Kerry/Edwards 2004!!!

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can you please put those quotes in context with links/dates? Thanks.

Link - 9-12-02
Link - 10-10-02

Edit: PS He was a co-sponsor of the "use of force" bill too. Warmonger!

Good, in that case, I don't want to hear any "weak on nat'l security" comments from you (or the peanut gallery)!

What about "all of a sudden weak on nat'l security"

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Why does the Senate Intelligence Committee have to fight with people who answer to Bush to get what they ask for? They should ask, and it should be "yes, right away".

Because it's their JOB

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Oh? Congress receives unvetted intelligence reports?

Interesting....

Edwards
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,"


So are you saying that Edwards as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not doing his job in overseeing the intelligence agencies?

Again, does Congress receive unvetted intelligence reports?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Oh? Congress receives unvetted intelligence reports?

Interesting....

Edwards
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,"


So are you saying that Edwards as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not doing his job in overseeing the intelligence agencies?

Again, does Congress receive unvetted intelligence reports?

Clairfy.

unvetted

 

[alchemize]

Hee hee here comes Conjur to the defense! Senators on the intelligence comittee that have top secret clearance and deal directly with the CIA...must have been Bush! Yah, I'm sure that everything Congress saw Rummy was doing a Word find/replace for "possibly" -> "definitively". Word find/replace "may have" --> "has"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Oh? Congress receives unvetted intelligence reports?

Interesting....

Edwards
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,"


So are you saying that Edwards as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not doing his job in overseeing the intelligence agencies?

Again, does Congress receive unvetted intelligence reports?

Clairfy.

unvetted

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! You spout off rhetoric about the Senate Intelligence Committee yet know nothing of the term "unvetted"?

LMAO!!!


Here, clue yourself in:

http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2003/0311leak_body.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

Oh, and check out the definition of "vetted" at http://www.m-w.com

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hee hee here comes Conjur to the defense! Senators on the intelligence comittee that have top secret clearance and deal directly with the CIA...must have been Bush! Yah, I'm sure that everything Congress saw Rummy was doing a Word find/replace for "possibly" -> "definitively". Word find/replace "may have" --> "has"

Excuse me gentlemen, but you've both been here long enough to know this question has already been addressed ... repeatedly. The simple fact is the Congressional intelligence committees do NOT get all of the information presented to the President. The President's daily briefings are uniquely his, for example. Further, and far more importantly, your claim ignores the well-documented fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld both played active roles in manipulating the analysis and presentation of intelligence data. In effect, they stacked the deck to get hands that supported their agenda. They misled Congress just as they misled the public and the world.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Oh? Congress receives unvetted intelligence reports?

Interesting....

Edwards
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,"


So are you saying that Edwards as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not doing his job in overseeing the intelligence agencies?

Again, does Congress receive unvetted intelligence reports?

Clairfy.

unvetted

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! You spout off rhetoric about the Senate Intelligence Committee yet know nothing of the term "unvetted"?

LMAO!!!


Here, clue yourself in:

http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2003/0311leak_body.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

Oh, and check out the definition of "vetted" at http://www.m-w.com

When you find the word "unvetted" in a dictionary, let me know.

So, it seems that you are saying that the intelligence comittee wasn't doing it's job.

Got it.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hee hee here comes Conjur to the defense! Senators on the intelligence comittee that have top secret clearance and deal directly with the CIA...must have been Bush! Yah, I'm sure that everything Congress saw Rummy was doing a Word find/replace for "possibly" -> "definitively". Word find/replace "may have" --> "has"

Excuse me gentlemen, but you've both been here long enough to know this question has already been addressed ... repeatedly. The simple fact is the Congressional intelligence committees do NOT get all of the information presented to the President. The President's daily briefings are uniquely his, for example. Further, and far more importantly, your claim ignores the well-documented fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld both played active roles in manipulating the analysis and presentation of intelligence data. In effect, they stacked the deck to get hands that supported their agenda. They misled Congress just as they misled the public and the world.

You have proof that states that Cheney et al modified presentations that the CIA made to the senate intelligence committee? The committee that has congressional oversight over the CIA?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Oh? Congress receives unvetted intelligence reports?

Interesting....

Edwards
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,"


So are you saying that Edwards as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not doing his job in overseeing the intelligence agencies?

