Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chiburb]

1. Holy Shit!

My boss just ran into my office to tell me this news. Holy Shit!

[Coventina]

2. Argh! You got my hopes up

That something "real" might be happening.

[Kolesar]

8. What a teaser! Intentional or not.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sophree]

3. WOO HOO!

Tell me I'm not hallucinating!

:bounce:

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

64. Graham is spineless-he didn't even vote yesterday

You ARE hallucinating!!
this impeachment statement is not genunine.
Where was he yesterday when every Dem voted?
This Graham dude is no hero--

he didn't vote yesterday re- the Iraq investigation--
The senate voted yesterday--at least all but three of them-

-it was to call for investigation into distortion of evidence re: Iraq and
Bushco misleading the American people with lies---

Graham didn't vote
Kerry didn't vote
Leiberman didn't vote
???????????????????????????????????/
IDIOTS !!!!
*******"An independent investigation of the prewar intelligence
was defeated Wednesday in the Senate on a 51-45 vote" !!!! *****
*******51 to 45*******
51 Republikkkans vs. 45 Democrats
Where was Graham??
Where were the 3 chicken Dem candidates??
That could have been 48 to 51--
all they would need is to bring over 2 repukkk's

For the RECORD if nothing else...it would have made better headlines so the American sheeple could recognize the validity of this treason!!

FOOLS they are!!!

[berry]

70. It could be they knew in advance that the Dems were unable to

bring over any Repukes... I dunno. (Not to totally excuse them, but I think everyone knew the Repukes would present a united front--at least this time. This issue isn't going away, and it may well be that events will make a few crossover votes possible in the not too distant future.)

Any reason you failed to mention Zell Miller's no show? (I think he decided not to vote rather than be the 1 out of 100 who wasn't party-loyal.)

[Dookus]

4. then..

he just jumped to the top of my list.

Graham in '04!

[chiburb]

5. This is scrawled: "BREAKING NEWS" nt

.

[Code_Name_D]

60. Didn't he say this two days ago?

???( 0.0)???

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

6. what does he know?

was he there yesterday for Tenet's presentation? did he say this jokingly or in all seriousness?

[chiburb]

7. He used to Chair the Intel Committee...

This is probably ALL old news to him!

[Tinoire]

25. Said in all seriousness and here is some of what he knows

in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18394&mesg_id=18394&page=#19718


Meanwhile the rabbit hole just gets deeper and deeper...
*****

GWEN IFILL: Senator Graham, are there elements in this report, which are classified that Americans should know about but can't?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec02/intelligence_12-11.html

[King_Crimson]

47. This is simply outstanding...

I had mentioned earlier today in GD that this would be a perfect time for both Graham and Byrd to launch a two-pronged attack against Numbnuts since they seem to be the ones that speak the loudest. Now...it's YOUR turn Senator Byrd!

[FlaGranny]

59. Bob Graham does NOT joke about

stuff like this. He is deadly serious.

[goobergunch]

9. NICE!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[phillybri]

10. Wow!!!

That guy has serious BALLS!!!!!

Bravo, Senator Graham....

[karlschneider]

11. YIKES! He said "if the grounds used to impeach Clinton are the "new

standard" for impeachment, what Bush has done qualifies..." (my best recollection, not verbatim but very close.
:eyes:
:D

[Submariner]

12. I don't know how you people can watch MSNBC

when 2 channels away Maia the siamese is giving birth to little baby kittie witties on the Animal Planet:)

[diplomats]

29. I've seen that episode

Maia's a sweetie pie!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Presidential race or not, he is a pretty high profile Dem to float that

term even in that context. Good for Graham....he is centrist enough that he can't be MC KINNEYIZED!

[MaineDem]

14. Whoa Baby!!!

Chimpy and family won't like this.

:kick:

[demgrrrll]

21. Now they are getting it! Regardless of the outcome they swept the

Blair story to the side and tainted the moment for Bush and Blair. Yippie Yi O Ki Ay you know the rest.

[chiburb]

24. Wonderful point!

Rove is a master of 'look over there' while the pukes are doing something evil over 'here'. You're right, if this gets the play it deserves, Blair and Master won't get theirs.

