| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Compilation of prewar false statements | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 03:11 PM (2,062 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 23 2008, 03:11 PM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
Finally, someone has put it all together - a comprehensive look at the false statements that were made by Bush and his administration leading up to the war in Iraq. How many times has it been argued on this site that we were mislead? And how many times has it been countered that "no we weren't". Well, here it all is compiled nicely for us to look at and to decide. http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ One thing we do know now is that bad intelligence was an issue and a factor and so I suspect some people will read the information on that website and dismiss it all just on that basis. But I hope I'm wrong. One thing that is clear from what we have all heard before is that there was disagreement in the administration about the correct interpretation of that intelligence and disagreement over the conclusions drawn as well as the best course of action. In fact, some voices were reportedly loudly opposed. Bush essentially had three choices: 1) Don't mention anything to the public since it wasn't clear, 2) tell the public exactly the way it was - that is, there were reasons for suspicions, but nothing conclusive, or 3) present it as definitive and act upon that "definitive" information. He chose number 3. Was that the right thing to do? I'm sure opinions will differ. But one thing holds true: since it wasn't definitive, but was presented as though it was to the general public, then it WAS misleading. Then there's the next excuse: "Who cares... Saddam was a bad man who needed to be taken out anyway". Ok, I don't disagree. But there are other "bad men" who the world would be better off without. In the absense of the misinformation, would we still have prioritized Saddam? Or singled him out almost exclusively among heads of countries? I don't know, but I think it's a valid question. In addition, since we did go after Saddam and given that it perhaps wasn't the best course of action had we fully realized the inaccuracy of the intelligence, then we need to factor in the lives lost and the blow to our economy that the whole Iraq war effort has had - not to mention the injury to much of the world's perception of the US as a nation - as we decide whether the Bush administration did the right thing. In my opinion, despite whatever good the Iraq war may have done (primarily deposing Saddam), it has also damaged our country in ways that will last a very long time and cost many lives that can never be recovered. I, for one, still question whether there were better ways and whether we might have considered other alternatives more seriously if the Bush administration hadn't been presenting its case like it was clear-cut (when clearly it wasn't at all) and as though there was no time to waste. In any event, the Bush administration will finally be history at the end of this year. Good riddance. Whoever wins the election this year, regardless of party, I hope they're at least more straightforward with the general public. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 23 2008, 03:43 PM Post #2 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I was waiting for someone to post this. I'm glad it was you, IE. Okay, here's how I did read it:
Bad intelligence was an enormous factor. Consider that Bill Clinton and John Kerry (who later backpaddled mightily) both made similar statements on the runup to the war, based on the same intelligence. In addition, Bill Clinton had made similar statements throughout his presidency. As for the war in Iraq, the loss of lives, while very regrettable, has been miniscule compared to other wars, even recently. In addition, if you look at the military casualties during non-war periods (deaths of military members not in any war zone) the numbers are little changed. Our country has been "damaged" by the "Blame America First" crowd, who are and have been the usual suspects. As for being more "straightforward" that sounds all noble and all, but is NOT reality. I can imagine the guffaws coming from Roosevelt, Truman, Wilson, Lincoln, Polk, et cetera, when this demand arose. This is war, and in war there are secrets. Revealing secrets gets men killed. Period. End of story. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 23 2008, 03:53 PM Post #3 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Why not give me the words and source of George Tenet's statement where he recalled " Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time." Why relay on "Another CIA official" talking to Ron Suskind to make the point he should be making with George Tenet's statements? If this is the first example - give me a reason to read more of this; especially since it is rather long. So I look around the site more and the firt KEY FALSE STAMET is
So two agencies thought two different things. Fine The administration went with the agency that was holding the more ominous beleaf. Once again fine, perhaps choosing safe over sorry but can’t say I blame them – it would be a big sorry. Later a Senate Select Committee finds post-war that this chose was in error, that the other agency was right instead. Where is the lie? Where is the false statement? I don’t know about you, But if I was going to waist my time creating a massive database of False Statements I’d put the good ones up front, not the ones easily dismissed. Oh wait, I get it now. "false statement" means anything wrong, any statement that turns out to be wrong is in fact a "false statement". In that light this makes a whole lot more sense. Yup this Administration has simply been wrong a few times - I can't deny that, I don’t think they deny that either. So now I don’t really know the importantce of this website. Did they mislead by acting confident rather then squmish, maybe a pore argument could be made to support that. But one thing remains nothing here holds a candle to what was done during WWII and FDR and Churchill are heros today. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 23 2008, 04:02 PM Post #4 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Don't count on it, You act as if the Bush administration has done something that no other administration has done before it. Since I know you are an intelligent person I have to conclude you aren’t that naïve. The only thing that is different today then in the past, is the proliferation and speed of information, that fact that this website can even exist. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 23 2008, 04:46 PM Post #5 |
|
Admiral
|
I'm not sure I agree. What's a "similar statement"? Saying "we believe Iraq has..." or "Iraq likely is..." is entirely different than "Iraq has..." and "Iraq is...". And, even if you are correct, saying "someone else did it" isn't a justification for it. The specific numbers aren't important. What's important is whether we would have gone to war period had the information been presented in some actual reflection of the picture the administration had about it and whether therefore ANY lives would have been lost. The damage goes much further than that. As for the secrets, that isn't what I meant by straightforward. I simply mean don't tell me we "know" if in fact we "suspect". No secret, just honesty. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 23 2008, 04:48 PM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
I agree that would have been better. However, these people have done a lot of work compiling and categorizing the statements of 8 specific key administration members. George Tenet wasn't one of them so that's probably why they don't have his exact quotes. Yes, in isolation, this is easily explained away. I agree that it's acceptable to think a President could choose between two ideas and simply end up making the wrong choice. (And I also agree that "false statement" means "inaccurate statement" and the authors of the website chose their words poorly there.) But the importance of the website is in its totality. If you look at all the wrong choices together, which this website makes a lot easier than it was before, the choices were all made in an effort to support the war. If a President was independently trying to make the right choices without any bias toward going to war, how likely is it that such a vast amount would come out as evidence for going to war unless there was more to this than honest errors? Not sure what you mean. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 23 2008, 04:53 PM Post #7 |
|
Admiral
|
No I don't believe this administration has been the only one by any means. But I do believe that others have certainly been far more honest and I do consider this one to be among the more dishonest that I am familiar with. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 23 2008, 05:02 PM Post #8 |
|
Time to put something here
|
That’s the custard in the donut ant it? In order to prove your arguments you need to sight facts.
