Alas, the blogosphere is alive with debate about the FMA and gay marriage. If you read enough, you'd think that it will be a campaign issue and it will hurt Bush as it would appear to be hateful. Andrew Sullivan has gone on at length about it, and he lambasts the Republicans. Even the Republicans are shying away as their convention will highlight Arnold, Rudy, and others who are more "moderate" socially.

A quick glance at polls reveals an altogether different story. A CBS poll has support for gay marriage at a whopping 28%. It also finds that 60% of people polled support the constitutional ammendment. But there is some other interesting news that isn't going to be reported. The same poll find that gay marriage is supported by 32% of democrats.

Another odd finding of the poll is that the older you get, the less supportive you are of gay marriage. The greatest support somes from 18-29 year olds at 43%, then drops to 29% among 20-44 year olds. It continues downhill from there. So, as you get older, and more inclined to vote, you oppose gay marriage more and more. Seems like a winning issue for Bush.

This is not a losing issue for Bush as long as he frames it in terms of preventing a judge in one state from imposing their will on the country. And solong as he frames it as same-sex marriage, he'll be successful. It is exactly like the abortion debate. If you debate reproductive freedoms, choice, etc., then they win. If you talk about the unborn, actually talk about abortion, then we win.

What troubles many of the pundits, journalists, and others is that they really don't get out too much and talk to people. The vast majority of us oppose gay marriage. We don't hate homosexuals, we simply don't care what they do, but we sense something wrong with gay marriage.

If it is a state issue, and I believe in many ways that it is, fine. But then can states refuse to recognize a marriage contract say as it would a gun permit or drivers license. A while ago, when California was going to issue licenses to illegals, many states said they were not going to accept Ca. licenses as valid ID.

The simple truth is that gays can marry. There is no test of sexual orientation for issuing marriage licenses. It is just that it is reasonable to recognize marriage between one man and one woman. Period. And if we need an ammendment to protect states, and the vast majority of the country from having to forcibly accept the lifestyle of 1-2% of the population, then so be it. But this will not hurt Bush. But, it can hurt Kerry who can't appear to be pro gay marriage but can't alienate a core block of his voters.

President Clinton gave an interview to the BBC. First Wilson turns out to be a liar and partisan fraud, Bill Clinton shows up and delivers this:

Bill Clinton:"And I have to say, all the time I was there, we thought there was a substantial amount of chemical and biological weapons. At least we knew that, or I was told everyday for years and years that a good deal of what we thought Saddam had at the end of the first Gulf war remained unaccounted for, as of 1998 when the UK and the US bombed the suspected sites when Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out."

So, Bush didn't lie or mislead about WMD's.

Question re: WDM intel:"...it became more and more suspicious in its quality and what we now discover, don’t we, is that a lot of that was misleading, exaggerated, certainly dangerous in terms of the reason for going to war in the way that we did, when we did?"

Clinton: "we had a lot of trouble with mostly Republicans in the Senate and although we had a few Democratic supporters too...it is true that afterward he became quite a favourite of the administration, although President Bush had a lot of help there because Chalabi always had support in the Congress, people who believed him and then he basically admitted that he hadn’t told the truth on a lot of that."

So, while Bush relied on Chalabi, members of Congress in both parties propped him up as well.

Question: "Do you think the policy of containment was still working at the end of 2002/beginning of 2003?

Clinton: "Yes, but I think that the facts were different in 2001, after September 11th. Keep in mind, I think containment was going to work against Saddam Hussein as long as he lived, in terms of his neighbours he obviously couldn’t do much against them. His military capacity was less then it was in the first gulf war, as we saw, when he was toppled rather easily. It’s more difficult to build a country that toppled. But the issue was that if you believe that he had substantial stocks of chemical or biological materials, the issue was not whether he would use it but whether he was likely to sell it, or give away or likely to have it stolen and therefore it ought be accounted for. And that’s why the whole world actually supported resuming the inspections."

There was a very real possibility that Saddam would give WMD's to terrorists. I believe that ws Bush's point specifically

Question: "Do you believe the inspectors should have had more time at the beginning of 2003?"

Clinton: "Yes I do. If you remember, Mr Blix, who was doing a good job and was pretty tough on the Iraqis when they weren’t cooperative, was pleading for four to six weeks as I recall – but I think he should have been allowed to finish his job. That’s were I think the big mistake on the part of the United States was."

Fair argument, but...

Clinton:"Well he (British PM Tony Blair) tried, let me say in addition to what you said, It’s important for the people in the UK to remember what else he did. He supported a resolution in the United Nations which would have given Hans Blix the time that he sought, and would have said that at the end of that, if Blix found that Saddam had not co-operated and therefore the UN resolutions could not be met, then he would be removed, and the French and the Germans opposed that resolution, that as long as inspectors were there even of Saddam wasn’t co-operating there was no reason to attack him. And we could have gotten a majority in the United Nations Security Council if Mexico and Chile had gone along, but by then public opinion had so hardened in their own countries and they didn’t do it."