[Karenina]

65. I'm a cowboy who never roped a cow

Never roped a steer and I don't know how
and I sure ain't fixin' to start in now
Yippie Yi O Ki Ay
Yippie Yi O Ki Ay

[Submariner]

16. The "I" word spoken by a U.S. Senator in public

It doesn't get much better than that.....on 2nd thought, it will get better when AWOL-boy is gone.

[Snellius]

17. Is Graham the man?

Someone said that Graham has never lost an election?

[lkinsale]

26. Never lost an election, right

*2-time governor of Florida (term limit), 3 time senator, carries Republican districts.

*Executive experience in successfully running a state of 12+ million with extremely complex cultural and economic make-up, appointed first minorities and women to FL Supreme Court (remember how the FSSC tried to uphold the recount and was overturned?)

*top notch national security experience (Chaired Senate Intelligence Committee, has pushed hard for de-classification of 9/11 report)

* Voted against the war on the basis that it was a dangerous distraction from our real threats

* Ready to release an economic plan on Thursday that will get us out of this deficit, put $ in the hands of middle class through payroll tax deductions and raise taxes on the wealthiest.

* Popular and appealing to rural southern former Dem voters

WELL worth taking seriously as the man who can beat Bush.

Click to subscribe to Graham04 on Yahoo Groups

[Exultant Democracy]

18. the repugs may have to come aboard.

If our boyz keep their new, we have a backbone thing going the repugs may be forced my national opinioin to call for his impeachment too. I think events are unfolding faster thenthe GOP had expected.

[FubarFly]

28. It's early yet, but this is promising.

The dems are trying a blitzkreig strategy. Hit the shrub swiftly and on multiple fronts. The yellowcake lies, the lack of post-war planning, the record deficit, and looming, the stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation, will all hold sway with the voters. This seems like an appropriate way to defeat the "talking points" strategy. What the repugs gain in uniformity of message, they lose in nimbleness and reaction time. The key thing is that this is getting coverage in the mainstream media. Graham dropped the "I" bomb today, and I think the repugs will be to busy putting out other brushfires to respond. Hopefully, the idea of impeachment will start to resonate with voters. At the very least, it will place doubt in the heads of the public.

[diplomats]

34. I think you're right

They're hitting the WH on everything from the economy to Niger to the worsening mess in Iraq. Also, with Graham doing this now, won't that guarantee someone will ask Bush about this at his press conference. Hahahahaha!!

[jackstraw45]

19. Don't be shocked...

Remember the terms used for Clinton's impeachment - lying about a blow job to avoid embarassment.

Bush SHOULD be impeached. He has damaged our standing in the world, ruined the lives of hundreds of military families, put us in dire financial straits - all for what?

A war that didn't have to happen.

A case for war built on deception and lies.

Go Senator Graham.

[Nambe]

20. Graham said this early in his campaign.

There's no doubt Graham has propelled weaponsgate by sharing his committee knowlege with Dem insiders. IMO, he's inexperienced for the presidency (got that from Bill) but he's very good for this attack on the bfee. Go Graham.

[lkinsale]

Huh?

In what way is he inexperienced? He's got more executive/legislative experience than any of the others that I know of. Governor and senator, what more experience could he have besides VP?

[lkinsale]

37. Huh?

In what way is he inexperienced? He's got more executive/legislative experience than any of the others that I know of. Governor and senator, what more experience could he have besides VP?

[lkinsale]

38. Sorry, lag triple (I didn't double click I swear!)

In what way is he inexperienced? He's got more executive/legislative experience than any of the others that I know of. Governor and senator, what more experience could he have besides VP?

[leftyandproud]

22. TAX THE RICH...IMPEACH BUSH!!

Bob is just rockin lately!

[JCMach1]

23. Graham is NOT a loose cannon

Yesterday's closed door meetings must have been very telling.

all I can say is

HOLY SHIT!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

27. Finally. I thought Kerry would be as brave as he was as a young veteran...

...but Kerry has been playing it safe. I kinda hoped old grey Bob Graham would carry the flag and dish the dirt. He has the 'centrist credibility' credentials for cross-over voters: Former southern governor, of Florida no less, Senate Intelligence Committee experience, looks like he could be a grey-suited economist. Kerry was so courageous during Vietnam when he represented Vietnam Vets Against the War at senate hearings. I've been waiting for him to come back and be brave again, guess that was then and this is now. Keep it up, Mr. Graham.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

79. Graham is running interference for Kerry

Graham is taking the lead, and Kerry IS playing it safe. There will be little value in going out on a limb for anyone right now, but you've got to know that Graham holds all the cards, given his intel knowledge.
I think, overall, we've got a potent Democratic team that is going for the jugular. ALL the Dems will benefit from this.

