Kerry Aide: Bush "flat-out lied" on Iraq

[MtnBiker]

Former senator Max Cleland made his remarks in a conference call to reporters with Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe as part of a party offensive ahead of this week's release of a major report sure to fuel criticism of Bush's war on terror.........




Cleland, a national co-chairman of Kerry's campaign, described the Bush administration's arguments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda terrorists, as a "pack of lies."

The former lawmaker from the southern state of Georgia defended the vote that he, Kerry and others cast in the Senate to authorize military intervention in Iraq, saying the Congress was "flat-out lied to." .........


Cleland said that Bush went to war "because he concluded that his daddy was a failed president and one of the ways he failed was that he did not take out Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)" in the 1991 Gulf war. "So he (Bush junior) is Mr. Macho Man." ...........



But McAuliffe did not back away from Cleland's allegation of outright lying. He said only that the platform committee "did an excellent job of representing where this party stands as it relates to issues on national security."

Link


Yet in 2002 John Kerry wrote an Op-Ed to the New York Times laying out a strategy to deal with Saddam and Iraq.

John Kerry, Bush's Advisor On Iraq
by David Freddoso
Posted Mar 16, 2004

......................

On September 6, 2002, Kerry laid out a very specific plan for dealing with Iraq in an op-ed in the New York Times. And looking back now at that op-ed, it almost appears that Bush took his advice, step by step, through the entire process.

It is not unfair to hold Kerry to what he said, especially considering his comments to Time Magazine this month: “I refuse ever to accept the notion that anything I've suggested with respect to Iraq was nuanced. It was clear. It was precise. It was, in fact, prescient. It was ahead of the curve about what the difficulties were. And that is precisely what a President is supposed to be. I think I was right, 100% correct, about how you should have done Iraq.”

So what did Kerry suggest? On September 6, 2002, he wrote: "For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case."

This the administration did, and it received the support of Kerry and most others in Congress.

"Then," Kerry continued, "in concert with our allies, [the administration] must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council."

Again, exactly what Bush did in November 2002 by bringing resolution 1441 to the Security Council, giving Iraq a full four months to disarm completely and give inspectors proof thereof. The resolution passed unanimously.

Kerry's advice continued: "We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating."

This ultimatum was given, and at first Saddam appeared to blink. UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and his team returned to Iraq. ............


Even Blix, no fan of the war, knew at that point that the inspection process had failed, in spite of Hussein's public destruction of a few missiles he supposedly never had to begin with. In the following weeks, Hussein even made new demands of the UN--in other words, "negotiation and compromise," anathema to the Kerry plan.

But Kerry had foreseen this possiblity as well: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

And wouldn't you know it, that's exactly how things unfolded. Before any vote had been taken, unilateralist John Kerry had already endorsed everything Bush ended up doing, from start to finish.

Nor can Kerry claim he was fooled by sexed-up intelligence from the Bush administration about WMD. He is on the record talking about Iraq's WMD threat in 1998, when he said, simply, "Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." As early as 1990, he stated in the Senate that "Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program."

One might believe that the Iraq War was a bad idea. Still, John Kerry is definitely in no position to criticize anyone for anything--he could practically be the author and architect of the Bush plan.

His constantly shifting position since then, though enigmatic to some, is easily explained in three words: transparent political opportunism.
David Freddoso is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS.

Link


So Kerry and the DNC Chairmain will let an aide call Bush an out right liar when Kerry himself laid out himself a very similiar plan to deal with Saddam?

 

[Annie]

MtnBiker, Excellent!

 

[Merlin1047]

Well it is obvious that you conservatives lack the mental sophistication to understand the subtle nuances of kerry's thought processes.