"you can second guess Blair if you like, but, and it’s clear in our country according to our own Senate, the Intelligence was not what it should have been. But at the time nearly everybody thought there was probably a stock of chemical and biological weapons there and it was vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands, either by design or by corruption within Saddam’s regime. And essentially the French and the Germans said we still don’t care. Now as I understand it a lot of people in the world, because Saddam himself could not pose a direct threat, he wasn’t going to attack anybody because he was too weak. So that left the prospect of what we all believe was a substantial amount of material there. Had the final UN resolution passed there’s a good chance that war could have been avoided, that’s what Blair was trying to do. When the French and the Germans moved away from him and the Chileans and the Mexican’s didn’t go along he then basically had to go back to their position or go on with Bush’s position, he was in an impossible position really."

In other words, the intelligence all led to one conclusion: Saddam probably had WMD's, and in a post 9/11 world, that was a risk that could not be tolerated. Could the US have been more patient? Yes. But, it is obvious that the French and Germans would never come on board. At some point, without the threat of force, Saddam would resume his efforts, and we'd pay dearly down the road. Bush had no choice.

Clinton: "When both sides in effect fell away from him, the US on one side and France and Germany on the other, he was left with the prospect of walking away from what he believed was weapons of mass destruction site, or walking forward without the UN and Europe, it was a terrible dilemma for him....British intelligence was even more far leaning than American intelligence...It was the British intelligence, not American intelligence that believed Saddam attempted to get, or did get nuclear materials from Niger in Africa. So your intelligence was apparently more aggressive than ours and Blair had to act on it I think. That’s what he thought, and I can understand in the aftermath of 9/11 why he thought that way."

Blair had one of two choices to make. He could either side with the French and Germans, and allow what everyone believed to be WMD sites operable, or act. And British intelligence was even more forceful than the CIA. Blair, and by default, Bush, had to act.

This completely destroys the anti-war arguments. Now, it is perfectly clear, Kerry simply will not act to defend the country. In this instance, Bush was right to, in Kerry's words, "go it alone". Our "traditional" allies opposed us as well as Blair, and were willing to allow Saddam to continue developing his WMD programs. As Clinton said, based on what we knew, and in a post 9/11 world, we could not take the chance.

My guess is that there are several reasons Clinton comes out with this now. One, his friend Tony Blair is in trouble and he wants to lend a hand. Two, this absolutely destroys Kerry on the war, which helps Hilalry for 2008. Three, he dragged the party to the center, and he watches first Al Gore and now John Kerry drag the party to the far left. And I would have to guess he is concerned with his legacy.

Whatever the reasons, this is front page news. Bush didn't lie, didn't mislead, didn't pressure the CIA, and did the only thing that someone in his position could have done.

Another speech from Kerry. Let's take a look at it.

Julian Bond...is still setting an example for our country...He is eloquent. He is powerful.

Here is an example of Julian Bond example of eloquence:
"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side. They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."

And Kweisi Mfume, I have such pride in my friendship, such pride in his leadership and in his accomplishments. I know you join me in thanking him for his graceful, eloquent leadership of the NAACP.

As for Kweisi Mfume, referring to conservative blacks:
"And like the ventriloquist's dummies, they sit there in the puppet master's voice, but we can see whose lips are moving, and we can hear his money talk."

So I want to thank you for the invitation. Some people may have better things to do. But there’s no place that I’d rather be right now than right here in Philadelphia with the NAACP.

Comments like these marginalize the NAACP. These comments are terribly racist and demonstrate a clear double standard. What if a white person had made comments like that about a black leader? President Bush has plenty of organizations like Project21 and CORE to speak to, plus his closest advisor, Condi Rice is black, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell is black, and the Secretary of Education Rod Paige is Black. Bush has no business attending a racist organization like the NAACP.

I will be a president who is truly a uniter, not one who seeks to divide one nation by race or riches or by any other label.

Just wait. It gets really good.

His name is John, my name is John. He’s a lawyer, I’m a lawyer. He was "People" magazine’s sexiest politician in America. I read "People" magazine.

You have time to read people but not get briefed on national security.

Fifty years ago -- 50 years ago, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP turned their faith into deeds, when you fought and won Brown v. Board of Education.

Yes, and it took a Republican president to send in the troops to ensure that the black students could attend.

Forty years ago -- 40 years ago, Lyndon Johnson and Dr. King and NAACP turned their faith into deeds when the nation passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And it was fought by the dixiecrats (democrats) and wouldn't have been passed without Republican support.

Today -- today, we have an administration in Washington that looks at the challenges that we face here and around the world, and you know what they say? They say, this is the best that we can do. They say that what we have now is the best economy of our lifetimes. They have even called us pessimists for speaking the truth to power.

Really? When? You can't make things up now that we have the internet. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

Don’t tell us that unemployment isn’t a problem when you see that African-American unemployment is now above 10 percent, double the rate for whites.

Senator, did you happen to listen to Bill Cosby recently.

.. it is unacceptable in the wealthiest nation on Earth that we tolerate vast and growing pockets of poverty from the hills of Appalachia to the streets of Philadelphia. Making life better for the working poor is part of my vision for a stronger America. We can do better, and we will.

I think FDR said it better, but then we were really in the depression. Vast and growing pockets of poverty. What country do you live in? Take a look at these stats (article):

According to Census and Energy Dept. data:

Percentage of people lacking:
telephones: 2.4%
plumbing: 0.6%
refrigerator: 0.1%
vehicle: 10.3%

Percent of poor people owning:
cable/satellite tv: 64%
vcr: 74%
microwave: 75%

According to economist Robert Fogel, the percentage of income spent on necessities is 13%, while people spend 68% on leisure. Senator, you're message is pure pessimism and division. But it does get even better.

