Back to my Roots
Sen. John F. Kerry apologist, Mr. Peter Canellos, of the Boston Globe, was at it again last week; my email to him correcting the record:
Mr. Canellos,
Recently, in considering how Sens. Clinton and Obama would address the issue of the war in Iraq, you wrote, “But after Thursday's debate, it's clear that they plan to contour their arguments differently. Clinton seems to have closely watched what happened to (Sen.) John Kerry in 2004, how he found it difficult to explain simultaneously that he disagreed with Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but was nonetheless serious about fighting terrorism.”
On August 9, 2004, fully 22 months after he voted for the war and 17 months after the beginning of major combat operations, Sen. Kerry said he still would have voted for war even if he knew at the time that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and there was no operational link between Saddam Hussein and terrorists (Kerry says he’d still vote to authorize war, Boston Globe, August 10, 2004).
In endorsing Sen. Obama on January 10, 2008, Senator Kerry said, “(Sen. Obama) was, after all, right about the war in Iraq from the very beginning!” Note the exclamation point; I got the quote off the Senator’s web site, that’s how he punctuated the sentence.
So, let me get this straight (begin haughty, arrogant, drone voice), a decorated Vietnam veteran, a Senator with 19 years prosecutorial experience, 20 plus years in the US Senate with many on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, possessor of “foreign affairs gravitas” (that’s me laughing), AND ACCESS TO ALL THE INTELLIGENCE, and with the power to ask any and all the questions of the Administration he needed (recall, he's a former prosecutor; me laughing again) to satisfy himself of the situation and with the freedom to go public if he was denied, was wrong and a State Legislator from Illinois had it right? Talk about willful suspension of disbelief.
Or, what national intelligence/security information is the Illinois Legislature getting? I now wonder if the Illinois Legislature received the intelligence that President Clinton used to justify his December 1998 cruise missile attacks on Saddam Hussein’s WMD complex?
Saddam Hussein fooled the intelligence community of two administrations (the UN and every other country's intelligence organization), what's so hard to understand? If Sen. Obama saw the evidence that Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry saw and he didn't vote to protect America, I'm sure I don't want him as President - that's Job #1 of the President. The brilliant Sens. Clinton, Edwards and Kerry saw the evidence and voted for war. They saw the evidence and voted for war. If anyone believes the "war of choice" garbage, how miserably do those same believers think these three Senators failed in their most important job?
Anyway, Sen. Kerry is on record in your own (news)paper as NOT being against the war in Iraq deep into 2004; your revisionist history is a disservice to your readers. (End of email to Mr. Canellos.)
As of this morning, Mr. Canellos has not responded to my email.
But, I did receive an email from Globe columnist, Ms. Joan Vennochi, this morning. In my unique way, I'm making an impact.
Sen. John F. Kerry apologist, Mr. Peter Canellos, of the Boston Globe, was at it again last week; my email to him correcting the record:
Mr. Canellos,
Recently, in considering how Sens. Clinton and Obama would address the issue of the war in Iraq, you wrote, “But after Thursday's debate, it's clear that they plan to contour their arguments differently. Clinton seems to have closely watched what happened to (Sen.) John Kerry in 2004, how he found it difficult to explain simultaneously that he disagreed with Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but was nonetheless serious about fighting terrorism.”
On August 9, 2004, fully 22 months after he voted for the war and 17 months after the beginning of major combat operations, Sen. Kerry said he still would have voted for war even if he knew at the time that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and there was no operational link between Saddam Hussein and terrorists (Kerry says he’d still vote to authorize war, Boston Globe, August 10, 2004).
In endorsing Sen. Obama on January 10, 2008, Senator Kerry said, “(Sen. Obama) was, after all, right about the war in Iraq from the very beginning!” Note the exclamation point; I got the quote off the Senator’s web site, that’s how he punctuated the sentence.
So, let me get this straight (begin haughty, arrogant, drone voice), a decorated Vietnam veteran, a Senator with 19 years prosecutorial experience, 20 plus years in the US Senate with many on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, possessor of “foreign affairs gravitas” (that’s me laughing), AND ACCESS TO ALL THE INTELLIGENCE, and with the power to ask any and all the questions of the Administration he needed (recall, he's a former prosecutor; me laughing again) to satisfy himself of the situation and with the freedom to go public if he was denied, was wrong and a State Legislator from Illinois had it right? Talk about willful suspension of disbelief.
Or, what national intelligence/security information is the Illinois Legislature getting? I now wonder if the Illinois Legislature received the intelligence that President Clinton used to justify his December 1998 cruise missile attacks on Saddam Hussein’s WMD complex?
Saddam Hussein fooled the intelligence community of two administrations (the UN and every other country's intelligence organization), what's so hard to understand? If Sen. Obama saw the evidence that Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry saw and he didn't vote to protect America, I'm sure I don't want him as President - that's Job #1 of the President. The brilliant Sens. Clinton, Edwards and Kerry saw the evidence and voted for war. They saw the evidence and voted for war. If anyone believes the "war of choice" garbage, how miserably do those same believers think these three Senators failed in their most important job?
Anyway, Sen. Kerry is on record in your own (news)paper as NOT being against the war in Iraq deep into 2004; your revisionist history is a disservice to your readers. (End of email to Mr. Canellos.)
As of this morning, Mr. Canellos has not responded to my email.
But, I did receive an email from Globe columnist, Ms. Joan Vennochi, this morning. In my unique way, I'm making an impact.
posted by Zack at 11:19 AM
1 Comments:
dateline feb 9, 2008 (multiple WWW sites including www.cnn.com, www.boston.com)
HUCKABEE wins Kansas, keeping his campaign alive.
wow. as if he really has a chance. where's the hue and cry that he's not lining up behind the presumptive nominee? I'll tell you where it is...it's buried because the behind the media blitz that maybe mccain isn't such a darling after all...couldn't do it a week ago when there was a viable alternative. but wouldn't want to build up the senator from AZ when the objective is to elect the senator from Illinois.
Post a Comment
<< Home