It should be obvious, even to the most simian conservative that kerry fully supported whatever nonspecific actions were appropriate at the time, nothwithstanding the fact that changing circumstance may alter the requirments and cause implementation of policies contrary to those originally envisioned, then the additional factor of unexpected ancillary issues must be considered whenever the original premise is affected by non-linear events such as tornadoes or months ending in "Y", however these factors can be discounted if the opinion of the electorate does not support the implementation of the nonspecifice actions previously detailed, unless those opinions fail to dovetail with the current perceived needs of the Democratic National Committee, which reserves the right to alter the previous decision should such implementation prove inconvenient, however, due consideration must be given to sensitivities of other nations in the UN whose interests may not coincide directly with ours, unless, of course poll research shows that such a decision would be unpopular with the mainstream media or Michael Moore.

There. I have tried to put Sen. kerry's thought process in the simplest of terms. Even troglodyte conservatives should be able to understand and appreciate his brilliance. I sincerely hope that this will put and end to the juvenile kerry bashing and baseless accusations of flip-flopping which are posted by some on this site.

 

[Annie]

Merlin, thank you for making that perfectly clear to me. I can now analyze things so much better following the Kerry model. :teeth:

 

[Merlin1047]

Merlin, thank you for making that perfectly clear to me. I can now analyze things so much better following the Kerry model. :teeth:

That's all well and good for you. But now I'M confused.
:scratch:

 

[Annie]

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=877

Excerpts:

Clinton’s Former Aide Drops Windfall in the Lap of Bush Campaign
DEBKAfile Special Report from Washington
July 20, 2004, 2:35 PM (GMT+02:00)

...This event took place, according to the Associated Press, during preparations to testify at the Sept. 11 commission hearings after Clinton asked him to review and select the administration documents to be turned over to the panel.

This year, Berger has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Even after Berger voluntarily returned documents, two or three drafts are still missing of a sensitive, after-action report criticizing the Clinton administration’s handling of al Qaeda millennium threats and identifying American vulnerabilities at airports and sea ports.

The former national security adviser was also found in possession of a small number of classified papers containing his handwritten notes from the Middle East peace talks during the 1990s....

...The FBI searches occurred after National Archives employees reported they saw Berger place documents in his jacket and pants and then noticed some documents missing. Three still are. Berger admitted to “sloppiness” and “inadvertently” taking copies of classified documents. They were all immediately returned, he said, except for a few that he had “apparently accidentally discarded.”...

...The Berger affair is pennies from heaven for the Bush presidential campaign with important bearing on the inquiries into intelligence performance prior to the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War. It is also of deep significance for Israel.

For months, President George W. Bush and vice president Dick Cheney have been under unremitting attack in official probes, films and books for bad decisions and “flawed intelligence” in the war on terrorism and for misrepresenting the grounds for going to war in Iraq. In the privacy of the Bush White House, presidential aides grumble that the Clinton administration’s failure to properly handle rising threats from Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the 1990s left these ticking bombs in Bush’s lap. Clinton was said to have ignored the many warnings reaching him, including a specific threat against New York’s World Trade Center. However, Bush has always forbidden his campaign staff to point the finger at his predecessor in the White House for the ills of today, just as Clinton refrains from criticizing the incumbent.

The actions of his former aide have changed these rules...

MORE

 

[freeandfun1]

from what I have read/heard, I am CONVINCED that Berger was trying to cover for his old boss. There is no other reason for him to take documents out of a secure area and then to lose them.

I have one major issue with this though. If he was seen putting the documents into his pants, etc., why didn't anybody stop him? To me, this fact points to a major weakness in our system if an official can illegally remove documents from a secure facility, be seen doing it and nothing is done. This once again proves that the Clinton administration set a standard that is dangerous. If you are part of the Clinton admin, you are not subject to the same laws of everybody else. Kinda like lieing to a grand jury. No consequences for your actions.

 

[dilloduck]

" It was just a sloppy mistake "----just the kind a former national security advisor would make while going over classified documents in a classified area. Unfortunately this will again be spun as the right trying to trash the left over some " little itty bitty thing ".

