John Eisenhower Endorses John Kerry

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

John Eisenhower: 'Why I will vote for John Kerry for President'

The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 30 years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657

[watermock]

It's a free country. So what. It's just another protest vote against Bush, not for Kerry.

Explain this clowns significance. Why not post that Oprah is going Kerry as well.

[Exile_In_SJ]

wow, this one vote could be the turning point. I'm sure the MAN WHO HONORABLY SERVED HIS COUNTRY IN THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD is trembling... rofl.

any more irrelevant factoids LA bullsh*tter?

[baja]

Soon as we find those pesky WMD I'll think about voting for Bush. Until then he is a lying sack-o-shiit and I can't understand how he could get even one vote.

[Mile High Shack]

Soon as we find those pesky WMD I'll think about voting for Bush. Until then he is a lying sack-o-shiit and I can't understand how he could get even one vote.

how did he lie?

he was given wrong info

when your CIA, British MI-6, Russian, and some other middle east countries all tell you the guy has them and he is willing to sell them to terroists

what would you have done? talked about it some more?

[baja]

That's your version. I think he had to know. He had an obligation to get the facts before making such a monumental historical decision. I saw a guy that wanted to attack Iraq. He was chomping at the bit to kick ass. Just go review the State of the Union address at the time. He was told what he wanted to hear which is the huge flaw in our intelligence community as studies have pointed out.

[Mile High Shack]

That's your version. I think he had to know. He had an obligation to get the facts before making such a monumental historical decision. I saw a guy that wanted to attack Iraq. He was chomping at the bit to kick ass. Just go review the State of the Union address at the time. He was told what he wanted to hear which is the huge flaw in our intelligence community as studies have pointed out.

and that's your version, which contridicts what every intelligence source has said...but whatever...it's a free country

for the record, he did get the facts...as president of the USA, he can't go into Iraq himself to inspect, he has to rely on info given to him, it's called delegation of authority....as a former military man, I thought you'd understand that.

[baja]

and that's your version, which contridicts what every intelligence source has said...but whatever...it's a free country

If Bush in the capacity of the president of the US wanted the truth he would have found the truth. He wanted this war how is that not clear to you?

[bendog]

Bush wasn't given the wrong info AFTER Blix had access to the sites. At that pt he HAD TO KNOW the spin he put on the intell was wrong. We told blix what sites to check, he checked and came up empty. We still hadn't found what happened to some chemical precursors, but there were NO stockpiles of womd and NO "programs" for making womd that posed any near term threat. BushII HAD to know that.

[Rohirrim]

Shack likes his illusions. Don't try to dispel them. The CIA documents that Bush received said the evidence was "weak" (to quote the documents themselves presented to the 9/11 commission). David Kay was already publicly stating that he didn't believe there were any WMDs and Colin Powell was sent to the UN with Cheney's admonition to "take one for the team." If the evidence was true, why would Cheney phrase it that way? And don't forget, Wolfowitz and Perle already had the Iraq invasion plan drawn up in the early 90s. Rummy carried it out to a tee. You also have to ignore Rummy's statements that the U.S. needed a "catalyst" to invade Iraq, or his statement that Iraq "offered better targets" than Afghanistan.

[Rascal]

If Bush in the capacity of the president of the US wanted the truth he would have found the truth. He wanted this war how is that not clear to you?

How is it not clear to you that ever single major intelligence agency in the world said he had them and was trying to sell them.

Sure it's easy to play Monday morning President, but after 9-11 attacks how could you as a President sit back and wait while all the evidence from these intelligence agencies said he had the stuff and was trying to sell it to terroists to be used against us.

If you would have sat back and waited while the possibility of Sadaam selling WMD to some terroists to be used against us then I'm greatful that you are not our President. I'm sick and tired of us always having to be the reactionaries to these damn terroists. Take the fight to them.

[Rascal]

Shack likes his illusions.

And you like yours.

[bendog]

womd were the illusions, guys.

