tracking system for service members deployed overseas. The law required the DOD to perform medical examinations, before and after operational deployments, including “an assessment of mental health and the drawing of blood samples,” to, as the law puts it, “accurately record the medical condition of members before their deployment and any changes in their medical condition during the course of their deployment.”

 

According to recent reports, however, troops heading for the Iraqi theater are not getting health screenings, especially blood sampling, as mandated by law. According to the Kansas City Star: “The law, which grew out of concern about unexplained illnesses that followed the 1991 gulf war, required that troops receive mental and medical examinations before and after deployment overseas. The tests are intended to provide clues in case the phenomenon known as gulf war syndrome should recur. Instead, the Pentagon requires only a brief, one-page questionnaire asking for general health-related information.” (Kansas City Star, March 5, 2003, page A-1)

 

“These reports are extremely troubling. What’s the message we’re sending to our troops around the world today and those prepared to fight in Iraq? The message seems to be, ‘do your duty to country but your country won’t fulfill its duty to you if you’re lucky enough to return home.’ That’s not the America I know, and it’s not the America I want us to become. Those of us who’ve served in combat have a special understanding of the values at stake here and the importance of never breaking promises to those who may become our brothers in arms.

 

“Vets fighting for vets is how we’ve made most gains for veterans from recognition of Agent Orange to treatment of Post Vietnam Stress Disorder. I am very mindful that this law was inspired by the efforts of a previous generation of Gulf War veterans whose illnesses came to be known collectively as Gulf War Illness and drafted in the best interest of our men and women in uniform. We must insist it is carried out for those veterans who may follow.”

 

Kerry requested the investigation of DOD in a letter sent today to GAO. The text of the letter follows.

 

-- 30 --

 

March 6, 2003

 

Mr. David Walker Comptroller General The United States General Accounting Office 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548

 

Dear Mr. Walker:

 

I write to request that the General Accounting Office examine Department of Defense (DOD) compliance with Public Law 105-85, Subtitle F, Sections 765 through 767.

 

On November 18, 1997, Public Law 105-85 was signed into law by President Clinton. Among its provisions are requirements that DOD develop and implement a medical tracking system for service members deployed overseas. The law requires DOD to perform medical examinations before and after operational deployments, including “an assessment of mental health and the drawing of blood samples,” to, as the law puts it, “accurately record the medical condition of members before their deployment and any changes in their medical condition during the course of their deployment.”

 

Unfortunately, reports in recent weeks indicate that DOD may not be performing this responsibility to the letter of the law. These reports are troubling. The requirements to develop and implement a medical tracking system were based on lessons learned from the 1991 Persian Gulf War when lack of medical surveillance, incomplete medical records, and information on the location of specific units during particular events led to uncertainty about whether or not the illnesses of many veterans were service related. Any deficiencies in DOD’s execution of the law are particularly worrisome as we face the prospect of war in Iraq again.

 

Given these concerns, I request that the General Accounting Office examine DOD compliance with the relevant provisions of Public Law 105-85, including the following specific issues:

 

1. Public Law 105-85, Subtitle F, Section 765 called for improved medical tracking for members of the armed forces deployed overseas in contingency or combat operations, and along with section 766, called for improved medical record-keeping, including documentation of immunizations and receipt of investigational drugs. What is DOD doing to fulfill these legal obligations? Are current measures adequate to meet the requirement for medical surveillance and documentation established in the law?

 

2. Section 767 required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by March 1, 1998 on plans “for collecting and maintaining information regarding the daily location of units of the Armed Forces, and to the extent practicable, individual members of such units, serving in a theater of operations during a contingency operation or combat operation.” Has DOD adopted such a plan? If so, has it been implemented at the unit level?

 

I would welcome discussion with the appropriate members of your staff regarding other areas of this or other laws that may be germane to this issue. Please contact Jim Ludes of my staff (224-7024) to discuss this request.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Kerry

 

 

Senator Kerry Response to the State of the Union

 

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

 

"We live in serious times facing serious challenges, and we can not afford a mere rhetorical presidency. Americans are tired of politicians who make promises in speeches and break them in practice. Too often President Bush offers slogans not solutions, and too often his solutions would take America backwards.

 

Tonight, President Bush talked about fixing the economy, but clings to failed economic policies that make special interests happy while nearly two million Americans have lost their jobs. He talked about energy independence, but his energy plan would make America more dependent on foreign oil twenty years from now than we are today. He talked about health care, but would break the promise of Medicare and force seniors into HMO's that run roughshod over patients. He talked about keeping Americans safe, but has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator. He talked about homeland security and corporate reform even though his Administration was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting either. He talked about fighting AIDS in Africa but pulled the rug out from under Bill Frist and me last fall when he had the chance to make America the world's leader in fighting that pandemic.'

 

We can do better than this President is offering. It's time we had a better choice that seeks to make America safer and stronger in actions, not just words. It's time we had an economic plan that puts Americans back to work, creates fairness in the tax code, and puts money in the pockets of workers who pay their taxes through the payroll tax. It's time we had a health care plan that delivered choice, quality, affordability, and access for every American. It's time we had an energy plan that delivered real energy independence while making our air cleaner. It's time we had a progressive internationalism in our foreign policy, backed by undoubted military might, that commits America and its allies to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. "

 

 

Kerry speech on national security -- Georgetown University (Before the WAR)

 

Thursday, January 23, 2003

 

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration.

 

The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

 

What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.

 

Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our alliances. This isn't a task that we should or need to shoulder alone. If anything, our transatlantic partners have a greater interest than we do in an economic and political transformation in the greater Middle East. They are closer to the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports. Prime magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism. Meanwhile, NATO is searching for a new mission. What better way to revitalize the most successful and enduring alliance in history, then to reorient it around a common threat to the global system that we have built over more than a half-century of struggle and sacrifice? The Administration has tried to focus NATO on the Middle East, but it's high-handed treatment of our European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto climate change treaty, has strained relations nearly to the breaking point. We can do better. With creative leadership, the U.S. can enlist our allies in a sustained multilateral campaign to build bridges between the community of democracies and the greater Middle East - not just for them, but for us. Here, in my view, is what this strategy should look like.

 

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

 

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

 

S.CON.RES.84 : A concurrent resolution recognizing the sacrifices made by members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces, expressing concern about their safety and security, and urging the Secretary of Defense to take immediate steps to ensure that the reserve components are provided with the same equipment as regular components.

Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 11/21/2003)

Cosponsors (None)

Committees: Senate Armed Services

Latest Major Action: 11/21/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

 

S.1112 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to permit Department of Veterans Affairs pharmacies to dispense medications on prescriptions written by private practitioners to veterans who are currently awaiting their first appointment with the Department for medical care, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 5/22/2003)

Cosponsors (2)

Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs

Latest Major Action: 5/22/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Human   
Guest Human

"My question is if the Americans, Brits, and Spanish know that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and no positive ties to Al Queada on March 7 why did we go to war a week later."

 

 

This post is to LAW, re-read my post in how I answered it.

 

By the way If the buck stops at the White House, then can you tell the Democrats under clinton where they were on national security?

 

Remember Kerry thought ( that since he had access to that information) that Saddam had WMD's, and this is before ANY Republicans ever got into the White House.

 

When The democrats were still in CONTROLL. (hello)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Human   
Guest Human

Either way this election is going to be close. I am sad though, that the Democrats Hired 5,000 Lawyers for these elections ( of course the Republicans have to counter with 5,000 of their own Lawyers.)

 

To me " Florida on a NATIONAL Scale" is shamefull.

 

It's us voters who should be deciding this, NOT the lawyers.

Let's be Real Here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×