Ok, not really...but you get my point. Just thought this was interesting. XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JUNEL 19, 2003 13:02:58 ET XXXXX Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities In New Hampshire yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence. But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations! MORE From the official congressional record: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities: "It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255) Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production: '[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255) Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD "In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255) U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam: "Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255) U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations: "[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255) END
What's the conservatives standard response whenever they're pointed out as hypocrites? Oh yeah..."9/11 changed everything". jk
Kerry didn't lie about WMD and neither did Dubya. What Dubya "mislead" the country about was the imminent thread Saddam Hussein was to Americans. Saddam was an imminent threat to Iraqis and Israelis, but not Americans.
from his statements above, sounds like Kerry felt the same way. "a grave threat to the well-being of our nation."
Saddam Hussein wasn't an imminent threat to Americans? I beg to differ. As far as I'm concerned, people like Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida are one in the same. What's the difference between Saddam and Al Qaeda, Saddam had a state to build his WMD. Al Qaeda didn't and doesn't. well they did until we kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan. The mere fact that Saddam had an entire country in which develop and hide his WMD along with the oil revenues he got made him a HUGE threat. Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Hamas, the mullahs in Iran, Islamic Jihad, Yassir Arafat, Bashar Assad in Syria, Hezbollah....they are all terrorists and terrorist groups. Thus they all should be targets in our war against terror.
If Sadaam had any trace of WMD's he was a threat. What is to stop him from giving or selling WMD's to terrorist organizations? That is the threat.
MM... There are differences. It could be argued that when Kerry was making these statements the situation in Iraq was worse...It could also be argued that he did not have the responsibility of making policy, merely offering opinion, and that he did not have access to the sources of intel that Bush had, and as such should not be held as accountable for his positions' accuracy. It could also be argued that he simply changed his mind, having recieved better information. All that said, however, and I think it's all defensible, without hearing Kerry's explanation for his flip-flop, it does smack of partisanship, and/or political opportunism.
What is to stop anyone? Is everyone a threat? I don't have the energy to explain again why pre-emotive or preventative defense has been a completely discredited strategic position for almost a century, nor record how much the US was responsible for ensuring that others couldn't use it as a pretext for war.
It's not a flip flop. Or, if anyone wants to call it one, there's an obvious explanation. Kerry's position (both in 97 and before the war) was based on the best intelligence available to him. He disdained Bush's failed diplomatic efforts while supporting the need to go to war (based on best intel available to him and what he was being told by the Bush White House) and now he's pissed that that intel and the nature of the threat to the US seems to have been inflated and/or manipulated. All senators and congressmen should join him in calling for an accounting of how and why they may have been presented flawed and/or faulty intel which led them to vote in favor of putting American soldiers in harm's way. By the way, I'm not a Kerry supporter (yet -- I may become one) but this is a non-story. Another in a series of deflections intended to safeguard the admin against allegations of serious misbehavior. Just like the whole 'Clinton said it, too' stuff. Whether or not Clinton or Kerry or anyone else supported an aggressive policy against Iraq in the past, there have been no allegations to date that they ignored or misrepresented intelligence that might have undercut the urgency of such policy. That is the allegation against Bush and his people and, so far, they've offered no evidence or theory to the contrary. If they didn't do anything wrong, or if what they didn't wasn't 'very' wrong, why not have the hearings (public and private) now and get them out of the way?
I'm betting you won't find even the most forthright administrations saying, "yeah...bring on the hearings into our wrongdoing! woo hoo!! let's accelerate those as best we can!"
I wouldn't take that bet, Max. But will you join me (and John Warner) in calling for those hearings anyway, just in the interest of clearing the air before the election campaign begins in earnest?
who is john warner?? sure...bring them on!!! (of course my voice is pretty quiet...but yeah! what he said!)
When Kerry made those statements there were UN inspectors in Iraq giving information. Kerry didn't make misleading statements, and the information he had may have come from the findings of thw world community's inspectors who were there at the time, and had been there for some time gathering the information. As for Bush, he didn't want to give the inspectors even 30 more days. They hadn't been on the ground for years gathering evidence or lack of evidence.