[Mile High Shack]

womd were the illusions, guys.

he had them....no doubt about it, he got rid of them b/c we gave him 6 months of warnings

[Rohirrim]

Is it really so strange that the son of the President who pointed out that the "military-industrial complex" was one of the greatest dangers we faced, would vote against the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton regime? Always keep in mind when you hear Bush/Cheney talk about bringing peace to the world - the U.S. is the largest arms seller on Earth.

[Mile High Shack]

Is it really so strange that the son of the President who pointed out that the "military-industrial complex" was one of the greatest dangers we faced, would vote against the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton regime? Always keep in mind when you hear Bush/Cheney talk about bringing peace to the world - the U.S. is the largest arms seller on Earth.

it has been since the 50's.

water is wet

[Rohirrim]

it has been since the 50's.

water is wet

In other words, world peace is against our national interests. :thumbsup:

[Rascal]

In other words, world peace is against our national interests. :thumbsup:

In other words, you are spinning whatever is said or done to your liking. Typical :thumbsup:

[Mile High Shack]

In other words, world peace is against our national interests. :thumbsup:

dude, there is no such thing as "world peace"

it will never happen......ever

I don't say that as a chicken hawk, I say that as a fact.......

not to bring the bible into it..but it says there will always be war and rumors of war in this world.

you can't have men living together w/o fighting.......it's inevitable, we just have to have the bigger stick. :thumbsup:

[bendog]

Well, Saddam didn't have any womd when we invaded, and Bush II had to know that because Blix checked every place we said they were.

[Rascal]

So Sadaam had them stashed somewhere we didn't know about. Whats so unbelievable about that?

Just because Blix couldn't find them doesn't mean they weren't there and the intelligence people knew/know that.

[bendog]

They weren't there. Even our inspectors have concluded Saddam had no womd when we invaded. What Blix reported BEFORE the invasion is the SAME THING Kay said AFTER the invasion. BushII, for some reason, discounted Blix's reports. That reason has not been demanded by the media. Or, BushII's answere of "ah perceved a threat, so ah acted" is taken as acceptable. Meanwhile we just blew off 1050 parents of kids and 200 Billion, but apparantly that's ok.

Why did JR percieve a threat that not only wasn't there but that Blix told him wasn't there? What imminent or immediate harm did he fear, and what evidence supported that AT THE TIME OF INVASION? That's the question he has not been forced to answer. Powell, however, has apoligized for putting forth purposefully misleading info at the UN.

[Rascal]

I've told you at least times this thread and who knows how many times Bush or others have told you.

Every single major intelligence agency in the world said they were there and that Sadaam was trying to sell them to terroists. I can't explain it any simpler then that.

[bendog]

No, every other intell service did not tell us they were there. But more importantly Blix WAS ON THE GROUND AND SAID THEY WEREN'T THERE BEFORE THE INVASION.

What was BushII's reason to discount that? He has never answered, and neither have you. But more importantly, even assuming Saddam still had stockpiles of chemical artillary shells, those posed no danger to the continental US ... or less danger than some RW whackos with fertilizer and a rental truck, why did BushII conclude Saddam had some nuke or bug that was some near term danger to the US? That was disputed not only by govts like the French but even inside the CIA, and BEFORE THE INVASION Blix interviewed the scientists and told BushII the 'programs" weren't up and running.

Why'd he still invade?

[Mile High Shack]

Sadaam moved them to syria

[bendog]

Sure, and the easter bunny comes early this year.

You guys blow off 1050 dead pretty damn easy. But in the end, we're stuck ithw BUshII saying "ah perceved a danger, so ah acted." Unfortunately, he either perceived wrong or flat out lied. I think the latter. The war was about nation building and fanciful womd were just the excuse. And, we'd all be better served if we jsut admitted that.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Why did JR percieve a threat that not only wasn't there but that Blix told him wasn't there? What imminent or immediate harm did he fear, and what evidence supported that AT THE TIME OF INVASION? That's the question he has not been forced to answer. Powell, however, has apoligized for putting forth purposefully misleading info at the UN.


repeat some wrong information enough times and people get it wrong also. Bush never ever said there was an imminent threat. In the speech he said, 'before there was an imminent threat' quite a big difference.