Don’t tell us -- don’t tell us that crumbling and overcrowded schools, underpaid teachers, class sizes that are getting bigger, after-school programs that have been cut, don’t tell us that that is the best we can do. We have the means to give all our children a first-rate education. We can do better, and we will.

Here are some numbers about per pupil spending:

42 states spend more than $7000 per pupil, of those, 22 spend more than $8000, 14 spend more than $9000 and 6 spend more than $10,000. All of those problems are not factors of money. Let's take a look at LAUSD, and focus on the Ambassador project and the Belmont learning center.

Don’t -- tell us that the strongest democracy on Earth, that a million disenfranchised African-Americans and the most tainted election in American history is the best that we can do.

Don’t tell us that we already see the purging taking place down in Florida. Don’t tell us we don’t have a right to expect an election in the United States that sets an example of democracy to the world. We can do better, and we will.

Florida again. That's really going to unite a country. And exactly where do you get your numbers? 1 million disenfranchised African Americans? If you make things like this up, what else are you making up. How can you be trusted on anything. This is called demagoguery.

Our job between now and November is to end the division between the fortunate America and the forgotten America. We need to come together in the 21st century as one America. And I intend to lead us to do that.

By playing on peoples' fears (down the page), making up numbers, praising incendiary, hateful speakers? By playing up class warfare. That's uniting.

Now for the doom and gloom:

I’ve met parents who want nothing more than for their kids to be able to stay and work in the place that they were raised

I’ve met steel workers and mine workers and auto workers who are now laid-off workers who had to literally unbolt the equipment that they were working on, pack it up in a crate, and send it to China and ship it overseas with their job.

I’ve even met people who’ve had to train their foreign replacements.

I’ve spent time with seniors who worked for a lifetime, but all of a sudden the pension they thought they were going to have is blown away by a company that was irresponsible. Blown away by an administration that has licensed the creed of greed.

Didn't the stock market bubble begin in the 1990's? You could travel all over America and yes, you'll find people that struggle. But what makes America special is that there is the opportunity for everyone to rise out of their situation, as you so often mention about Senator Edwards.

Economies change. We aren't going to have the static economy of the past. What about all the new technology sector jobs and industries that are forming? Are those jobs less important or significant? And what about all the Japanese cars now made in America? Aren't we importing plenty of jobs as well? And doesn't a higher minimum wage make American labor more expensive vis-a-vis foreign labor?

We have people in America who can’t pay for their medicines, who hardly make ends meet.

And they’re worried that they won’t be able to afford to send their kids to college.

Again, this is called demagoguery. You are simply trying to scare people. Every family has to make choices, it is part of life. Maybe you never understood that growing up wealthy, but choices are part of life, and it isn't a tragedy when families have to make them. The responsible families do just that.

Tax freedom day was April 11th, the earliest it's been since 1967. It's interesting that this number kept increasing throughout the 1990's. So, maybe some of that "Middle Class Squeeze" you are so fond of talking about is really that Americans pay way too much in taxes.

And speaking of choices, in 2004, American families worked 65 days for the federal government and 36 days for the state and local governments. By contrast, they worked 66 days for their housing, and 55 days for health and medical care. Perhaps that is the reason for the difficult choices families have to make.

let me tell you where my heart is. It’s with the middle class who are the heart of this country. It’s with the working families who built this country. It’s with the veterans who saved this country. It is with the cops and firefighters and soldiers who protect this country. And it is with the children who are the future of this country.

And I'm sure your for mom, hot dogs, and apple pie too. Then why do you spend time associating with super rich Hollywood celebrities, laugh as they trash the president in an extremely distasteful and derogatory manner, and take millions from them.

Values means really creating the opportunity and fighting for good jobs that actually allow an American family for a week’s work to be able to pay the bills and spend some time with your kids and be able to do better in America.

Values mean actually getting ahead.

It means helping the people who are getting squeezed.

We are going to add new middle class tax cuts in order to help families to be able to pay for health care, in order to help families pay college tuition, in order to help families pay for child care, and we’re going to help working families get ahead once again in America.

Kerry cannot win unless people think the future is bleak and that they can't get ahead. If you aren't scared or angry, then he'll make sure you are. He also shows no understanding why health care and college cost so much. It is called supply and demand.

More than a million Americans who were working three years ago have lost their jobs.

You just said earlier it was 1.8 million. Your website says three million jobs have been lost. So which is it? Funny thing, you don't mention that Bush inherited a recession, we had 9/11, war, and the stock market melt down.

Now, we've gained 1.4 million jobs the last several months, home ownership is at an all time high, the stock market is growing, and the economy is growing faster than in 2 decades.

Again, you make numbers up and lie about the economy, while trying scare Americans.

We have a president who can make a promise about no child left behind and then not even fund it. What has happened?

According to the Dept. of Ed., the US spends nearly $9000 per student. More than France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Japan, etc. We spend the money, we're not getting the results. This year alone, federal grants for special ed will total over $10 billion dollars, and almost $25 billion for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Again, we are spending the money. One aspect of the NCLB is accountability, which some states and teachers unions have balked at.