[0007]

30. Would that put Cheney as the Prez?

That is one scary thought -

[zekeson]

36. Nah, it would need to be a double dance card

impeachment. Take 'em both down, and then, for good measure, take out Frist just 'cuz he is creepy.

[RaRa]

39. Isn't he already?

[0007]

31. Would that put Cheney as the Prez?

That is one scary thought -

[fisu]

48. who would be the president ...

... if Cheney couldn't handle precidency for some reason and * was kicked out of office ? I know it's not a likely situation but we got to keep up the hope :)

[snippy]

62. Speaker of the House is next in line, then president pro tem of the Senate

[davidinalameda]

32. wow!

and who said that he's only running for Vice-President

GO BOB GO!!!!

[seafan]

33. Senator Graham is fighting like HELL for all of us!

And there'll be no stopping him. THIS is the Bob Graham that millions of regular people in Florida love dearly, and have for decades.

Hey, we'll be honored to share him! :toast:

[BeFree]

42. Bob Graham

The first time I ever took notice of Bob was when, as a Fla. State Senator, (early seventies?) Bob faught to remove vehicle inspections from the back of the working man and woman. He won. Ever since then he has been the most trusted politician I have ever known, besides a lady I know named Jan Platt.

Bob will fight for the common people. Even more than Al Gore woulda done, imo.

[ronnykmarshall]

35. Go BOB!!

Being one of the "Undecided's", Senator Bob Graham just scored some major points with me.

[Emillereid]

40. My only problem with Graham

is that he appears to be to the right of Bush with regards to Syria and Iran vis a vis Israel -- am I wrong about this? Otherwise he has certainly been moving up my preference roster too.

[demgrrrll]

41. What does that have to do with this marvelous moment! n/t.

.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

68. he's actually a spineless hawk

that's what it has to do with it--

[lkinsale]

43. Not sure about Israel, he seems focused on al Queda terrorists more

Regarding Israel, I don't know. I haven't heard him mention it specifically. He is "hawkish," if you like, on pursuing the support of terrorists by Syria and other unnamed (classified) governments.

Here's some snips from his address regarding the 9/11 inquiry:

Mr. Chairman, because of classification, I cannot discuss in this public hearing the specifics of the Joint Inquiry's findings in this area, even to identify any individual foreign governments.

However, there have been several developments since September 11th-and even since the completion of the Joint Inquiry's report-that give me cause for grave concern.

Clearly, al Qaeda is reconstituting itself, as we have seen by the bombings in places like Yemen, Indonesia and most recently, Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, it is disturbingly apparent that some governments are supporting-or, at the very least, providing sanctuary for-terrorist networks.

As one example, I would like to submit for the record three recent news articles that raise questions about the government of Saudi Arabia's apparent tolerance of individuals and groups with terrorist ties.

First is a report from the Washington Post of Monday, May 19, that munitions from the Saudi National Guard may have been used by suspected al Qaeda operatives in last week's bombings that killed nearly three dozen innocent people in Riyadh, including nine Americans.

Second is a May 10 story from the Los Angeles Times, which reports that a Saudi consular official was denied re-entry to the United States because of his suspected links to terrorists. He had been employed at the Saudi consulate in California from 1996 until earlier this year.

The third is an article from the May 5 issue of Newsweek, which says that a top-ranking Saudi diplomat in Berlin is suspected of providing embassy funds to followers of Osama bin Laden.

I want to emphasize again that these articles deal with events subsequent to the filing of the Joint Inquiry's final report.

But I believe they raise issues that are especially appropriate for this commission's review.