The right is screwed unless we get more point men out there to kick ass and some right wing media to cover it. Can't they get this though thier heads or is it that they simply can't do it?

 

[freeandfun1]

Clinton was said to have ignored the many warnings reaching him, including a specific threat against New York’s World Trade Center. However, Bush has always forbidden his campaign staff to point the finger at his predecessor in the White House for the ills of today, just as Clinton refrains from criticizing the incumbent.

Two points on this paragraph.

1) Us Republicans have to stop being so nice and start calling a pig a pig instead of putting a nice face on it and calling it a sow. As they say, a rose by any other name is still a rose. In this case, I lying pig is still a lying pig whether he was the president at one time or not.

2) Clinton does not criticize Bush (much) because he probably knows how much Bush could expose of what Clinton knew and how Clinton and co. did nothing. So of course he is not going to criticize. By draw unwanted attention to yourself?

 

[HGROKIT]

2) Clinton does not criticize Bush (much) because he probably knows how much Bush could expose of what Clinton knew and how Clinton and co. did nothing. So of course he is not going to criticize. By draw unwanted attention to yourself?

Yes, but he can have his surrogates do it in an effort to derail bush, hence this guy and Berger.

 

[Annie]

Two points on this paragraph.

1) Us Republicans have to stop being so nice and start calling a pig a pig instead of putting a nice face on it and calling it a sow. As they say, a rose by any other name is still a rose. In this case, I lying pig is still a lying pig whether he was the president at one time or not.

2) Clinton does not criticize Bush (much) because he probably knows how much Bush could expose of what Clinton knew and how Clinton and co. did nothing. So of course he is not going to criticize. By draw unwanted attention to yourself?

I hear where you are coming from and have felt the same. What I think the thoughts are is that by doing (1), the second follows. At the same time, both parties know that eventually all does come out, one way or the other. For this administration it took an awful long time, but probably because of all the 'crisis' since 9/11. Now the public, consciously or unconsciously, are going to be effected by all the attempts to portray issues of danger as 'lies' into now known 'facts.' If the administration is going to be hit at all negatively, it's on the way they backed off from some of these issues while under unfair attack.

 

[freeandfun1]

I hear where you are coming from and have felt the same. What I think the thoughts are is that by doing (1), the second follows. At the same time, both parties know that eventually all does come out, one way or the other. For this administration it took an awful long time, but probably because of all the 'crisis' since 9/11. Now the public, consciously or unconsciously, are going to be effected by all the attempts to portray issues of danger as 'lies' into now known 'facts.' If the administration is going to be hit at all negatively, it's on the way they backed off from some of these issues while under unfair attack.

Even though I sometimes wish we would get as nasty as the democratic party, I am in many ways happy that we don't. It keeps us above the partisanship and shows that we DO have higher standards of conduct.

You are right. It all works out in the wash so eventually, the Clinton admin will be exposed for what it was. A corrupt, nasty and unresponsive administration that only cared about creating a legacy for Clinton. I am glad they failed but at the same time, we have paid for it ala 9-11 so maybe I shouldn't be so happy they failed.

 

[Annie]

Even though I sometimes wish we would get as nasty as the democratic party, I am in many ways happy that we don't. It keeps us above the partisanship and shows that we DO have higher standards of conduct.

You are right. It all works out in the wash so eventually, the Clinton admin will be exposed for what it was. A corrupt, nasty and unresponsive administration that only cared about creating a legacy for Clinton. I am glad they failed but at the same time, we have paid for it ala 9-11 so maybe I shouldn't be so happy they failed.

I have to agree with that last sentence. For the very same reason, it's wrong for the left to be hoping that 'Bush's war ends in catastrophe.'

On the other hand, this new wave of Clinton scandals does put a finishing irony on the timing of his memoirs.

 

[freeandfun1]

"It was just a sloppy mistake"

He probably only views being caught as the "sloppy" part.