Today, we still see two school systems in America, one for the well off, and one for the left out.

Two Americas, and now two schools. This is disgusting really. What America are you talking about? Perhaps it IS Langston Hughes' America. There are many problems in our schools. There are many reasons why our schools are not performing. But you apint it as though it is 1954 all over again. This is repugnant.

Values means thinking about what it’s like for a parent. Maybe it is one of you who wake up in the middle of the night because you’ve lost your health care or you never had it or you’ve got kids who don’t have it, and you make decisions about those children. That happens all across America, that parents make decisions about what their kids can and can’t do, because they are afraid if they get hurt doing something they want to do, they might have to go to their doctor and they can’t afford to do it. Break the bank.

Fear, fear, and more fear. It happens all across America. You are running a campaign based on doom and gloom. You make claims about people in despair, and extrapolate that to the country as a whole. Your message is based on fear.

Of course at some point, many families go through tough times. What would you have us do? Lie there and wallow in misery, and wait for the government to come save us?

We’re going to stop being the only industrial nation on the face of this planet that doesn’t understand health care is not a privilege for the elected and the connected or the wealthy. It is a right for every single American. And we are going to make it available to all Americans: affordable, accessible.

The other industrialized nations of the world, Germany, France, Canada, etc., didn't have to spend trillions the last 60 years on defense, because we did. How exactly are you going to make health care accessible and affordable? And if health care is a right, how about a house, a car, a television, a cell phone...

And how are you going to address spiraling drug costs, malpractice insurance, elderly care, new technologies, etc. There are many factors to health care costs, not the least that we have so much better health care. 30 years ago, cancer was predominantly a death sentence. Now, the survival rates are quite high. And that comes cheaply?

We have a plan to invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and to protect our environment so that no young American in uniform is ever held hostage to America’s dependence on oil from the Middle East.

So the Iraq war was about oil? Maybe it was about a pipeline in Afghanistan?

How about nuclear energy senator?

Values obviously means building a strong military and leading strong alliances, but there’s a reason we do that. It is so that no young American is ever put in harm’s way because we needlessly insisted on going it alone. That is a value.

So if we don't have the permission of foreign governments, than we should not act. And if countries have interests in maintaining relationships with Saddam, like France did, than we should defer to them. And we did not go it alone. We have many nations in Iraq. All you're doing is telling terrorists you don't have the determination to fight them on their soil.

Today a massive humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, where 300,000 people or more may die in the coming months. This administration must stop equivocating...... the United States should lead. Every single one of you sitting here knows that we should lead.

Colin Powell just went to Darfur, and you just said we shouldn't go it alone. And your friends the French, are opposing sanctions against Sudan. So, do we go it alone, or do we work with our allies?

... no crisis, no challenge asks more of the American conscience than the growing AIDS pandemic...

And I say to all Americans, fighting AIDS is not something we do purely out of a sense of responsibility and morality. It’s also common sense in terms of the security of our country. Because fighting AIDS will make us safer, because societies that are ravaged by AIDS are more likely to become failed states and a haven for terrorists. And more than that, fighting AIDS is the greatest moral obligation of our time.

The President proposed $15 billion to help fight AIDS. And our European allies have offered how much?

This is your only mention of terrorism in the entire speech. So, if I understand correctly, we were attacked on 9/11 because a Saudi extremist, harbored by an extreme Afghanistan government, recruited young Arabs to crash planes into the Trade Center because of the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Wouldn't ridding the world of terrorists also be a substantial moral obligation?

This is the most important election of our time. Our health care is on the line. Our jobs are on the line. Our children’s future is on the line. The Supreme Court is on the line. America’s role in the world is on the line.

Did you forget national security is on the line, or did you just choose not to mention it? And what would our role in the world be? Wouldn't it be to act when nobody else will, because we have a unique obligation? Or would that be going it alone?

And that is why we cannot accept a repeat of 2000.

Demagoguery and fear. Nice message.

A million African-Americans were disenfranchised in the last election. It is a great injustice to all Americans when African- Americans are denied their fundamental right to vote.

Really? Again, where's the proof?

On Election Day, well, we are not just going to sit there and wait for it to happen. We are already out there putting together teams of lawyers. We are already out there preparing challenges for these purges.

This is as offensive and disgusting an assertion, that our elections are not free and fair.

The great poet Langston Hughes put it this way. And as you all know, he wrote about both being black and being poor in a time of American distress. And he wrote: "Let America be America again. Let it be the dream it used to be for those whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain, whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain must bring back our mighty dream again."

Looks like your America is Langston Hughes' America.

With your help, if you march again the way we have before, if you are willing to go out and do this hard work and reclaim our own democracy and our own country, if you are willing to set an example to the world, we can, we must and we will bring back our mighty dream again.

That right. An evil force has invaded and taken over America. This is hardly presidential level rhetoric. This is the stuff you hear at environmental, anti-globalization, anti-war rallies. Or any place Howard Dean speaks.

So, Senator Kerry starts off by praising a person who calls political opponents Nazis and terrorists, praising another who uses horrible racist language to describe African-Americans who hold differing points of view, and closes by citing a Communist poet who trashed America. In between, he plays on doom and gloom, tries to build peoples' fear and exploit class warfare. He insinuates the president went to war for other than national security and mentions terrorism only in the context of AIDS.