This commission should vigorously pursue the links between foreign governments and the 9-11 hijackers. I am troubled by the lack of attention that the current administration has given to this critical aspect of the 9-11 investigation. Ignoring facts simply because they make some people uncomfortable will prevent Americans from learning the full truth about 9-11 and thereby deterring future terrorist attacks.

Only a full and honest accounting will help us provide a safer and more security world for our children and grandchildren.

Prepared Testimony for the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks[br />Upon the United States,
Senator Bob Graham, D-Florida]
May 22, 2003

[ewagner]

46. I think I know

Graham was one of the first to ask why Hamas wasn't on the list of terrorist organizations and why the Islamic Jihad and Hamas training camps in the Baaka valley weren't being targeted in the war on terror.

I think he took war on terror seriously enough to ask why things were so selective. I also like the fact that when he voted against going into Iraq, he was consistent in saying that it would take our focus off of terrorism, implying thatIraq and terrorism were two different things.

I like this guy.

[Yentatelaventa]

78. Syria and Iran are now saints and Israel is evil?

Who knew?

[leesa]

81. If the shoe fits

Israel's government seems to be fully composed of murderous thugs

[spotbird]

44. When is the 9/11 report due out?

Graham may just want to be the first in the pack.

[spotbird]

When is the 9/11 report due out?

Graham may just want to be the first in the pack.

[spotbird]

45. When is the 9/11 report due out?

Graham may just want to be the first in the pack.

[chiburb]

49. I'm wondering if this is old news...

From a google search, I found this from Monday:
If Democrats were in control of the House, Graham was asked if he would support impeachment.

"If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton - a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?" Graham asked.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6302837.htm

[chiburb]

50. Here is another reference...

How did we miss these earlier in the week? Why is MSNBSleaze running this a breaking news?

"Earlier this week, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said Mr. Bush might deserve impeachment if he knowingly deceived the public.

Mr. Graves said that sort of criticism had more to do with politics than with legitimate concerns about intelligence.

“They’re looking for anything they can to taint this president, and quite frankly I think it’s deplorable,” Mr. Graves said. “They’re running for president, they’re trying to find an issue to distance themselves, so they’re attacking the president on this.”

Mr. Graves said he still trusted the president and also said he had faith in the process by which Congress assesses the accuracy of American intelligence.

“I trust the minority and majority members on the intelligence committee,” Mr. Graves said. “They’ve seen more information than myself or the public.”

:
http://www.stjoenews-press.com/Main.asp?SectionID=81&SubSectionID=272&ArticleID=42971

[PROGRESSIVE1]

51. Go Bob Go...

right to the White House!!! The Democrats should not take this sitting down. Challenge Bushco on national security. We will do much better than the current pResident. Remember fellow DUer's, it is the Democratic Party that took on the tyrants on the 20th Century, not the Repugs. They were too busy being the Bitch for Wall Street and thought that the world community was worth crap; Oh by the way, they still do!

Democrats are the party for everyone! We are the party of progress! We are the party of the international community! We are the party of justice! We value our relationships and history with the world community!

I want an ELECTED President next year, not a SELECTED one!!!


:dem:

[Aaron]

52. Wow! There's some serious Dem' backbone - Go Graham! (n/t)

[Aaron]

53. Wow! There's some serious Dem' backbone - Go Graham! (n/t)

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

67. chicken --Graham is a chicken--the vote--LOOK

LOOK--what happened yesterday people!!--wake up!!
Graham is spineless!!!

[seafan]

54. Here are 2 links to Graham's statements at the NAACP in Miami.

I posted this on the thread that was locked and moved... the link to where the mod moved that thread doesn't seem to work, so I'll repost:



Here are 2 links to Graham's statements at the NAACP convention in Miami this past Monday.

-----
''If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton, that a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?'' Graham said.
------

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/6304653.htm



and



-----
Graham, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war among the candidates, said before the forum began that Bush would be impeached if the same standard were applied to his remarks about Iraq's alleged nuclear program as to then-President Bill Clinton after his affair with White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. But Graham acknowledged that impeachment proceedings against Bush are "a fantasy" as long as Republicans control Congress.
-----

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56161-2003Jul14?language=printer

[dArKeR]

80. I don't like Graham saying it's a 'fantasy'. It's not the attitude for our

Leader. Coach would never let us out of the locker room unless we believed we were going to win. Mom taught us to think positively too. Why does Graham shut the door on this and crush the hopes of all moral people of the world?