Again, does Congress receive unvetted intelligence reports?

Clairfy.

unvetted

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! You spout off rhetoric about the Senate Intelligence Committee yet know nothing of the term "unvetted"?

LMAO!!!


Here, clue yourself in:

http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2003/0311leak_body.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

Oh, and check out the definition of "vetted" at http://www.m-w.com

When you find the word "unvetted" in a dictionary, let me know.

So, it seems that you are saying that the intelligence comittee wasn't doing it's job.

Got it.

Far from it.

Go do some reading and Googling. I've already given you two detailed links.

You'll find Feith was quite deceptive in his tactics and the Senate Intelligence Committee is trying to find out how far Feith took the unvetted data.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hee hee here comes Conjur to the defense! Senators on the intelligence comittee that have top secret clearance and deal directly with the CIA...must have been Bush! Yah, I'm sure that everything Congress saw Rummy was doing a Word find/replace for "possibly" -> "definitively". Word find/replace "may have" --> "has"

Congress has requested documents relating to 9/11 and other issues, and has been denied them. They have not gotten all that they asked for.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: etech
When you find the word "unvetted" in a dictionary, let me know.

vetted

See definition 2. I know, it's so tricky to figure out what an "un" prefix before a word might denote. Guess we'd better jail the authors of the articles conjur linked for making use of a term not commonly found in dictionaries. :roll:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hee hee here comes Conjur to the defense! Senators on the intelligence comittee that have top secret clearance and deal directly with the CIA...must have been Bush! Yah, I'm sure that everything Congress saw Rummy was doing a Word find/replace for "possibly" -> "definitively". Word find/replace "may have" --> "has"

Congress has requested documents relating to 9/11 and other issues, and has been denied them. They have not gotten all that they asked for.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, or Congress? Denied CIA documents? Or administration documents?

What about this one, was he lied to by Bush about this?

I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: alchemize
Hee hee here comes Conjur to the defense! Senators on the intelligence comittee that have top secret clearance and deal directly with the CIA...must have been Bush! Yah, I'm sure that everything Congress saw Rummy was doing a Word find/replace for "possibly" -> "definitively". Word find/replace "may have" --> "has"

Congress has requested documents relating to 9/11 and other issues, and has been denied them. They have not gotten all that they asked for.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, or Congress? Denied CIA documents? Or administration documents?

What about this one, was he lied to by Bush about this?

I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics.

Dude, you know you can't bait me

Simply put, any administration has better access to intel than Congress. Intel is not just CIA, but DOD, State, etc. These folks are far more responsive to the President. Powell and Rumsfeld work for the President, not Edwards. If forced to choose, they pick the Presidents side. That is how things work.

When a President does not want Congress to know something he stonewalls. This is not unique to Bush, however it is not reasonable to blame Congress for the actions of the Executive branch when it happens. Same is true when Clinton or any other president you care to name did it.

For now, the President is Bush, and there are big happenings going on.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
i love how bozack and other neocons like to spout off how Kerry is such a liberal nutbag. Where is your proof and what constitutes a liberal nutbag (someone who doesn't agree with Bush)? Also, don't compare other elections to this one as if prior elections somehow validate what you want to believe.
You claim he's a flip-flopper, but won't you agree Bush is just as bad if not worse. Kerry sees a mistake and is willing to correct it, Bush makes mistakes and is so stubborn that he won't correct them. You tell me what's better?
In regards to your Edwards statement, remember that Edwards parents will mill workers. He came up from the middle class to earn the money that he's got today. You say he's a "dirty trial lawyer" but where is your proof that he has ever done one dishonest thing in the courtroom?
Now, let's talk about Bush and the AVERAGE JOE. Bush's entire life has been handed to him on a silver platter. He's gone to the best schools because of his connections, he's gotten great jobs because of his connections, and he pretty much owes his life to his father. He has done nothing for himself and has failed in most of his business ventures. It's laughable that you want to criticize Kerry for being rich when your boy Bush is as bad as they come. If there is one thing that Bush has in common with the average joe it is this: INTELLIGENCE.