Kerry for President. Hooray!!

John Edwards is on his own stumping for Kerry in Iowa. And I think we're beginning to see a very different John Edwards. The nice, smiling, positive Edwards is being replaced with the more edgy, biting Edwards. And now we see a new campaign theme.

The truth is this: What we need in the White House is somebody who has the strength, courage and leadership to take responsibility and be accountable, not only for what's good, but for what's bad.

The new theme will be taking responsibility. Apparently, Bush needs to take responsibility for years and years of failure on the part of the CIA as well as years of previous administrations to fully address the growing terrorist network. Kennedy assumed responsibility for the Bay of Pigs after it was over. And I don't remember FDR ever "taking responsibility" for the Pearl Harbor attack. We are in the middle of a war. Taking responsibility means you evaluate what you're doing and making the necessary changes. Bush precisely did this back in 2003 when things were not going as well as hoped, and they made a major change, that full sovereignty would be the goal. That senator is taking responsibility.

Of course, in society, it seems that at every instance, if some group is offended, they demand an apology. We have succumbed to the notion that words are more important than deeds. Maybe for a lawyer who relied on junk science...

Then Edwards launches into the tired old rhetoric of democrats past:

I just want you to know when John Kerry and I are in the presidency and the vice presidency, we heard your voices. You are part of who we are. And your cause is our cause. And it will be when we run this country.
...
And John Kerry understands it. All of you know that because of the time he spent campaigning here. He knows about the struggles that middle- class families are facing.

And you all don't need us to tell us about this. You know you can't save any money, it takes all the money you make to pay your bills. And the problem is if something goes wrong, if somebody in the family gets sick, if there's a layoff, if there's a financial problems, you go right off the cliff.

This is pure class warfare at its finest. Kerry and Edwards "understand" their struggles and problems. And during the campaign they play on fears, real or created to scare voters. This is a positive message?

I'll tell you something else: John Kerry will fight to get rid of the greed and the waste in our health care system so that we have a health care system that actually works for all Americans, bringing down health care costs for all Americans and providing health care coverage to the millions of Americans who have no health care coverage. That's what we'll get when John Kerry is our president.

Again, they're going to "fight". This is a divisive message. There has to be a villain, some evil force out there, beyond peoples' control. And what worse is Edwards is a big part of the greed and waste in the health care system. Maybe if ridiculous lawsuits didn't drive up the cost of malpractice insurance...

So there you have it, the Kerry-Edwards campaign theme for 2004.

After John Kerry announced Edwards as his choice for VP, Andrew Sullivan fisked his speech. Several days later, Kerry and Edwards are interview by the NY Times. So filled with errors, it deserves a fisking. Here goes:

Do you think the American people and Congress were misled? Senator Edwards?
EDWARDS: I think what we know from the intelligence report, there are several things. One is that the al Qaeda-Hussein connection was not there. I believed that at the time, I continued to believe it in the interim, and I believe it now. I believe it was not there. I did not believe there was a strong al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection, I never believed that.

Is he serious? Stephen Hayes has established a long list of contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam. Too numerous to go into here, however, here is what the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the WMD failures said about Iraq and al Qaeda:

Conclusion 93: The CIA reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990's, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

Conclusion 94: The CIA reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi support for terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.

Conclusion 95: The CIA's assessment on safehaven...that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad...was reasonable.

There are other examples. for instance Saddam's offer of asylum to bin Laden, the contacts between IIS (Iraq Intelligence Service) and high ranking al Qaeda operatives in Sudan, the terrorist training camps at Salman Pak, the chemical and biological training that al Qaeda sought and Iraq provided, and the high level of activity during February 1998, Saddams money going to Ayman Al-Zawahiri who shortly afterwards joined his organization with al Qaeda, and the Jordanian Zarqawi who was in Baghdad long before the war, with the full knowledge of the IIS. Also, lest we forget, Ramseh Yousef, the Iraq agent who had al Qaeda ties bombed the WTC in 1993, fled to Baghdad, and the man who mixed the chemicals, Yasin, escaped to, drum roll please, Iraq upon his release from custody, If there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, then the earth is flat.

Same Question:

EDWARDS:My view is that what George Bush has done in Iraq, both in the leadup to the war and more importantly his planning for winning the peace, has cost America dearly, and cost the possibility of success dearly. And I think that's our focus, for purposes of the Kerry-Edwards administration, is what we would do, given the situation that we're now in. If you listen to what we've talked about both on the campaign trail, and what we will talk about going forward, and what the American people want to know from us is, what would you do given the situation we're in in Iraq now, how will you lead differently, how will you build coalitions differently, how will you provide security or help the Iraqis provide security for themselves differently than this administration, and that's what I think people are looking for. So trying to go back and reevaluate what we would have done, had we had, hypothetically, had this information or that information, is not useful to us now. What people want to know from us is what we can do to lead. Based on the situation we're now in. That's exactly what we've been talking about, it's what we'll continue to talk about.

