> > John Kerry had the same CIA intelligence that > > Bush got, and he said Iraq was a threat to U.S. > > security. > > Brian wrote: > ...no Republicans offered this line of defence > of Bush in the hearing. To say everyone had access > at all times to the same intelligence the > Commander in Chief had makes no sense at all. > According to what I've read, John Kerry served on the U.S. Senate Intelligegence Committeee, so he had all the intelligence he needed to make an informed decsion.
"Of the staff interim report Kean said, "we don't see any serious conflicts" with what the administration is saying about al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussien. Vladimir Putin agrees with this and goes further stating that he had intelligence information that Saddam had been planning an attack on the U.S." Source: '9-11 panel's leader cites Iran, Pakistan' by Peter Yost Associated Press, June 21, 2004 > > Bush got the basic counterterrorism strategy right: > > > We're talking about Iraq - Saddam had nothing to do > with 9-11. It's a global war, Brian. According to John Edwards, Saddam was a threat to U.S. security - Bill and Hilary both agreed with this. > > There was no doubt that Iraq was developing weapons > > of mass destruction. > > > Not proven at all. > Iraq was under U.N. sanctions for attempting to produce weapons of mass destruction - Saddam had attempted to procure uranium from Africa. Saddam had a sophisticated plan to develop a nuclear weapon, that's why the U.N. sent in the inspectors. > ...they were no credible threat to the United States > and thus no grounds to start a war. > The U.S. Congress has the authority to declare war. Has the U.S. Congress declared war? I think not. But the terrorists have declared a war on the U.S. > Kucinich is right to ask for accountabilty. > Talk about Bush 'needs to be impeached' is juvenile liberal crap talk by misfits, losers and whiners. No American is going to vote to impeach the president in the middle of a war that the U.S. is winning! That's just crazy talk.