Plus Powell never said purposefully misleading, that's your addition.

[Mile High Shack]

repeat some wrong information enough times and people get it wrong also. Bush never ever said there was an imminent threat. In the speech he said, 'before there was an imminent threat' quite a big difference.

Plus Powell never said purposefully misleading, that's your addition.

just fits his agenda

the closer it gets to election time with Bush in the lead, the more irritated the Bush haters have become.

[bendog]

he said mushroom cloud.

But what BushII is really lying aobut is the notion of "preemptive war." I've "lived through" 10 admins so far and ALL have believed that if we knew some other country was planning to attack us, we'd attack them first if diplomacy didn't work. However, we've never attacked countries (vietnam excluded) unless there was some near term threat. Saddam had no nuke program that posed a danger in less than YEARs, nor did he have a biological program. And Blix interviewed the scientists BEFORE THE INVASION.

womd had nothing to do with this war. Either BushII screwed the pooch or he lied.

[Mile High Shack]

there was no 9/11 either in the previous 10 admins either

[bendog]

So, 9-11 mandates we attack countries we know pose no womd danger in less than a year? BushII had to know Saddam had no nuke or biol programs that were near term to producing a weapon. Either that or he discounted Blix. He has never answered why he did so.

[Play2win]

Plain and simple Bush put personal agenda before nation agenda.

[bendog]

I don't really believe that. I think BushII bought the neocons' line that Iraq had a secular middle class that would welcome some kind of democracy. Instead we have three "tribes," all of whom distrusting the others, and the sunnis and the kurds resisting any one man one vote scheme, and the shiites demanding that. Meanwhile our troops are becoming more and more unpopular and the insurgency is growing. Our presence there is becoming more destablizing than our leaving. BushII lied about the real reason for the war - or perhaps he just over simplified it - yes it was about 9-11 and terrorism, but it wasn't because Saddam's govt posed a direct threat to the US. And BushII was alos mistaken aobut the chances that our invasion would result in a more stable Iraq than Saddam

I guess I can understand how he lacked the experience to sort out the wheat from the chaff of what wolfowitz, armitrage, negroponte, etc were laying out. but I don't see what Cheney and Rumsfeld's excuses are.

[baja]

he had them....no doubt about it, he got rid of them b/c we gave him 6 months of warnings

This one always kills me!

If Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD why, oh why did he not throw open his borders to the inspectors. Or maybe you think he wanted to give up his kush dictators job, billions of dollars to go live in a hole under a half sheet of plywood. He tried over and over to say he had no WMD and the Bush government said they had hard evidence to the contrary.

Will someone please answer Bendog's question. Why was the discounting of Blix's clear claims that there were no WMD ever answered.

[Rascal]

Because like I said allready he had one guy who said there wasn't-blix, but he had every major intelligence agency saying that there was.

[Mile High Shack]

This one always kills me!

If Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD why, oh why did he not throw open his borders to the inspectors. Or maybe you think he wanted to give up his kush dictators job, billions of dollars to go live in a hole under a half sheet of plywood. He tried over and over to say he had no WMD and the Bush government said they had hard evidence to the contrary.

Will someone please answer Bendog's question. Why was the discounting of Blix's clear claims that there were no WMD ever answered.

that and the UN wanted to cover it's collective ass...Blix is a UN monkey, b/c they were scamming the oil for food program for billions of dollars....they had NO intention of ever going after Iraq b/c countries like France, Germany and Russia were making WAY too much money.

[bendog]

Every major intell service said Saddam had biol and nuke programs that posed a threat to the US in a year or less? I don't think that was the case, ever, and certainly not after Blix was on the groudn and before the invasion.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

No, every other intell service did not tell us they were there. But more importantly Blix WAS ON THE GROUND AND SAID THEY WEREN'T THERE BEFORE THE INVASION.