Huh? In other words, we're going to circumlocute the issue until everyone, including the terrorists have no idea what we'll do. If you look back it is not useful, and we won't do it. But wait, let's look back and see that the Bush administration has done all these terrible things. Yes, people do want to know what you'll do, so please tell us. And no, "moving forward" is not sufficient.

Q.You said you never thought there was a connection between al Qaeda and Hussein. Is there anything in the intelligence report that has changed your view on anything, from what your view was when you took the vote to what your view is now of the situation?

EDWARDS: Yes. They didn't find weapons of mass destruction. We were provided evidence before the war began indicating that there were or had been weapons of mass destruction.

Q.Was that your main rationale for voting for the war?

EDWARDS: It was one of the things. I'm not going to go back and answer hypothetical questions about what I would have done had I known this, had I known that thing at the time. My job is to talk about what I will do going forward.

"We were provided evidence...that there were or had been weapons of mass destruction." The evidence goes back over a decade, to at least the first gulf war. Every nation, France, Russia, Germany, Britain, Israel, us, even the UN all said the exact same things. Nobody disputed the conclusions, only what to do about Iraq. This is sheer sophistry. You're not going to go back and answer hypotheticals because you know to do so will show you to be duplicitous at best, dishonest at worst, and irresponsible either way.

KERRY: Look, the vote is not today and that's it. I agree completely with Senator Edwards. It's a waste of time. It's not what this is about. We voted the way we voted based on the information in front of us, based on that moment in time. And it was the right vote at that time based on that information. Period.

Then why are you going on and on about it. Clearly your own statements, and those of every leader in your party, including Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, William Cohen, et al., all came to the same conclusion. President Clinton even warned us in 1997 that Saddam would get them and use them. He just chose not to do anything about it. But you are right in one respect. You voted based on the information at the time. And that is the catch. Did you know it was faulty? Did the president? Did anyone? No.

And this president not only abused the intelligence and the information, for which he is responsible, not just Mr. Tenet - not just the vice president, not Secretary Rumsfeld - the president. You know, Harry Truman's sign didn't say, "The buck stops at the Pentagon," or "The buck stops at the intelligence agency," and the fact is that we authorized the president to use force in a responsible way, and I have said for months, you know, I have said it to you, I have said it across the country: this president abused the authority that he was given, by abusing his own promises to the country as to how he would build a coalition and how he would go to war.

Now your just dissembling Senator. He abused his authority? You authorized him to use force in a responsible way. What on earth is that? He did try to build a coalition. Your blindness or refusal to acknowledge the French and Russian duplicity regarding Iraq is not only disingenuous, but dangerous. Have you forgotten the oil-for-food scandal, or that Russians and French were violating the UN sanctions?

Q.Did he mislead you, did he mislead Congress, you, and the American people?

KERRY: Over a period of time, there were a number of misleading statements made by the president. He certainly misled America about nuclear involvement. And he misled America about the types of weapons that were there, and he misled America about how he would go about using the authority he was given. "Going to war as a last resort" means something to me. The president did not go to war as a last resort, period. Moreover it's the responsibility of a president, if you are going to go to war, having said we're going to do all that's necessary, to do all that's necessary. He didn't. Because he had no plan for winning the peace. It is utterly extraordinary the level of miscalculation of this administration, as to what they would find in Iraq and what was going to be necessary. They discarded their own professional military evaluations, from General Shinseki and others, they disrespected professional military careers, turned their backs on their own State Department's plans, and arrogantly believed. . . . And they were wrong. And soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong. And America's paying -billions of dollars because they were wrong, and allies are not with us because they were wrong. I think there is no greater responsibility of the president of the United States.

Regarding nuclear involvement, I think Mr. Wilson is shown to be a partisan hack and a fraud. Apparently the Iraq/Niger yellowcake incident has merit.

"He misled America about the type of weapons..." Well, so did you, and most leaders in your party.

Again, the harping about the planning and winning the peace. Yes, there has been numerous problems and many unforeseen developments. But, wasn't it your responsibility to address these PRIOR TO authorizing the war. I seem to recall that the Marshall Plan, which has been hailed as saving Europe, wasn't began until 1948. So we had almost three years post-war in Europe without a "plan". This is simply a red herring. You can repeat it with impunity. Because if things don't go perfect (and I don't recall the president ever making that claim, in fact he made the opposite), than he is fair game. And have you offered a "plan" other than "going forward"? As for the State Department, perhaps you should read Dangerous Diplomacy by Joel Mowbray. Not a pretty picture of Foggy Bottom. And of course State would be opposed, they're more concerned with "stability".

KERRY: And I believe if you talk with Warren Hoge or you talk to David Sanger, you talk to other people around the world, they will confirm to you, I believe, that it may well take a new president to restore America's credibility on a global basis so that we can deal with other countries and bring people back into alliances. The credibility of this country has been tarnished by this president. We can restore it. We will restore it.

Credibility is when people believe that when you say you're going to do something, you do it. You don't waffle or vacillate. Your words have to have meaning, and they must be backed up with actions. We do have credibility senator. If we didn't, Libya wouldn't have come clean, Pakistan would have stopped supporting the Taliban, and North Korea wouldn't have asked to resume multi-lateral talks. The fact that people like us is not credibility. That is simply popularity. Please don't confuse the two.