Sudheer,

Look at his voting record, heck he was voted one of the most liberal senators in 2003 (I actually believe he was number 1) with Edwards comming in fourth based on his track record with re. issues, how much more proof does one need? Kerry doesn't see a mistake and then correct it but rather votes with the tide as of lately, however in the not so distant past voted decidedly liberal. Heck it is scary when a Liberman/Kennedy ticket would have been a more conservative option. Personally I would take Bush anyday over this radical left option that is offered as an alternative, the fact that Kerry is a mASShole just makes it worse.

Concerning Edwards, who gives a flying fig what his parents or upbrining were? people care more about the man in the here and now rather than his past, and facts are facts, he is a Multi Millionare and a Trial lawyer, possibly one of if not the most DESPISED professions in the country, who cares if he has done something or not the point is that he is associated with scumbags. Also I never said that I criticized Kerry for being ritch, but rather the OP who even inclined that Kerry was anything of a resemblence to most of America, Kerry was born with a silver spoon in his mouth just as Bush, and he earned his money the old fashioned way, by marrying into it. If anything Bush's intelligence puts him closer to the avg joe whereas there is NOTHING to tie Kerry to the common man.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

kerry just lost the support of physicians by adding edwards to the ticket. edwards' history as a trial lawyer will not be good for kerry as far as doctors are concerned. just check out the sentiment here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=12

 

[GTaudiophile]

I'm not a Democrat, but heck, even I would have been impressed had Kerry picked someone like Sam Nun. Talk about someone who could win some of the South back. Alas, it was not to be, and the ticket is left with two people who have no foreign policy experience.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I'm not a Democrat, but heck, even I would have been impressed had Kerry picked someone like Sam Nun. Talk about someone who could win some of the South back. Alas, it was not to be, and the ticket is left with two people who have no foreign policy experience.

Sam would have been a good choice IMO, but there aren't many politicians like him or Cohen from Maine. Of those left, few are interested in what passes for Presidential politics these days.

 

[Painman]

:beer::beer: <-- for the 2 Johns

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I'm not a Democrat, but heck, even I would have been impressed had Kerry picked someone like Sam Nun. Talk about someone who could win some of the South back. Alas, it was not to be, and the ticket is left with two people who have no foreign policy experience.

Hmm...Kerry's time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is somehow inferior to Bush's term as Governor of Texas?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I'm not a Democrat, but heck, even I would have been impressed had Kerry picked someone like Sam Nun. Talk about someone who could win some of the South back. Alas, it was not to be, and the ticket is left with two people who have no foreign policy experience.

Hmm...Kerry's time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is somehow inferior to Bush's term as Governor of Texas?

I'm talking about the TEAM here. Cheney's FP experience > Bush + Kerry + Edwards. Had it been Nun, you could at least say that Cheney or Nun > Bush or Kerry

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
kerry just lost the support of physicians by adding edwards to the ticket. edwards' history as a trial lawyer will not be good for kerry as far as doctors are concerned. just check out the sentiment here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=12

hey Frontline, I would be rather interested in reading their responses however it says I need to register, since I am not a doctor nor a student doctor and would rather not crash their party I was wondering if you could possibly post some of the responses? Also I am not surprised if they are somewhat negative about it as doctors get screwed all the time with malpractice suits...so not only will big business be uneasy with this ticket but also doctors ...should be fun.

 

[Red Dawn]

All I know is that the absolute last person I would want running the country if something happened to the President is Dick Cheney. That is one untrustworthy and scary person!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I'm not a Democrat, but heck, even I would have been impressed had Kerry picked someone like Sam Nun. Talk about someone who could win some of the South back. Alas, it was not to be, and the ticket is left with two people who have no foreign policy experience.

Hmm...Kerry's time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is somehow inferior to Bush's term as Governor of Texas?

I'm talking about the TEAM here. Cheney's FP experience > Bush + Kerry + Edwards. Had it been Nun, you could at least say that Cheney or Nun > Bush or Kerry

Yeah...good ol' Cold War Cheney. Found himself without a formidable opponent so he fabricated one.

Bravo.




:roll:

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Bozack, your missing several key points. If anything, Edwards has lived the American Dream. He started with modest beginnings and came up big. If there is anyone that knows the struggle of the middle class people amongst Kerry/Bush/Cheney it would be Edwards. Also, it is a BAD thing that George Bush's intelligence is on par with the average joe. He is our president for christ sakes, and since when did we start expecting less from the leader of our country?