Vast amount? Whats a vast amount?
935 false statements in two years, how many statements did they make in total over those two years? How many of that 935 are as questionable as these two appear to be? I’m trying to keep an open mind, but it just sounds all to sophomoric.
I mean that even if I where to accept what you are saying here as truth. What FDR did in WWII was much much worse and he is not questioned about it as much as this president. It seems odd to me.
Are they the most dishonest? or the worst at being dishonest? Is it harder to be dishonest now that in the past? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 23 2008, 05:27 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
![]() Charles Lewis, a leader of the "Blame America First" crowd is shown here participating in a discussion about the war. edited so caption would not be misinterpreted. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 23 2008, 05:40 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
They provided a bibliography. If there are reports, like the 911 Commission Report, that have already established certain facts, why should they have to do so again here? 935 in 2 years sounds pretty vast to me. I honestly don't see what it matters how many total statements were made. 935 is 935. That's either dishonest or incompetent. Take your pick. I don't find the two questionable except in isolation. But they aren't in isolation... That much I understood, but what did FDR do? Valid questions, but regardless of whether it's just him or it has always been this way, we need better. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 23 2008, 05:42 PM Post #11 |
|
Admiral
|
I've quoted the relevant part of your post. Thanks for the contribution.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 23 2008, 06:28 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 23 2008, 07:03 PM Post #13 |
|
Admiral
|
^ Wow. I didn't know you'd be so completely blown away as to have nothing to say. ![]() Here's one that applies to you:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 23 2008, 07:13 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
![]() Many statements can be verified here. Video of many of these and similar comments can be viewed here. "Version 3.0" Another source. Individual sources provided as available. Yeah, four years ago. One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq. (source) "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. His remarks followed that briefing. (source) "Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton. (source) "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright. (source) "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. (source) "That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq." President Clinton in his address to the people regarding US-led attack on Iraq, Dec. 16, 1998, (link) "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website. (source) "Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago. She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies." (source) "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman. It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq. (source) "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date. (source) "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club. (source) "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 (source) "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins. (source) "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq. He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point. (source) "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein. (source) "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein (source) "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option. (source) "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23 ,2003 In a speech to Georgetown University. (source) Kerry Described Secretary Of State Colin Powell’s Evidence Of WMD In Iraq As “Real And Compelling.” “[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ‘but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.’ Kerry added: ‘Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.’” (Wayne Washington, “Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 2/6/03) (source) (Boston Globe, February 6, 2003, page A27 - link unavailable) “If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03) (source) Kerry Said, “‘We’re Going To Have To Make Some Fundamental Decisions About Whether To Follow A Policy Of Containment Or Deprive Iraq Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98 (source) Kerry Defended Clinton’s 1998 Attacks Because Saddam “Is Pursuing … Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.”(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98 All the following quotes are from John F. Kerry: "Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability." "Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. ... The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330) "If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years..." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369) "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) "The Security Council should authorize a strong UN 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. …Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated the most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security." ("US Lawmakers Threaten Military Action Against Iraq," Agence France Presse, 12/12/97) "[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98) "Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people's expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98) "We’re Going To Have To Make Some Fundamental Decisions About Whether To Follow A Policy Of Containment Or Deprive Iraq Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Eric Schmitt, "U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy," The New York Times, 9/4/98) "Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98) "There Is Nothing More Destabilizing Or Threatening [To The World] Than Weapons Of Mass Destruction. ... I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8321) "Mr. Kerry … Said Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Posed ‘A Real And Grave Threat’ To The United States." (Dave Boyer, "Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War," The Washington Times, 10/10/02) "Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?" (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171) "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171) "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171) "[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03) "If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03) Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein "Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable." (Jill Lawrence, "War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates," USA Today, 2/12/03) "[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ‘but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.’ Kerry added: ‘Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.’" (Wayne Washington, "Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq," The Boston Globe, 2/6/03) "Senator John F. Kerry … had lambasted Bush’s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ‘It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,’ Kerry said." (Glen Johnson, "Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops," The Boston Globe, 3/20/03) I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …" (NPR’s "All Things Considered," 3/19/03) Edited to include links to sources. Most are done - will search for the rest tomorrow. So help me, the next time I hear, "I can't be bothered...."
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 23 2008, 07:21 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral
|
Where's your source and how is that the same? :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |







9:20 AM Jul 11