Q.In your discussions since March, Senator Kerry, what have you learned from Senator Edwards that has affected or expanded your position on how you win the war in Iraq or homeland security. What are things that Senator Edwards told you that changed or modified?

KERRY: They haven't changed or modified. Senator Edwards and I have been an echo chamber over the course of the last months. With respect to Iraq, we have the same position. We both voted the same way with respect to the $87 billion, we've both been talking about international cooperation, we've both been articulating the need for diplomacy and statesmanship, and that's one of the reasons why I'm so comfortable is I've looked at the records, I looked at the proposals of the campaign, and the creativity and the thoughtfulness that went into thinking about, for instance, the intelligence community. John had a very thoughtful proposal in the course of the campaign about how we do it. We had a very similar proposal. You look at the proposals on health care, they weren't very far apart. So there was a general comfort level with the vision that we both wanted to articulate to the country.

International cooperation, diplomacy and statesmanship don't win wars. Just ask the Czechs, Poles, or even the Iraqis. So, if I hear you correctly, if the next time we need to act, if you can't get the "international community" on board, you're not going to act. And of course, there you go again with health care, in the middle of a discussion of Iraq and national security. You don't take national security to seriously do you, senator? Maybe you weren't briefed before the interview? You both voted against the $87 billion because YOU WERE LOSING TO HOWARD DEAN. So, you played politics with national security, and of all people, Senator Kerry, you had said a few weeks earlier that it would be irresponsible to not fund the soldiers.

Q.In a poll we did recently, we found that a majority of Americans thought that because of the administration policy on Iraq, the chance of a terrorist attack had grown. Do you guys agree with that?

KERRY: I believe that the overall conduct of this administration's foreign policy the war included, the management of Afghanistan, the diversion from Afghanistan, away from Al Qaeda, the lack of cooperation with other countries, the lack of adequate attention on homeland security, all together -- has not made America as safe as we ought to be given the options available to us in the aftermath of 9/11.

Q.That's too mushy. Are we more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack?

KERRY: Look, because I didn't answer your question the way you want me to doesn't mean my answer is too mushy. What I said is very clear. That there are a whole series of events that have not made America safer.

There you go again, the war in Iraq was a diversion from Afghanistan and al Qaeda. Yet you voted for it. The lack of cooperation from other countries is a result of them not wanting to help us. Period. Perhaps you haven't been briefed, but your buddy Chirac has fought hard to block the use of NATO to train Iraqi forces. Is that the kind if cooperation we need?

The we're not safer argument is amazing really. We have disposed of two brutal regimes, killed or rounded up 2/3 of al Qaeda leadership, broken their financial network, had Libya turn over its nukes, gotten Iran to open up and North Korea to back to the table, and not had another attack on our soil in almost three years, and we're not safer? Of course, in one respect, he is right, because now the battle had been joined. We are at war. We were at war in the 1990's, we just didn't know. We were no safer on 9/10/2001 Senator. This is a most outrageous and egregious claim to make. Are we safer with Saddam in power, continuing to circumvent the UN, pocket billions in the oil-for-food scandal, continue to fund Palestinian terrorists, continue to train foreign terrorists, continue to offer safe harbor to terrorists, including al Qaeda, continue to pursue his weapons programs, and continue to cause great instability and turmoil in the Middle East?

Q.Not that part. The other part. Is America more vulnerable to attack?

KERRY: Iraq itself has become more of a focus of terrorism. And I'm confident that certain things that they have done in Iraq have increased the recruitment of terrorists.

Really? And to think, al Qaeda had such a hard time prior to the war in Iraq finding recruits to fly planes into buildings. This is again sophistry. It is because you say it is.

Q.Has his policy in Iraq - I'll grant you all the other foreign policy points - made us more vulnerable to terrorist attack?

EDWARDS: The way he answered that question, the way John just answered that question, is the way the question should be answered. Because things don't fit into boxes in this world. Any more than the things that affect American families here at home fit in boxes. You know, it's not health care, and then in another box, jobs, and then in another box, tuition. They all come together to affect the lives of Americans. It's also true that when you're evaluating what the effect has been of this administration, you can't look at Iraq in isolation, because Iraq acts in concert with what's happening in Afghanistan, what's happening with the war on terrorism in general, what's happening with the deterioration of our relationships around the world all those things go together in order to evaluate what the impact is.

Q.Have all those things together made us more vulnerable to terrorist attack?

EDWARDS: I do not believe we are as safe as we can be, that's what I believe.

Again, there's the health care, college tuition, and jobs right in the middle of an Iraq war question. They all come together? Sure, national security is equal with health care and college tuition. "...you can't look at Iraq in isolation, because Iraq acts in concert with what's happening in Afghanistan, what's happening with the war on terrorism in general..." I thought the two were exclusive, that Iraq and Afghanistan were not connected, and Iraq and the war on terror weren't connected. So which is it? You just contradicted yourselves in less than 5 paragraphs.

And again, it is so because you believe it to be. Sophistry.

Same question:

KERRY: Can I tell you why? The fact that what's happened in Iraq may have created more terrorists doesn't mean they've gotten to the United States, doesn't mean they have the ability to attack us. Those are very - that would require the briefing that I'm waiting to get this weekend, for me to ask a lot of questions. The likelihood is, yes. It certainly has increased the recruitment of terrorists and the focus on the United States as a target.

