Kerry Responds to Secretary O'Neill's Iraq Charges

[sandnsea]

Des Moines, Iowa -- "These are very serious charges by a former high
ranking Administration official. We already knew the Administration
failed to focus on the threat from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. We
already knew the Administration broke every promise they made to work
through the U.N., use the resolution to enforce inspections, build a
coalition, and plan for peace. But Secretary O'Neill's revelations would mean the Administration never intended to even try to keep those
promises. It would mean they were dead-set on going to war alone since
almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American
people, Congress, and the world. It would mean that for purely
ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a
shooting gallery occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter their already damaged credibility as never before."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0110.html

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. I hope every Democratic candidate...

speaks out about this LOUD and OFTEN from here on in during the campaign.

If they let this die they are fools.

[isbister]

27. I hope every Democrat, not just candidates, speak out

not because they'd be fools but for the good of the country. Republicans must be made to understand the country comes before prty politics. The President must not be allowed to lie to the Congress and the American people. Democrat or republican.

[mike_c]

2. the L word is no longer politically irresponsible...

...this is the beginning of the end of George W. Bush*.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Coming from a man who was actually in another such shooting gallery

Awesome statement.

[pasadenaboy]

4. I hate to say it, but

we all knew this over a year ago, when W was quoted as saying "get the MF" in regards to Hussein.

If I can figure this out on the internet in Pasadena CA, where has John Kerry been the last year?

[Eric J in MN]

7. yes, I know what you mean (nt)

nt

[blm]

11. He questioned if Bush lied last July.

Were you listening?

He called for a special investigator into prewar intelligence then, too.

[HereSince1628]

14. True, its not much of a stretch when the PNAC documents were

signed by men who are now high level Bush administration officials.

But O'Neil claims that the FIRST NSC meeting brought up the issue of military options to get rid of Saddam. And since the documents O'Neil cites are from Cheney's Energy Task Force it sort of suggests a motive was making money for BIG OIL. We thought those things but O'Neil is providing something that can hold water.

Motive, opportunity, and evidence of the criminal lies.

[isbister]

28. Re: I hate to say it, but

O'Neil's talking about pre-9/11, did you know then too?

If you had paid attention you know where Kerry's been.

[Melinda]

5. I hope Senator Kerry screams this loud and often.

And props to him for responding with an immediate, direct, and forceful statement.

[Eric J in MN]

6. It was obvious to me and millions of others that Bush was

It was obvious to me and millions of others that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq no matter what Saddam did, long before the war began.

The administration responded to every event in the news as proof we needed war with Iraq. (North Korea developed nuclear weapons? That means we must go to war with Iraq).

Saddam let in UN Weapons Inspectors.

The Bush Admininstration didn't care.

Saddam tried to open negotiations to go into exile.

The Bush Administration wouldn't negotiate that.

There was a ridiculous unlitimatum from George W. right before the war that Saddam had to flee Iraq within 48 hours to avoid a war, but no guarantee not to arrest or kill Saddam afterwards if he did.

There was nothing Saddam could do to stop the war because George W. wanted the war regardless.

[Karmadillo]

8. Which candidate will be the first to use the "I" word?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17528

<edit>

John Dean speculated that not finding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could be a scandal of greater proportion than Watergate: "...if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be 'a high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony 'to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.'"

[Eric J in MN]

12. Bob Graham, as a candidate, already discussed the impeachment

Bob Graham, as a candidate, already discussed the impeachment issue when
a reporter brought up the topic.

Graham said that if the standard used is the one used against Clinton, then Bush should be impeached, too.

(Bob Graham is no longer a candidate for President or Senator).

[blm]

21. and the media marginalized him right away.

Terrible the way they control perception.

But, this may be too explosive to contain. Plus, the bCCi trial starts Jan.13 in England, and 9-11 and Iraq have direct links to BCCI.

[peacetalksforall]

9. Hey John, Dick, Jim, Hilary, Chuck, and all you other Senators and

Congresspeople - we knew it before you knew it and before you formed the word yes in your throat, on your tongue, and around your lips. So why did you vote yes when we knew the cabal had every intention of taking Iraq over no matter what. Why did we have the vision and you didn't - shouldn't we change places? What good does it do to know legislative procedures and manuevers, but not have vision? We say the signs everywhere, why couldn't you?