Blix changed his story after the invasion, which he did not support. However after the initial invasion he never said that he believed Saddam didn't have any WMDs, only months later did he say Saddam never had them. He went back to the UN and told the Security Council that Saddam was not complying with 1441 and giving him full access to sites and people that the UN inspectors requested.

and yes Bendog, virtually every intelligence agency in the world belived that Saddam had WMDs, including Isreal, France, Germany, Russia, and China. The French and Germans conceded the point before the invasion but still would not support removing Saddam. David Kay came back and the first time he went before Congress said that there was no way to look at the intelligence and come to the conclusion that Saddam did not have WMDs.

[bendog]

1. Blix's final report was that he had access to be effective, but Iraq had not shown what they did with the known precursors. However, he had interviewed the scientists and seen the sites, and there were no womd programs offering nukes or biol's within a year. I've linked his report and a site on what we had to knwo when we invaded. I will do so again.

2. At his last report prior to invasion, Feb 14, 2003, Blix was confounded, as was the world, as to what became of Saddam's stockpiles of chemical artillary shells. Kaye I think has now concluded they were destroyed sometime during the WJC years. But, it is intellectulally dishonest to compare an artillary shell to a "mushroom cloud" type womd, AND that we KNEW saddam didn't have anything near a mushroom cloud or smallpox WHEN we invaded.

3. There was NEVER consensus in our own intell, let alone the wordl, that Saddam was anywhere something like smallpox or a nuke. there was consensus in the Senate, and the public, that we couldn't take a chance of saddam not allowing inspections.

But, again, the question is why invade AFTER we knew there were no womd programs with a nuke or biol anywhere near completion. Ignoring the question or ignoring what BushII had to know, or ignored, is simply not facing reality. One can conclude we were 'right' in invading, but it can't be based on some reasonalbe apprehention that Saddam could attack us in a year or less. Actually, I think the consensus now is Saddam was at least 3years from a nuke, even if he had reconstituted his program, which he had not.

http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp?from=pubdate

As to nukes:

Director General Mohamed ElBaradei
reported to the UN Security Council on March 7,
2003, that:

There is “no indication of resumed nuclear ac-tivities…
nor any indication of nuclear-related
prohibited activities at any inspected sites.”

“There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to
import uranium since 1990.” The documents that
indicated Iraq attempted to purchase uranium
from Niger were declared “in fact not authentic.”
“There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to
import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge en-richment.”
Even if it had, “it was highly unlikely
that Iraq could have achieved the considerable re-design
needed to use them in a revived centrifuge
program.”
Although the question was still under review,
there was “no indication to date that Iraq im-ported
magnets for use in a centrifuge program.”
“[D]uring the past four years, at the majority of
Iraqi sites, industrial capacity has deteriorated
substantially due to the departure of the foreign
support that was often present in the late ’80s, the
departure of large numbers of skilled Iraqi person-nel
in the past decade, and the lack of consistent
maintenance by Iraq of sophisticated equipment.
At only a few inspected sites involved in industrial
research, development and manufacturing have
the facilities been improved and new personnel
been taken on.” p. 25

Even if one concludes that the niger uranium was somehow real, and Saddam could have gotten it, he still had to run it through a centrafuge and 1. he didn't have one and 1. HE DAMN WELL COULDN'T BUILD ONE WHILE INSPECTIONS WERE HAPPENING.

On biologicals:
Blix said in his reports to the Security Council
that though there were weapons and agents unac-counted
for, “One must not jump to the conclusion
that they exist. However, that possibility is also not
excluded.”14 The inspectors carefully kept both pos-sibilities
open.
The U.S. assessments in the months before the
war, however, appear to have drawn just such conclu-sions.
Offi cial estimates peaked with the statement
by the President to the nation on the eve of war:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons ever devised…The danger is clear: using
chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons,
obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could
fulfi ll their stated ambitions and kill thousands or
hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our
country or any other. p. 18

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/02/14/26257-ap.html

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/blix14Febasdel.htm

[watermock]

Thats baloney. Saddam was laying low and had ever intention of restarting his nuclear/wmd program.

Your forgetting the Iran War.

Your foretting the Kuwqait war. Your forgetting the gassing of the Shia and the Kurds.

He dumped what was left in the river and sent what was left of his Scuds to Syria.