BG about Bush's speech, Kerry and Kennedy's answer and ...

[Mass]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/12/president_steps_up_attack_on_war_critics/

WASHINGTON -- In perhaps his most aggressive speech since winning reelection, President Bush yesterday attacked Democrats for suggesting that he misled the nation on intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, saying that such criticism sends the ''wrong signal" to American forces, emboldens the nation's enemies, and tries to ''rewrite the history of how that war began."


...

n response, Kerry accused the president of dishonoring veterans ''by playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day." He said he voted for the war based on contentions by an administration that turned out to have engaged in ''cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition."

''Instead of trying to salvage his slumping political fortunes, the commander-in-chief should honor our men and women in uniform with a clear strategy for success in Iraq," Kerry said in a written statement. ''But this administration abandoned that path long ago, and our troops have paid the price for it."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a leading critic of the war, yesterday said Bush's speech reverted ''to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought."

The article explains why it is not fair to say that the Senate had the same intelligence as the WH and also notes that Hagel, in a NE newspaper, also asks questions about the intelligence.

But Democrats noted that lawmakers do not get to see intelligence reports until after they've passed through the White House first. And Democrats have contended for more than a year that an investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did not look at the pressure imposed on intelligence analysts in the run-up to war.

[karynnj]

1. An amazing fair article

Thanks for posting this.

[whometense]

2. Did I miss a step somewhere??

Why is everyone after all this time suddenly writing/talking about this fact?? It's been one of the most egregiously misused talking points for ages now ("Kerry saw the same intelligence") - and definitely all through the campaign. Why is it suddenly something people are talking about?

I don't get it. NO ONE disputed this all last year - it was one of my main beefs against the democrats supposedly arguing on Kerry's behalf on all the talking head shows last year. NOW it's untrue??

Sorry - I am plumbing the absolute depths of cynicism right now. I know I'd rather see democrats in charge than the criminals that are there now, but I see so many democrats simply playing chess with their political positions that they make me sick. I have a long shitlist right now - and it's not just populated with Bushies.

[Mass]

3. Could it be because Democrats agree between them on that

since last week?

When Kerry started to say that Bush had lied to go to war, other democrats said he was wrong (including Rockefeller). (thanks GV).
And for those who still think Kerry did not say Bush lied, it was June 03.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030623-122726-4425r.htm

Senators reject Kerry's claim Bush misled U.S.


By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Senate leaders from both parties heading an inquiry of intelligence information on Iraq yesterday repudiated Sen. John Kerry's accusation that the Bush administration misled the country into war, and accused him of political posturing.

A few months ago, democrats in the Senate did not want to talk about that either. Remember the DSM letter.

Now that the Democrats are unified to say the same thing, it is more difficult for the news to ignore that.

[whometense]

4. What unified them?

Sorry if I'm being dense. And I seriously do think I must have missed something. My reaction (described above) has kept me from following the news as closely as I usually do.

Is it the Libby indictment? You're right about the DSM letter as well. I'm usually furious and disgusted by everyone talking about how spineless the dems are, and lumping them all in together. Also the way people glorify someone one day and rip the same person to shreds two days later when they veer away from orthodoxy. Well, I don't see them as particularly spineless, but I do see too much 2008 calculating and maneuvering going on, and not enough rallying together to bring home the senate and house in 2006.

[Mass]

5. I am not sure what unified them

What is clear is that we have seen these last two weeks many democrats in the Senate endorsing stronger views that more liberal democrats had been claiming for months now.

I know that Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin, Kerry, and others wanted to use more offense against Bush, but other Democrats were opposing that. Some reporters are saying that Bush's bad numbers have emboldened more Democrats, but I do not want to trust that at all.

Unfortunately, except that and the risk to be passed by moderate Republicans, I dont have any clue of what it is about. What is clear is that, on Nov 1, Rockefeller and other decided that it was time to stop sitting back and attack.

[whometense]

6. That's really interesting.

I am kind of bewildered by what is going on. Just discovered the discussion in this other thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x51177) where other people are feeling the same way I am.

As I just said over there, it seems to me that the more pathetic and inept and loserish the republicans get, the dems are stepping up their opposition, but they are also maneuvering like mad for 2008. I wish they could just be the tiniest bit more "all for one' though I know it's probably asking too much. Biden is really bothering me A LOT in this regard - I really see him more and more as a rattlesnake. The senators who do not appear to be interested in a run for the presidency in 2008 (including the ones you just mentioned) are showing themselves to be much better party leaders than the potential presidential candidates - excepting Kerry, of course.

[karynnj]

8. Speaking of Biden

he was so out classed by Kerry when he was proposing his secondary amendment to Kerry's bill. Even ignoring (though hard to do) the differences in appearance, Kerry's presentation of his bill was 100s of times better than Biden's.

Snarky comment over, Kerry and Biden seemed to work together very nicely on this. If it stays in I guess they get to question Rice on where the camps are in compliance with international treaties. That could be good. (Is it possible that Kerry and Biden planned ahead all those steps to end up with a Kerry amendment with Biden and Roberts/Rockefeller secondary agreements. Biden was a co-sponsor of Kerry's to begin.)

[karynnj]

7. That article is a real find

Rockefeller is a snake - He had more information and had to know it was manipulated.

The interesting thing is that Kerry and Dean were on the same page in June, 2003 and their statements could be said tomorrow and not seem out of place.

[wisteria]

10. They were concerned about backlash from home and in

Washington. The time wasn't quite right.To hell with backing Kerry and supporting the truth. Thats why I admire Kerry, he said this all months ago, before it was the "safe" thing to do.
I want to know why we haven't heard or seen Hillary Clinton. Any guesses when we'll hear from her?

[jillan]

9. What kinda gets to me, is now that bsh's #s are low enough

everyone (including the repugs - even Santorum) feels safe to speak out.

It is ridiculous that the things we are talking about now were not discussed before the election. Grrrrrr.