Okay, Iraq may have created more terrorists, or, your confident it did create more terrorists. You know, at least Clinton waited until the next interview to backtrack, you do it the very same interview. And twice no less. And of course, you're still waiting for your briefing. And, the fact that there's more terrorists doesn't mean they've gotten to the US. But I thought we weren't as safe as we could be? Which is it senator? Sorry, you're waiting your briefing.

Q.Do you believe the White House manipulated the public by using these warnings?

KERRY: I can't speculate and I'm not going to. What I'm going to do is guarantee that we, like John just said - what's important is what we can do to make Americans safer. I don't think people want political talk about this, I think they want to know that we have a plan.

Q.Have you talked about this, about what you would do differently?

KERRY: No, we have not talked about that. What we have talked about is making America safer.

"I can't speculate, and I'm not going to". Senator, you either believe they manipulated the warnings, which puts you into Michael Moore's crowd, or they didn't. You don't have to speculate. Your response is called evasion. By not denying they manipulated the warnings, you leave it open as a possibility. Then say so. And, you haven't talked about what you would do differently. But you're going to make America safer? How? By talking about it?

Q.What would you do differently in regard to that?

KERRY: Significantly.

EDWARDS: So many ways

KERRY: Significantly. First of all, Homeland Security left ports unsecured. They haven't pushed the kind of port container inspection we ought to have. They haven't asked people in the foxholes across the country about emergency planning capacity and catastrophic response capacity. We don't have the nuclear chemical plant, physical preparation that's been taking place, firehouses are understaffed, cops are being cut. Drive around and talk to mayors around the country as we have. They'll tell you how they're struggling with Homeland Security. Second, second, the cooperative effort with other countries cannot be overstated in terms of its importance to us. Your intelligence staff, the only way to improve it is with indigenous assets, the only way to have indigenous assets is to have good cooperative relationships when you're in the country and capable of building them. And in the absence of indigenous assets belonging to us, you've got to use other people's. That means you have to have the best cooperation. Everybody understands this administration doesn't have that. They've left relationships in tatters. And the fact is we can do a much better job of providing security to this country by repairing alliances around the world. Third, we have a set of other global issues that are available to us to help bring countries, to sort of build up the well of good will, if you will, so that when you need a vote at to the UN, or you're trying to get people to cooperate, there's more of a relationship to build on, and I'm talking about North Korea, AIDS, Africa, African development, global warming, loose nuclear materials in Russia, there are a series of involvements in Latin America, there are all kinds of things, that if we had a more proactive, sensitive, thoughtful, strategic, engaged foreign policy, we will strengthen our ability to wage the war on terror. Third

Yes, homeland security has not been as good as it could be. But as for improving indigenous intelligence assets, didn't you propose massive CIA cuts that even many in your own party called irresponsible? You claim that you can do a better job of providing security by repairing alliances. The French aren't going to help us.

You have a set of other global issues build up the good will of other nations. Senator Kerry, you are not running for president of the ASB. Foreign policy is not about relationships, good will, cooperation, and alliances. So, here is the crux of your foreign policy platform: a more proactive, sensitive, thoughtful, strategic, engaged foreign policy. I'm sure right about now, UBL is sitting in a cave somewhere hoping for a more sensitive and thoughtful president. If this is the best you can offer on foreign policy, we're doomed. This is college seminar discussion material, not a serious national security plan.

KERRY: This administration has done a really poor job of public diplomacy that is critical to our building up an understanding in the world about the true nature of Islam. The real potential for a dialogue so that we isolate extremists, not have extremists isolate America. I think we can create a climate wherein the Arab world is more prepared to stand up for what is right than they are today given the dynamics this administration has created. So, there are many ways for us to be able to make America safer.

Let's see, removing two tyrannical regimes that killed, raped, and tortured mercilessly and bringing democracy to parts of the world that have never known it is not going to create a climate where the Arab world is more prepared to stand up for what is right. Well, haven't Iraqis been stepping up. That is so insulting to them, their families, and the brave Iraqis that are working to bring about a peaceful Iraq in the face of foreign terrorists trying to topple the fledgling new government. You should be ashamed. Most of the recent bombings have been directed AT INNOCENT IRAQIS. And you cannot find one instance where President Bush has done anything but declare Islam a religion of peace, and the terrorists are distorters of the faith. You are blatantly lying.

Same question:

EDWARDS: Intelligence reform.

KERRY: And I have proposed, we both proposed, that the intelligence community reform. You know we've got this broad array of agencies that still are stovepipe, they don't talk to each other. There's not one single leader responsible, there's not one single budget responsible. We've both proposed, independently and) to bring that together with a unitary command and a greater structure. So there's, you know, I think this administration has been talk. As they say in Texas, all hat, no cattle.

Did you propose reforms before the war? No. Hindsight is indeed 20/20. Sure, everyone is in agreement that the CIA needs major reforms, but the evisceration of the CIA began back in the late 1970's, and has continued today. But, I didn't hear you, or anyone for that matter, challenge the veracity of the intelligence from the CIA. And Senator Edwards was on the committee.

The rest is about vice-president/president relationships. Clearly, these two are not only not up to the task, they don't even have a clue. The more they get interviewed, the better.