'He is not the one. There is another.'

[goforit]

55. Has anybody been banging on Tom DeLay's door lately???

It is time to return him the favor from the 2000 election.

Bang on his damn door Texas and if the A**hole doesn't
amswer knock it down!!!

It is up to you Texas!!!

[MostlyBlackCat2]

56. Not re-electing someone is NOT impeachment

and water-it-all-down Graham knows it.

[goforit]

57. What can we do about the rigging at the polls??????

Bob Grahm,
What can we do to prevent this!!!

[Walt Starr]

58. I am firmly behind Bob Graham as of today

Dean just didn't pick up on things. I wanted to hear these words.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

66. think again

yer boy Graham chickened out BIGTIME yesterday!!!
The senate voted yesterday on establishing an investigation about the Bushco lies told to the American people re: Iraq and WMD
---Bush Deliberately lied in his SOTU ---you know the deal

The vote was 45 Dem vs 51 repukk.
Graham didn't vote
Kerry didn't vote
Leiberman didn't vote

he's SPINLESS !!!!
this impeachment thing is not genuine or he would have voted.
Don't believe it.
Let the record show--
he didn't vote

[Walt Starr]

71. Bob had me and then he lost me

He recanted his statement.

Back to leaning towards Dean....

[lkinsale]

72. He did not "recant' his statement

He said what he said, twice. Once at the NAACP and again on MSNBC.

Democratic candidates take stage at NAACP Convention July 15, 2003

...Graham intensified his criticisms, telling reporters before the candidates' forum that Bush's deceptions would land him in more trouble if the Democrats controlled Congress.

''If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton, that a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?'' Graham said.

He said the same thing on MSNBC, and they ran the headline that he was calling for impeachment.

He did not recant or change what he said. He repeated it twice. If you and MSNBC over-interpreted it, that's your issue. But don't claim he "recanted" what he said.

[Walt Starr]

73. How about "clarified"

Since MSNBC did take the statement out of context.

I was sold on Graham when I got the statement out of context. Graham lost me when he clarified.

[lkinsale]

75. He just said MSNBC was wrong

He seems to have the fairly realistic attitude that there's a snowball's chance of impeaching Bush in a Republican controlled congress, but he's not mincing words on why. Not because Bush doesn't deserve it, but because it can't happen when Pugs control the House.

*shrug*

[Walt Starr]

76. Hmmm, my impression is that he IS mincing words

Since this is all "academic" it doesn't amount to a hill of beans anyway.

Of course, Graham does have about as much of a chance of winning the nomination as Bush does of being impeached.

:shrug:

Back to leaning towards Dean (soft support at this time only).

[seafan]

61. Graham sets MSNBC straight on their report.

Here's his statement regarding what MSNBC reported earlier this afternoon, the subject of this GREAT THREAD, by the way!

-----
July 17, 2003

Statement from Senator Bob Graham

A cable news network reported today that I called for President Bush's impeachment. That report is wrong. I answered a question on this subject at NAACP conference earlier this week and I answered another question on this subject today. Impeachment is not a subject I have ever raised on my own. The whole discussion of impeachment is an academic one, and the voters will settle the question of President Bush's conduct in the election next November.
------

http://www.grahamforpresident.com

[chiburb]

63. Good enough!

The thread IS justified in LBN due to MSNBSleaze's screw-up, and Graham gets MAJOR props for what he said. The "I" word is out there now, and can't be put back in the bottle.

[demgrrrll]

74. I agree. Intended or not the timing was perfect. In this game it

is best not to let your opponent get any traction and he did take a little fire away from what could have been an OK moment for smirk and the poodle.
Good on him.

[tomp]

77. academic? nt

[David Zephyr]

69. Bob Graham & Dennis Kucinich Voted Against The War

I am supporting Howard Dean, but even though he opposed the war publicly to his great credit, Graham and Kucinich are the only two Democratic Candidates for President that actually VOTED against the Iraq War Resolution. John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman voted for the War Resolution.

He carries a lot of weight within the Senate.

Senator Graham deserves our respect here at the DU. He has earned it.