In Kerry's Own Words
On Jan. 11 of this year, NBC'S Tim Russert asked Kerry: "You said this about Howard Dean, and this is, I think, at the core of your candidacy against Howard Dean.' ... those who believe we are not safer with [Saddam Hussein's] capture don't have the judgment to be President -- or the credibility to be elected president.' As we speak this Sunday morning, aenator, do you believe that Howard Dean does not have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president?"
Kerry responded: "I think the judgment of a nominee who doesn't understand that having Saddam Hussein captured will make it extraordinarily difficult to be able to beat an incumbent wartime president who captured Saddam Hussein. And let me tell you why, Tim. Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq."
Back on Dec. 11, 2001, Kerry told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly: "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador (Richard) Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11. ..."
Three days later, he told CNN's Larry King: "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." [emphasis mine]
Kerry responded: "I think the judgment of a nominee who doesn't understand that having Saddam Hussein captured will make it extraordinarily difficult to be able to beat an incumbent wartime president who captured Saddam Hussein. And let me tell you why, Tim. Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq."
Back on Dec. 11, 2001, Kerry told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly: "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador (Richard) Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11. ..."
Three days later, he told CNN's Larry King: "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." [emphasis mine]
3 Comments:
I just wanted to state in response to the blog that Bush is no better than Kerry. Here is why.
Bush has lied to the American people about going to war in Iraq. He said that they had weapons of mass destruction, and they presented all that information to Powell. Powell, the most credible man in the adminstration (Why is that? Think about it!), took it to the United Nations. They showed maps of all the weapons. Now, we can't find one. Not a single weapon or chemical. Republicans or others can say that they have been shipped to Syria or Jordan or wherever, but by golly, they could have not had the time to ship every single weapons or take extreme care of something. Even so, we should have some more information regarding. The closest thing we have found to a WMD was a suspected case of sarin.
One thing I will concede is that Saddam has had weapons in the past, and he has shown that he will use them. He was a terrible leader. Everyone in the world will say that. Iraq was not a breeding ground for Al Queda or did they ever have connections. Osama Bin Laden has stated that he hated Saddam's secularist regime, and had a lot of differences that they couldn't put aside. That defeats number two of the reasons we went to war. However, our idiotic Vice President Dick Cheney still strongly asserts that they had connections. Even when it is all said and done, our vice president doesn't accept the findings of the non partisan committee that they established post 9-11.
So those two reasons are invalid for the Bush adminstration. So as time went by, the media and the public forgot, and Bush changed their reasons for going to war. Now, we went to help the people. According the an USA today poll, 50% favor american troops and 50% don't. We came to liberate. Iraq almost won its first medal at the olympics since i think ever. Liberation was a worthy cause to go, but my strife with it is that we could have the opportunity to go anytime before September 11 if he really believed and sympathized with the plight of the Iraqis. Now Sudan faces a clear pointed genocide and we are doing nothing.
His two reasons were lies and there were others. The first reason concerning WMD, My mother claims that Bush didn't know. Ignorance is just as bad as knowing. If you make a decision concerning the lives of others, you should know. The second reason concerning ties of Al Queda. There wasn't and I bet there is now. It is a breeding ground for terrorists now and it grows exponentially as we speak.
If you want to look at policies, look at Bush's foreign policy on countries that claim they have WMD or in the process of making WMDs. North Korea has WMDs or at least has the reactors. Iran is a year away from developing plutonium. They pubicily said it and what does Bush do? Nothing! Wait, I thought going to Iraq as to make us safer. Well, now if you think about it, going to North Korea actually wouldn't cost us anything, because we basically feed them. When we take over their communist regime, we teach them to feed themselves and voila, less if any money goes to them, defecit is reduced a bit. Maybe this is not realistic, but I am saying that there are other threats too.
Back in 1963, in order to garner support for the Cuban Missle Crisis from France, the secretary of state of John Kennedy spoke to Charles De Gaulle explaining that Russians were shipping missiles to Cuba. The secretary offered to show top secret photos as proof, but De Gaulle stopped him and said, "The word of the President of the United States is enough for me." Who can say that now? The way I look at the choices now: A president that has lied, or a candidate that might lie. As Homer Simpson says, "I don't mind being called a liar when I have lied, am lying, or will lie, but NOT WHEN I AM TELLING THE TRUTH!" If if it is all the same to you, I will pick the one that might lie and hopes he doesn't lie.
So, again it is all about choice. Bush or Kerry. Make the right one!
I ain't voting for Mr. Flip-Flopper! That is for sure!
Flip-Flopper or a vague liar? White liar?
Where does the loyalty lies in?
Kerry has been consistent! He has repeatedly stated that Saddam was a threat to the USA and that we need to keep up the pressure on him. Our form of pressure consisted of inspections, which proved to be only slightly effective. Continued pressure would mean more inspections, more countries involved. But Kerry NEVER advocated military action, except when giving the Prez permission to pursue it as a last resort. So, again, Kerry has been consistent in his words and Republicans keep on distorting it to make it sound like Kerry has been flip flopping constantly: for the war, against the war, supporter of terrorism, enemy of our own military and so on.
Just listen to the two people. Kerry speaks about the issues, what went wrong, what should be done, etc. Bush just keeps on attacking Kerry's record or him personally. Keeps on avoiding the hard questions except for generally asserting that the world is safer without Saddam, which no one would deny.
Post a Comment
<< Home