Quotes form Kerry

[Flatrater]

I thought I would post what Kerry has said about Iraq just to show the other side of the coin. Read and feel free to debate.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "[i]t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." - Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

KERRY: "I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

KERRY: "But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect [sic] the interests of our country." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 9/17/02)

KERRY: "[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98 )

KERRY: "[i] believe he is the kind of threat that has been described. I believe that in the post-Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical. It has implications for a Qaddafi, for a Sudan, for other countries in the world in the future." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98 )

KERRY: "I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I’m probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98 )

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." - Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

[Flatrater]

I also found this on another BB can you add to it of refute it?

Here's my take on the whole WMD and Iraq affair (not that it counts for much, but I figure most should know why I support the President).

I asked myself some questions:

1. Was there evidence that Saddam had WMDs?
Yes. I did not use Republican reports for this conclusion. Instead I relied on the intel provided by the UN, allied and non allied countries and Iraq's stockpile history.
PRIOR TO THE WAR.

2. Did the UN exhaust all means of locating WMDs.
IMO yes. The inspectors were not being allowed to do their jobs, Saddam's forces were intentionally preventing them from accessing certain sites while the loading of trucks was taking place and no records of destroyed munitions were provided.
Additionally, the UN had exhausted its sanctions (as we can see now, Saddam had found ways to bypass the sanctions and keep the money coming in) and resolutions were clearly not working.

3. Was the president authorized to attack Iraq?
Yes. A bipartisan congress, including Senator Kerry, authorized the use of force against Iraq. For those that say this should've been used differently, my time in the military says differently. If you see a threat and you are then authorized to use force against that threat, you attack. To then turn around and say "Well, we didn't mean for you to attack when we said you could" is political bullshit.

4. Should the US have waited and garner more support prior to the attack?
IMO no. The countries that opposed the US attack had very close ties with the Saddam regime and were heavily dependant on Iraqi oil. As we have also found out, many were receiving kickbacks in return for bypassing the embargo. I don't think they would've come on board even if we had found an atomic bomb sitting in Saddam's living room.

Post war questions:

5. Is the world a better place without Saddam?
Yes. While the war has cost lives, it pales in comparison to the number killed each year under the Saddam regime either directly or indirectly.

6. Has this war cost us allies or increased the hatred towards America?
IMO, no. France, Germany, Russia have never really been our allies just like Saddam when he worked with us against Iran, they worked with us only to achieve their own goals. As for anti-American sentiment throughout the world, it's been there for quite awhile. The mid east has always hated us because we support Israel. Europe has never had any love for us (except the UK...I think they still view us as their illegitimate children) and Asia/Pacific countries have entirely different reasons for not liking us. Nothing has really changed. If a catastrophe occurred here, the US would be on its own (just like we always are).

7. Is the instability in Iraq reason to consider the President had no idea what to expect once the main fighting was over?
No. Time and again, prior to the war, the President told the American people that this would take time. It was not going to be a simple invasion then pullout. He knew what to expect and he tried to tell us. History has shown that nations do not change overnight and one has to be patient. Unfortunately for Bush, we aren't a patient society.

Anyway, those are my reasons. Not all of them mind you, but a lot of the ones pretty high up on the list.

[leadfootGTP]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

3. Was the president authorized to attack Iraq?
Yes. A bipartisan congress, including Senator Kerry, authorized the use of force against Iraq. For those that say this should've been used differently, my time in the military says differently. If you see a threat and you are then authorized to use force against that threat, you attack. To then turn around and say "Well, we didn't mean for you to attack when we said you could" is political bullshit.

yes congress did authorize it, however, tecnically, it was our country that was not authorized to attack. Internally we did go through our proper system, however we signed a treaty along with the rest of the UN which stated that we would not attack any other country unless they attack us first. We violated this treaty by atacking iraq, and tecnically, just fyi when a prez. willingly violates a treaty in our country we are supposed to impeach him. We should not have agreed to the treaty if we cannot be responsible enough to carry it through.

[YogsVR4]

For the love of all thats holy! Don't bring up the UN - its as bad as making a Hitler comparison.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[DGB454]

Don't you like the UN Yogs?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by DGB454

Don't you like the UN Yogs?

That possibility does exist













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

For the love of all thats holy! Don't bring up the UN - its as bad as making a Hitler comparison.

Curses,that's my two favorites gone.



Oh well...Isuppose we can all keep battering away with our trusty prejudices,at least until November.

Then one side gets a hollow victory.Either one shitbag gets to be president, or the other shitbag stays in office. Whatever happened to fine men like Nixon? He'd have still been in office if he'd be judged by conemporary standards.

[Ace$nyper]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Curses,that's my two favorites gone.



Oh well...Isuppose we can all keep battering away with our trusty prejudices,at least until November.

Then one side gets a hollow victory.Either one shitbag gets to be president, or the other shitbag stays in office. Whatever happened to fine men like Nixon? He'd have still been in office if he'd be judged by conemporary standards.

Now that was just funny as fuck no other way to put it