Hooray for Kucinich and Wellstone and the other handful.

[HereSince1628]

10. Whoo-Hah!

It would be just rhetoric but

"...they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, CONGRESS and the world."

So Kerry is saying it. Bush committed the felony of lying to Congress.

[sandnsea]

13. Lying to Congress

Will anybody understand this is the biggie, this is the crime. Or will bashing Democrats be more important. We'll see I guess.

[HereSince1628]

15. Yes, thanks to John (Watergate) Dean everyone knows.

Though a full page ad in the NY Times explaining this would be really useful.

--Are you listening Mr. Soros?

[Eric J in MN]

16. Doesn't a statement to Congress have to be made under oath for

Doesn't a statement to Congress have to be made under oath for lying to be a felony?

George W. wasn't under oath during his State of the Union speech.

[HereSince1628]

17. Not according to John Dean who is a lawyer...check above

[PsN2Wind]

18. I'm no lawyer

but it would seem to me that the oath of office would be sufficient to bind him to truthfullness while acting in any official capacity, as in the State of the Union speech.

[blm]

20. Yes...he is under oath of office.

.

[Clark4VotingRights]

19. Excellent! Everone needs to pound on this.

So far we've heard from Dean and Kerry I think?

Need to hear from all of them, early and often.

[oasis]

22. kick

[NV1962]

23. Good stuff

It's not enough that PNAC, its current WH members and its "Rebuilding America's Defenses" are documental evidence. Sadly, the way politics works, you need a clotheshanger - hopefully, Paul O'Neill is the man who can provide a "sticking" media case. Hopefully also, all the nine Dem contenders will keep pounding away at it. Only then will sufficient credibility critical mass accumulate for a broad detonation in people's minds.

I'm glad that Sen. Kerry has notched up the tone here. But it won't cause effect until its repeated and repeated and repeated again.

Edited to add:

I wonder who and when will the first accusation of sedition be put out there... Preparing to go to war, yes or yes, and "capitalizing" on 9-11 as a shameless pretext without justification, without going seriously after ObL, yet treading on the Bill of Rights is just that. A case of high crime and misdemeanour.

Or am I wrong?

[sleipnir]

24. When will Kerry respond to his own crimes of voting for IWR????

Enough is enough, Senator. Come clean and apologize for killing thousands of innocent people. I've had enough of his double-speak, if you vote for war, you get the blood on your hands. Kerry needs to answer the charges against him before he asks for any other answers. His vote borders on war criminal status in my book, perhaps a trial at the Hague isn't far off.

[NV1962]

25. R U Syrius?

Wow. Revoking parliamentary immunity is a tad radical, dontchathink?

Besides, Congress didn't send the troops into Iraq - they simply confirmed presidential authority to proceed.

Lawmakers answer to the electorate, not judges for their ideas.

In this case, the executive branch is a different can of leeches.

[isbister]

26. Re: When will Kerry respond to his own crimes of voting for IWR

Read it: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

Was the national security of the United States threatened? No. Did bush say that it was and give this as one of his written reasons in March 2003 for attacking Iraq? Yes. Did bush violate this? Yes.

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
Did bush violate this? Yes.

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Did bush violate this? Yes.

Is the resolution specific about when the president had the approved authority of Congress to use force in Iraq?

Did bush do as the Congress authorized or did bush lie to congress HERE in the required report to Congress?

There was only one candidate that voted for war. George W. Bush

[sandnsea]

29. It isn't a crime to authorize war

It's a crime for the President to activate troops based on a lie. It's a crime for members of the Administration to appear before Congress and lie. It's a crime for the President of the United States to appear before Congress in the SOTU and lie. The final authority is on the President to send in troops and always has been.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. When will you respond to your own crime of excessive hyperbole

and over-the-top rhetoric?

[quaker bill]

30. Good forJohn

While I was sure of this 2 years ago, and many Senators were sure of it at the time of the vote, better late than never.

[cthrumatrix]

31. good for Kerry for speaking out on this....they all should

[Octafish]

32. Go John Kerry! Bust the BFEE!

"These are very serious charges by a former high ranking Administration official."

Hey, JK! If the average DUer can do it, you know a Grand Jury could make a case for Treason.