Kerry mentioned Graham in his interview with Ted Koppel

[TexasSissy]

On Friday night Nightline, 6/25. The only VP candidate name he mentioned was Graham. It was NOT in the context of naming a VP. He just mentioned something that Graham had said or thought. But I can't recall what. The transcript is not online yet.

So I thought, "Graham?" Hmmmm. That's interesting.

[Prodemsouth]

1. Interesting, but I don't know if that will happen. Voted against Iraq war,

Kerry, did not. But with the way things are going an anti Iraq war VP may be considered a plus.

[Demeter]

4. A Vote Against Iraq War Gets MY Vote! n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

5. There was no vote for or against the war; Graham wanted tougher language

Let's get this straight: there was NEVER a vote for or against the war. There was a vote for whether the President should be given discretion to use war should all other avenues be sincerely exhausted. All quibbling aside, this doesn't totally absolve those who voted for it, since to a great degree they knew that he might be capable of such a thing, and the buzz was well known that he wanted to. What these legislators were told behind closed doors will not be known for a very long time, but much of what swayed some of them was the repeated allegation that Hussein had or could soon have nuclear weapons and intended to use them.

Graham voted against the resolution because the wording wasn't strong enough. He's said so.

Very few politicians "got it right", and the only one who ran for president was Dennis Kucinich. I have fair confidence that Sharpton, had he been in office, would have voted against it, and I have wispy suspicions that there's an outside chance Mosely-Braun might have too. It's tough to say on Dean, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and any of you who've been around know I'm not a fan. Whether Clark would have or not is a very open question.

Graham's a good man, and he knows his stuff, but he does not come out lily-white on this, and the record shows it.

[RafterMan]

6. Graham supported the war?

That's news to me. Do you have a link supporting that assertion?

Here's mine:

"Foreign Affairs: He called President Bush�s State of the Union address a very well-structured and delivered speech, "but said he had still not made the case for going to war with Saddam Hussein�s regime in Iraq." He was among a small minority in voting against the joint resolution that would authorize President Bush to use the U.S. military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against Iraq and enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. He told his colleagues that "blood is going to be on your hands" if action is not taken to foil terrorist attacks in America should the United States invade Iraq.
Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, took issue with the president�s declaration that the United States is winning the war on terrorism, saying preparations for an attack on Baghdad have distracted from the greater threat posed by international terrorist networks - and not just al Qaeda."

http://selectsmart.com/president/Graham.html

That's been Graham's clear message since the beginning on this: attacking Iraq is an unwarrented distraction from the war on terror.

[emulatorloo]

2. Graham is great

Dean Graham and Kerry were the ones I was watching closest when this whole mess started. I was sorry to see him drop out.

[sam sarrha]

3. senator Graham is apparently retiring .. his book "Intelligence Matters"

will come out Sept 2nd, it is Full of Inside Information about all the people he referred to as those that shouldn't be in the government... I CANT WAIT!!!!!:bounce: