NationStates Jolt Archive

From Kerry's Speech on the Senate Floor That Day (emphasis added)

- based on intelligence that was given to congress at the time

October 9th, 2002


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.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

Uhhh, it sounds pretty damned consistent to me, excepting, of course, the flawed intelligence Congress was handed.

Thank God Someone Finally Put That Up!

From Kerry's Speech on the Senate Floor That Day (emphasis added)

- based on intelligence that was given to congress at the time

October 9th, 2002



Uhhh, it sounds pretty damned consistent to me, excepting, of course, the flawed intelligence Congress was handed.
Good job but do you think it will get through thick skulls that already formed a opinion?
I fear that many don't care for facts anymore...

Is anyone else amazed at how right Kerry actually was, even then? My estimation of Kerry as a good candidate, as opposed to just an alternative to a horribly bad one (Bush,) has just been proven.

People will still find a way, somehow, to attack this. You know it will happen. Either that, or they'll ignore it and hope it goes away. People generally don't want logical debates here on this forum, they want screaming matches. I posted a new thread a week or so ago where I tried to talk about various issues in the debate and separated the facts from the spin. There were about 4 replies (3 of them mine) before I gave up on it. The only response from someone else was how well-formulated my arguments/analyses were. Guess that didn't matter to everyone else though. *sigh*

I have marshmellows for when the flames ignite! ;)

And yes, I doubt this will changed closed minds.

From Kerry's Speech on the Senate Floor That Day (emphasis added)

- based on intelligence that was given to congress at the time

October 9th, 2002



Uhhh, it sounds pretty damned consistent to me, excepting, of course, the flawed intelligence Congress was handed.

You may be looking at the leaves on the third tree on the left, instead of the entire forest. My theory has always been, and still is, that this war was never over WMD blah, blah. That was just spin. But it was necessary spin. Why? Because we would never have reached consensus for the REAL reason why we had to take down Saddam...

Consider what the "war on terror" REALLY looks like to those in top government posts. Here's an enemy that does not respond to simply "masses of troops" (in spite of what Mr. Kerry feels about Tora Bora, which is another topic so let's not get distracted here). This enemy comes and goes as it pleases. There has NEVER been an enemy such as this to combate, who can slip into our country BECAUSE OF THE VERY NATURE OF OUR FREEDOMS, and do terrible harm to thousands of people, NO MATTER HOW MANY TROOPS WE DEPLOY in Afganistan, Iraq, anywhere you think.

HOWEVER, there is one method that can work. It's risky. It's dangerous because it means "going it alone". But it could work. And that solution is to remove the reason so many young people of the Islamic faith turn to extreme splinter groups of their faith and participate in unspeakable violence and self-destruction to make a better life in the hereafter with Allah.

If there is one thing we've learned from history, it's that LACK OF DEMOCRACY and LACK OF OPPORTUNITY begets desparation and DISCONTENT. When you have governments in place that are more despotic than democratic, you can "handle" discontents very effectively. But once democracy and capitalism take hold in a region, the reason for ultra violence and self-destruction tends to dissipate.

So, the President had a rather no-win situation on his hands. We could not get "instant" results. But we could take a very forward looking stance, and decide that we must plant the seeds of democracy, one way or the other, in the very heart of the furnace that is churning out these radicals and terrorists.

Soooo, we kind of looked around the Middle East, and said, "Hey, Iraq would be the perfect place to take out a tin pot dictator who was already weakened from a war in 1991, and let's get democracy in there instead, hold the course, in spite of the enormous costs, and maybe, just maybe, in a less than a generation, the extreme elements of Islamic Jihad just might get pushed out or replaced."

But of course there's the little problem that this is the CNN generation where everything is know and has to be justified for instant results... and right now. So how was the government to get around this? Perhaps by knowingly spinning in such a way that they might very well self-destruct themselves because we in this world do not want to hear of long-term sacrifice, and we feel guilty that democracy, like it or not, is mostly spread through violence, violence against evil for sure, but violence nonetheless.

Think Japan and Germany and Italy in WWII just to name a few. It took occupation and violence and extreme criticism of the U.S., EXCEPT from those who got the taste of freedom back or for the first time. Today, that is true as well, the titular head of Iraq has nothing but praise for what we've done. Afganistan is about to have elections, even if people have to DIE to get it done.

When given the chance, and the support, most people will die to be free, rather than die to blow up children and fly planes into buildings.

Anyone here remember the quote from the special edition of "Time" magazine in the editorial section?? It was called "The Case for Rage and Retribution"

" The worst times, as we see, separate the civilized of the world from the uncivilized. This is the moment of clarity. Let the civilized toughen up, and let the uncivilized take their chances in the game they started."

I remember all too clearly what was on the news headlines several days before 911. The big "debate" raging was whether we should outlaw cell phones in cars. Then BANG, for a while, we woke up and stopped whining about nonesense.

I fear we are all whining again, and that means something awful is about to happen again.

All that you quote in John Kerry does not sway me to vote for him, not because I think it's cool to "hate" him, or I like to laugh at him, or make myself look "smart" by tearing him down, but because I don't have to shout about it to understand what's at stake here.

What George Bush did was incredibly brave and is exactly what leadership is all about. Making us take our medicine when "we don't wannahhhhh" whine whine whine....

Ah, but your post has nothing to do with the fact that John Kerry was right, and George Bush was wrong. I don't care how brave and forward thinking you are, if you consistently get it wrong, and I'm afraid that events have proven that Bush was, indeed, wrong and incompetent in even carrying out his wrong premise.

All this spinning is making me dizzy. Think I'll go find something more interesting to do ... like maybe watching the grass grow. :D

Ah, but your post has nothing to do with the fact that John Kerry was right, and George Bush was wrong. I don't care how brave and forward thinking you are, if you consistently get it wrong, and I'm afraid that events have proven that Bush was, indeed, wrong and incompetent in even carrying out his wrong premise.

A reasonable premise... OK. But tell me, how can you know that your opinion is correct? Were you there at the cabinet meetings? Did you get your information from something OTHER THAN news reports? Are you a member of the government? You say "events have proven". Gee, that was fast. It took 10 years to stabilize Europe after WWII.

People thought FDR was a Communist for goodness sake. People "HATED" the man (sound familiar?). Why? Because it was new. It was progressive. It was forward thinking, which is not what you're talking about. You're talking about forming an opinion RIGHT HERE AND NOW. Why do you do this? Why do you think that all the answers are in sight for us to see already?

Maybe it's because I'm 52, that I see very clearly that only time gives you the perspective to be patient. NOTHING in this world works right away the way we want it too. I dare say, once Mr. Kerry gets in office, he'll have a few "oops" of his own to deal with. But the difference between my friends and yours, is that we can question without hate, without rushing to judgement, and most especially, without believing that everything we read and hear is true just because of the source... THAT INCLUDES THE PERSON WE VOTE FOR IN THIS ELECTION? If you think that you can trust any one person so completely in this world, other than your immediate family, (that in fact you've know for a longggg time) you're kidding yourself... but whatever, I acknowledge your passion, there's a lot of it going around... lol...

I'll repost his speech so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle


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.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

A reasonable premise... OK. But tell me, how can you know that your opinion is correct? Were you there at the cabinet meetings? Did you get your information from something OTHER THAN news reports? Are you a member of the government? You say "events have proven". Gee, that was fast. It took 10 years to stabilize Europe after WWII.

People thought FDR was a Communist for goodness sake. People "HATED" the man (sound familiar?). Why? Because it was new. It was progressive. It was forward thinking, which is not what you're talking about. You're talking about forming an opinion RIGHT HERE AND NOW. Why do you do this? Why do you think that all the answers are in sight for us to see already?

Maybe it's because I'm 52, that I see very clearly that only time gives you the perspective to be patient. NOTHING in this world works right away the way we want it too. I dare say, once Mr. Kerry gets in office, he'll have a few "oops" of his own to deal with. But the difference between my friends and yours, is that we can question without hate, without rushing to judgement, and most especially, without believing that everything we read and hear is true just because of the source... THAT INCLUDES THE PERSON WE VOTE FOR IN THIS ELECTION? If you think that you can trust any one person so completely in this world, other than your immediate family, (that in fact you've know for a longggg time) you're kidding yourself... but whatever, I acknowledge your passion, there's a lot of it going around... lol...

You suck

People thought FDR was a Communist for goodness sake. People "HATED" the man (sound familiar?). Why? Because it was new. It was progressive. It was forward thinking, which is not what you're talking about.
Oh, yeah FDR was great, I mean he....he...... Give me a moment here!

You suck


I rest my case... ;-)

If there is one thing we've learned from history, it's that LACK OF DEMOCRACY and LACK OF OPPORTUNITY begets desparation and DISCONTENT. When you have governments in place that are more despotic than democratic, you can "handle" discontents very effectively. But once democracy and capitalism take hold in a region, the reason for ultra violence and self-destruction tends to dissipate.

Well, I am in a Comparative Government and Politics class, and recently we have studied that democracies are about as war prone, and conflict prone as non-democracies. And also, democracies tend not to fight other democracies, but rather, they fight and conflict with non-democracies. And so, placing a democracy in the heart of a region filled with non-democracies is likely to create new conflict, rather than bring peace.

No I can trust Kerry. If I was out in Iraq, right now,( and if Bush is elected, it'll probally happen *cough* Draft *cough*)I would much rather have Kerry following. Not just because he accually did something in a war, unlike Bush, who avoided it with help from daddy dearest, but also because Bush lies, he's untrustworthy, he's weak, he'll send people to die, but would have a heart attack in a war march, and because he's stupid. I don't think I need to describe that one, I mean, look at him!

You suck

Oh come on, don't say anything before you say that!

A reasonable premise... OK. But tell me, how can you know that your opinion is correct? Were you there at the cabinet meetings? Did you get your information from something OTHER THAN news reports? Are you a member of the government? You say "events have proven". Gee, that was fast. It took 10 years to stabilize Europe after WWII.

People thought FDR was a Communist for goodness sake. People "HATED" the man (sound familiar?). Why? Because it was new. It was progressive. It was forward thinking, which is not what you're talking about. You're talking about forming an opinion RIGHT HERE AND NOW. Why do you do this? Why do you think that all the answers are in sight for us to see already?

Maybe it's because I'm 52, that I see very clearly that only time gives you the perspective to be patient. NOTHING in this world works right away the way we want it too. I dare say, once Mr. Kerry gets in office, he'll have a few "oops" of his own to deal with. But the difference between my friends and yours, is that we can question without hate, without rushing to judgement, and most especially, without believing that everything we read and hear is true just because of the source... THAT INCLUDES THE PERSON WE VOTE FOR IN THIS ELECTION? If you think that you can trust any one person so completely in this world, other than your immediate family, (that in fact you've know for a longggg time) you're kidding yourself... but whatever, I acknowledge your passion, there's a lot of it going around... lol...

That's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is that Kerry HAS NOT FLIP-FLOPPED ABOUT THE WAR.

Do you concede this?

A reasonable premise... OK. But tell me, how can you know that your opinion is correct? Were you there at the cabinet meetings? Did you get your information from something OTHER THAN news reports? Are you a member of the government? You say "events have proven". Gee, that was fast. It took 10 years to stabilize Europe after WWII.

People thought FDR was a Communist for goodness sake. People "HATED" the man (sound familiar?). Why? Because it was new. It was progressive. It was forward thinking, which is not what you're talking about. You're talking about forming an opinion RIGHT HERE AND NOW. Why do you do this? Why do you think that all the answers are in sight for us to see already?

Maybe it's because I'm 52, that I see very clearly that only time gives you the perspective to be patient. NOTHING in this world works right away the way we want it too. I dare say, once Mr. Kerry gets in office, he'll have a few "oops" of his own to deal with. But the difference between my friends and yours, is that we can question without hate, without rushing to judgement, and most especially, without believing that everything we read and hear is true just because of the source... THAT INCLUDES THE PERSON WE VOTE FOR IN THIS ELECTION? If you think that you can trust any one person so completely in this world, other than your immediate family, (that in fact you've know for a longggg time) you're kidding yourself... but whatever, I acknowledge your passion, there's a lot of it going around... lol...


Ah, you say that you can question without hate, without rushing to judgement, and yet, by that statement, you suggest that I and my friends are not similarly capable. This sounds rather judgemental to me.

Furthermore, with regards to the premise that freedom is always bought with violence, history has shhown that to be true. Unfortunately, history has shown that the only way for it to happen is through internal pressures. It is only when the people rise up under the pressures on their own that they are ready to shoulder the burden and responsibility of freedom.

Your example of Germany, for instnace, is a case where the people once had Democracy, and it was taken from them. Defeating them and reinstituting it was not a case of defeating generations of societal inertia.

Also, you conveniently overlook the other instances in American history where our attempts to introduce Democracy into countries where there formerly were none have not gone so swimmingly, but have only created an atmosphere of distrust and hatred directed at the United States.

I see Bush's mistake as similar to your own. He cherry-picked history for evidence that supported his global dream without absorbing all the other information to the contrary.

Furthermore, he was not direct with us as a people as to his intentions. A leader who misleads and coerces his people in the name of freedom is leading towards a freedom in name only.

Well, I am in a Comparative Government and Politics class, and recently we have studied that democracies are about as war prone, and conflict prone as non-democracies. And also, democracies tend not to fight other democracies, but rather, they fight and conflict with non-democracies. And so, placing a democracy in the heart of a region filled with non-democracies is likely to create new conflict, rather than bring peace.

I would have to agree with you 100%.

That is precisely why it would have been very difficult to sell this war on the sole premise of "Well, we have to plant this seed, see, and it's gonna take a while to reap what we sow?" The government knew full well that once we got it, it would be hard to get out. Sounds horrible and cynical I know, but this is a new kind of warfare.

Of course, we could look at this another way right?? We could say, "Let's get rid of all democracy, and then the terrorists will have nothing to get angry at." If we take away the United States of America, they won't have anything to be mad about right?

Fact of human nature... very hard to all live in peace, and when it comes down to "you vs. us" someone has to win, and someone has to lose. Whose to say democracy is right? When I look at NationStates, I laugh my ass off at how few goverments give many rights to their people. It's almost easier to just be a dictator and get it over with... much simpler choices in life....

OK THAT's ENOUGH BLATHER FROM ME... Sorry for too many words here... I need a drink. I need to get laid... YEAHHHHH!

You may be looking at the leaves on the third tree on the left, instead of the entire forest. My theory has always been, and still is, that this war was never over WMD blah, blah. That was just spin. But it was necessary spin. Why? Because we would never have reached consensus for the REAL reason why we had to take down Saddam...

Consider what the "war on terror" REALLY looks like to those in top government posts. Here's an enemy that does not respond to simply "masses of troops" (in spite of what Mr. Kerry feels about Tora Bora, which is another topic so let's not get distracted here). This enemy comes and goes as it pleases. There has NEVER been an enemy such as this to combate, who can slip into our country BECAUSE OF THE VERY NATURE OF OUR FREEDOMS, and do terrible harm to thousands of people, NO MATTER HOW MANY TROOPS WE DEPLOY in Afganistan, Iraq, anywhere you think.

HOWEVER, there is one method that can work. It's risky. It's dangerous because it means "going it alone". But it could work. And that solution is to remove the reason so many young people of the Islamic faith turn to extreme splinter groups of their faith and participate in unspeakable violence and self-destruction to make a better life in the hereafter with Allah.

If there is one thing we've learned from history, it's that LACK OF DEMOCRACY and LACK OF OPPORTUNITY begets desparation and DISCONTENT. When you have governments in place that are more despotic than democratic, you can "handle" discontents very effectively. But once democracy and capitalism take hold in a region, the reason for ultra violence and self-destruction tends to dissipate.

So, the President had a rather no-win situation on his hands. We could not get "instant" results. But we could take a very forward looking stance, and decide that we must plant the seeds of democracy, one way or the other, in the very heart of the furnace that is churning out these radicals and terrorists.

Soooo, we kind of looked around the Middle East, and said, "Hey, Iraq would be the perfect place to take out a tin pot dictator who was already weakened from a war in 1991, and let's get democracy in there instead, hold the course, in spite of the enormous costs, and maybe, just maybe, in a less than a generation, the extreme elements of Islamic Jihad just might get pushed out or replaced."

But of course there's the little problem that this is the CNN generation where everything is know and has to be justified for instant results... and right now. So how was the government to get around this? Perhaps by knowingly spinning in such a way that they might very well self-destruct themselves because we in this world do not want to hear of long-term sacrifice, and we feel guilty that democracy, like it or not, is mostly spread through violence, violence against evil for sure, but violence nonetheless.

Think Japan and Germany and Italy in WWII just to name a few. It took occupation and violence and extreme criticism of the U.S., EXCEPT from those who got the taste of freedom back or for the first time. Today, that is true as well, the titular head of Iraq has nothing but praise for what we've done. Afganistan is about to have elections, even if people have to DIE to get it done.

When given the chance, and the support, most people will die to be free, rather than die to blow up children and fly planes into buildings.

Anyone here remember the quote from the special edition of "Time" magazine in the editorial section?? It was called "The Case for Rage and Retribution"

" The worst times, as we see, separate the civilized of the world from the uncivilized. This is the moment of clarity. Let the civilized toughen up, and let the uncivilized take their chances in the game they started."

I remember all too clearly what was on the news headlines several days before 911. The big "debate" raging was whether we should outlaw cell phones in cars. Then BANG, for a while, we woke up and stopped whining about nonesense.

I fear we are all whining again, and that means something awful is about to happen again.

All that you quote in John Kerry does not sway me to vote for him, not because I think it's cool to "hate" him, or I like to laugh at him, or make myself look "smart" by tearing him down, but because I don't have to shout about it to understand what's at stake here.

What George Bush did was incredibly brave and is exactly what leadership is all about. Making us take our medicine when "we don't wannahhhhh" whine whine whine....

That is correct.
Let us lie to the people. They are too stupid and ignoeant to follow our cause without just cause.
My theory has always been, and still is, that this war was never over WMD blah, blah. That was just spin. But it was necessary spin. Why? Because we would never have reached consensus for the REAL reason why we had to take down Saddam...
Why should the President tell the truth! Why should he explain himself? He is their ruler, their chief, and their God.
They should bow down at his feet just for thinking about telling them somwthing!
Yes we don't deserve the REAL truth! Why should we? Just because Heavenly Father, the Founding fathers, and every just man thinks the truth is right? Yeah right, all those "liberals" that started America are ruining it, right?

Your words fellow Patriot...
If there is one thing we've learned from history, it's that LACK OF DEMOCRACY and LACK OF OPPORTUNITY begets desparation and DISCONTENT.
because I don't have to shout about it to understand what's at stake here.



Are too funny to say. But I will for the Country is at stake.

Lack of democracy and opportunity are such irony when said by a man who agrees that lying is "okay" for the "greater good." Isn't taking away the truth steal options thus making us lack opportunity.
Voting on the truth is part of our demcracy... take that away and we lose that precious thing...

According to you President Bush stole our Opportunity and Democracy...that makes me a sad sad Panda...

Sometimes debate is good. Freedom of Speech and debate are part of our culture yet:

I remember all too clearly what was on the news headlines several days before 911. The big "debate" raging was whether we should outlaw cell phones in cars. Then BANG, for a while, we woke up and stopped whining about nonesense.

I fear we are all whining again, and that means something awful is about to happen again.
That is correct, why should we debate? We should turn into a communist nation or something, right? Why should we discuss things? The Administration who ever at the time rules gets a say, why should we?

Maybe, just maybe, follow me here America is supposed to be a democratic republic with free speech and debates on issues. I know its a shock and hard to swallow but its a good idea. But no you are right debating any issue is "nonsense" we should just follow like sheep.

So I end this post... hoping America will stay America... If we give up our freedoms for security the terrorist will win... Hopefully its not to late to stop the weeds of freedom stomping...

Ah, you say that you can question without hate, without rushing to judgement, and yet, by that statement, you suggest that I and my friends are not similarly capable. This sounds rather judgemental to me.


Furthermore, he was not direct with us as a people as to his intentions. A leader who misleads and coerces his people in the name of freedom is leading towards a freedom in name only.


Being judgemental, and being rude about it are two different things. It was not my intent to put you personally in the rude category. I was referring to those more outspoken in their criticisms. I believe you made your points very calmly and thoughtfully.

As for misleading, it would be wonderful if it were never necessary. But when time is of the essence, it is difficult to convince and educate everyone all the time. And I do not have a good solution for that. It's hippocritical I know. You would think that in our age of instant access to information, that this would not be a problem, but there nearly always seems to be a bias in the information (whether CNN or FOX, NY Times or NY Post).

Good luck in your pursuit of truth and justice, and WHERE's MY BEER!!!

To get us back on track, I want a straight answer from a reasonable supporter of the "flip-flop" criticism of Kerry whether his views today are in any way inconsistent with his speech on October 9th 2002, or, rahter, that this speech and what he says today is actually a rather remarkable example (especially from a politician,) of consistency and lucent forethought.


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.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

That is correct.
Let us lie to the people. They are too stupid and ignoeant to follow our cause without just cause.


So I end this post... hoping America will stay America... If we give up our freedoms for security the terrorist will win... Hopefully its not to late to stop the weeds of freedom stomping...

The world is gray my friend. It's how we deal with the realities of gray that allow us to be content in life or angry all the time. When you escalate my words into rhetoric, you defeat your own intelligence by attempting to paint me as an extremist.

There's a test on the internet that I once took for the heck of it. It asks you a bunch of questions, then shows you on a graph how far to the "right" or "left" you are. It turns out I'm the slightest bit right of center, and I do mean slight.

There is a lot you and I do not know about our government. That I detest. However, it is bipartisan, and not exclusive to any one party.

Your intent is well founded, just don't waste your energy in trying to fry "only" one side with your skepticism.

To get us back on track, I want a straight answer from a reasonable supporter of the "flip-flop" criticism of Kerry whether his views today are in any way inconsistent with his speech on October 9th 2002, or, rahter, that this speech and what he says today is actually a rather remarkable example (especially from a politician,) of consistency and lucent forethought.


OK, how about, "You win!!! You made a good point!!!" Elect John Kerry because he is consistent from then to now. Elect him because this one speech proves what you want to believe. Happy now?

I can't wait to resume this discussion a year from now. Goodnight all!

A reasonable premise... OK. But tell me, how can you know that your opinion is correct? Were you there at the cabinet meetings? Did you get your information from something OTHER THAN news reports? Are you a member of the government? You say "events have proven". Gee, that was fast. It took 10 years to stabilize Europe after WWII.


But then how do we, as a nation, as a democracy, know that our opinion is right? What gives us the authority to become the World Police Force? What gives us the power to invade countries and press our ideals onto them, is that not a direct form of oppression when we are trying to free these oppressed people? We have been the "city on the hill" for too long, the moral outlook. That is what draws attention to us. We have been on top for too long, that is what drives people crazy. The things we have, the freedoms we take advantage of, the emmense amount of stuff that we take for advantage and waste every day.
It is up to the people to decide what is right for them as a government. Some countries may have to rely on a monarchy or dictatorship in order to function. Some, and that is a select few, have the current capabilities to become thriving democracies. Either way change will always include violence on a scale as big as politics, but is it the right for other countries to become involved and help the side that shares their ideals? Is the cold war still hot, is imperialism still in our blood?
Afghanistan is a different story than Iraq, the only common ground is terrorism. But changing a countries national political structure will have little to no effect on terrorism. Terrorism does not breed on a political scale, it hides within countries, and it can easily change from country to country. Why even in this democratic stronghold of America does terrorism breed. It is true however, that some governments do handle control of terrorism than others, lessening its growth, but shall we go around country to country changing their political structure, just so that we can feel safe? Was the war on iraq a war against terror, or a war to complete Bush's personal agenda?
I also agree that Instituting a democracy in the heart of the middle east, in a country like Iraq, can have enourmous repercussions, and decades of warfare. Look at how Isreal is faring in the Middle East. Granted Germany took years after World War II, but not decades of fighting that can surely result in the Middle East through Iraq. And no i do not have a plan myself that can solve the middle east dillema, i would not be so naive. This problem will have to be solved by many minds across many nations and many cultural backgrounds. In the end i predict a violent ending, but that should be used after all other available resources are lost, and at smallest scale possible. But again I re-iterate, who are we, as a nation, to decide what government should go to which people? We should, if anything, decide with them, and council with them, but not after we take them over.

People thought FDR was a Communist for goodness sake. People "HATED" the man

DAMN RIGHT! They hated him so much they made him president 4 times.Those cruel Americans!

.. And so, placing a democracy in the heart of a region filled with non-democracies is likely to create new conflict, rather than bring peace.

But that'd be like creating a jewish nation in the middle of the land of islam on hotly contested land, which we all know has worked out great and hasn't caused any problems. I honestly don't see where you're getting at, stop this nonsense talk. It's almost as if saying that forcing change on something will create some kind of backlash and that's just an ignorant precept.

EDIT-- this was the subject that Conservative Thinkers re-iterated to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gymoor
To get us back on track, I want a straight answer from a reasonable supporter of the "flip-flop" criticism of Kerry whether his views today are in any way inconsistent with his speech on October 9th 2002, or, rahter, that this speech and what he says today is actually a rather remarkable example (especially from a politician,) of consistency and lucent forethought.


The world is gray my friend. It's how we deal with the realities of gray that allow us to be content in life or angry all the time. When you escalate my words into rhetoric, you defeat your own intelligence by attempting to paint me as an extremist.

There's a test on the internet that I once took for the heck of it. It asks you a bunch of questions, then shows you on a graph how far to the "right" or "left" you are. It turns out I'm the slightest bit right of center, and I do mean slight.

There is a lot you and I do not know about our government. That I detest. However, it is bipartisan, and not exclusive to any one party.

Your intent is well founded, just don't waste your energy in trying to fry "only" one side with your skepticism.



I have to agree with Conservative Thinkers here. The world is to complex for all of us to handle. And so many issues come up in this nation that it is first impossible for the people to know everything. Also the people must be protected and some things must be held back from them. Yes it might go against our freedoms, but it is for our protection. We can not all understand what goes into foreign policy, not event he president alone can, he needs help, advice, counsel. It would also be a risk to us as a nation if things were not held back from the people. We can go into a great controversy as to whether or not its right, and what should be held back. But in the end its best to understand that some things are out of your control and your knowledge. Like riding in a taxi, putting your life in the driver's hands.

On the flip side though, this power should be used sparingly. And i believe that Bush has tried to, and done this, but just with such a big issue that it has exploded in his face. And now that it has, the american people will be misinformed as to the truth, through all the smear campaigns and mudslinging.

The world is gray my friend. It's how we deal with the realities of gray that allow us to be content in life or angry all the time. When you escalate my words into rhetoric, you defeat your own intelligence by attempting to paint me as an extremist.

There's a test on the internet that I once took for the heck of it. It asks you a bunch of questions, then shows you on a graph how far to the "right" or "left" you are. It turns out I'm the slightest bit right of center, and I do mean slight.

There is a lot you and I do not know about our government. That I detest. However, it is bipartisan, and not exclusive to any one party.

Your intent is well founded, just don't waste your energy in trying to fry "only" one side with your skepticism.


I'll take that test. Sounds good.

I only showed the hypocry and rather nonsense sounding rants you gave. You seem to be a decent man but your words in that post I quoted earlier were weird.

I'm against using people as a mean to a end. People are and ought to be a end of themselves. I would like to follow Kant's moral theory.
YOU can only do things that you could will as a maxim universally.

If you are upset that France, China, or Iraq lied to us then you have to be the same way if Bush does.

Its a contradition/double standard to allow one and not the other.

Things might be gray to you but as long as you follow that theory morals you will have.
And to me that is the best world of all.

DAMN RIGHT! They hated him so much they made him president 4 times.Those cruel Americans!


You miss my point... those that were against him were virulent in their oppposition, then by the time 2 terms had passed, a lot of those critics began to see the wisdom of his thinking. He was a great president, and he took a lot of chances. Of course, other than the small point I was trying to make, the issues are completely different.

But that'd be like creating a jewish nation in the middle of the land of islam on hotly contested land, which we all know has worked out great and hasn't caused any problems. I honestly don't see where you're getting at, stop this nonsense talk. It's almost as if saying that forcing change on something will create some kind of backlash and that's just an ignorant precept.


I will not stop my talk sir.. this is a forum... why do those that disagree feel that taking away rights to free speech is the answer??

I will not stop my talk sir.. this is a forum... why do those that disagree feel that taking away rights to free speech is the answer??

He was being facetious. Relax a little.

My only question is....does 2 years make a difference....That says 2002 if thats right and not a miswrite then if you look at how wishy washy the democrats are. Anyway 2 years is a lot of time....I am still really undecided but I will not get to vote anyway....so I quess thats a good thing

I will not stop my talk sir.. this is a forum... why do those that disagree feel that taking away rights to free speech is the answer??
American Constitutional Amendments don't necessarily apply to privately owned Internet forums, especially if they server is in the UK and the owner is in Australia (even if Gore invented the internet).

American Constitutional Amendments don't necessarily apply to privately owned Internet forums, especially if they server is in the UK and the owner is in Australia (even if Gore invented the internet).


LOL... Now THAT would make a FACINATING new topic of discussion!! Cudos!

My only question is....does 2 years make a difference....That says 2002 if thats right and not a miswrite then if you look at how wishy washy the democrats are. Anyway 2 years is a lot of time....I am still really undecided but I will not get to vote anyway....so I quess thats a good thing

This is what Kerry said on the day of the vote for authorization to go to war. 2002 is correct. My point is, how does this, in ANY way, contradict what he's been saying all along? This seems to me to be proof that Kerry (we'll keep other Democrats out of this,) has NOT, in fact, been wishy-washy. He's merely been wrongfully portrayed as such.

LOL... Now THAT would make a FACINATING new topic of discussion!! Cudos!
Microsoft fired an employee because of something on his blog. It's perfectly legal. The US Constitution only says that the government will not limit your right to free speech. It doesn't say there aren't consequences for it, and it also doesn't say that when you visit private establishments (or privately owned internet forums) you are guaranteed free speech.

<SNIP>

Soooo, we kind of looked around the Middle East, and said, "Hey, Iraq would be the perfect place to take out a tin pot dictator who was already weakened from a war in 1991, and let's get democracy in there instead, hold the course, in spite of the enormous costs, and maybe, just maybe, in a less than a generation, the extreme elements of Islamic Jihad just might get pushed out or replaced."

<SNIP>

What George Bush did was incredibly brave and is exactly what leadership is all about. Making us take our medicine when "we don't wannahhhhh" whine whine whine....

In point of fact, it was ALWAYS about the WMDs, until the press started to go against the Bush Administration. Why else would Colin Powell ONLY talk about WMDs in his presentation to the U.N.? It only became about "liberty" when it became apparent that the WMDs were big "ifs", as in "if there were any beyond the ones Rumsfeld and V.P Bush sold to Saddam in the eighties, then WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY?"

From the Duelfer (Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector in Iraq) report released Wednesday, October 6, 2004: "The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam."

Furthermore, the report states that Saddam needed to deter the vastly superior military of Iran, and therefore could not give a straight answer to the U.N. on WMDs, lest he risk an invasion.

As for your bravery nonsense: Iraq was the result of a neocon strategy formulated by Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz while illegally working for the government of Binyamin Netanyahu in 1991 (they did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act that requires U.S. citizens to register when they perform work for another country's government). They have ALWAYS contended that overthrwoing Iraq was necessary to change the dynamic in the Middle East. This strategy has never been about making the U.S. safer, it's been about a world view, plain and simple.

Instead, the result has been, as a recently released National Intelligence Estimate shows, the world, especially in the terms of terrorism, is a MUCH more dangerous place now than it was before March, 2003. So, what the U.S. in effect did was overthrow a secular government with extremely limited ties to non-Palestinian terrorism (and even the Palestine related ties were limited to paying money to the surviving families of suicide bombers), none of which were at a state actor level (as the CIA has stated). Now, there are MORE terrorists in Iraq than there EVER were before 2003. Now, radical Islamic fundamentalists have more recruits than ever before. Indeed, radical Islam was never a factor in Iraqi politics (even among the rebellious Kurds and Shi'ites), but now it is one of THE key factions in that country.

Bottom line, Saddam was NEVER a threat to the U.S., and the war was therefore predicated on dishonesty, and unnecessary. It's really not even debatable in the face of actual facts.

:headbang:

Microsoft fired an employee because of something on his blog. It's perfectly legal. The US Constitution only says that the government will not limit your right to free speech. It doesn't say there aren't consequences for it, and it also doesn't say that when you visit private establishments (or privately owned internet forums) you are guaranteed free speech.

By your logic, I would suppose we also lose our 8th amendment rights when visiting private establishments? That would be an interesting pro-rape arguement.

When corporations can punish individuals for what they say in public or private, then freedom of speech is lost.

By your logic, I would suppose we also lose our 8th amendment rights when visiting private establishments? That would be an interesting pro-rape arguement.

When corporations can punish individuals for what they say in public or private, then freedom of speech is lost.
No.
You can't really do anything to them...but if you don't like what they are saying, you are allowed to kick them out or fire them.
It's kind of like Disney choosing not to let that child company that it owns distribute Fahrenheit 9-11 becuase Disney didn't like Moore's message. It's perfectly legal.

Actually, you can deny service to any one you want to (or fire anyone you want) based off anything except their race, and that's only because of the Civil Rights Act.

You may be looking at the leaves on the third tree on the left, instead of the entire forest. My theory has always been, and still is, that this war was never over WMD blah, blah. That was just spin. But it was necessary spin. Why? Because we would never have reached consensus for the REAL reason why we had to take down Saddam...

oh -- good, I'm glad that there was a REAL reason that we had to take down Saddam... We've had so many fake ones already. (also, if your "theory" had any merit, don't you think that it could withstand discussion. You seem to have the dillusion that the idea is good enough to work, but too fragile for the President to talk aoubt)


HOWEVER, there is one method that can work. It's risky. It's dangerous because it means "going it alone". But it could work. And that solution is to remove the reason so many young people of the Islamic faith turn to extreme splinter groups of their faith and participate in unspeakable violence and self-destruction to make a better life in the hereafter with Allah.

oh, you mean we should stop propping up dictators in the Middle East -- that if we stop funding corrupt governments then the impovereshed youth in those nations will stop hating us? I agree -- the best was to stop terrorism is to stop the reason it exists -- Western Imperialism



But once democracy and capitalism take hold in a region, the reason for ultra violence and self-destruction tends to dissipate.

Really, is that why the US has the Industrialized World's highest crime rates?



What George Bush did was incredibly brave and is exactly what leadership is all about. Making us take our medicine when "we don't wannahhhhh" whine whine whine....

Oh, so good leadership is fascism -- thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were serious about that whole "spreading democracy" crap, but now I see that you're more concerned with seeing it disappear here.

Actually, you can deny service to any one you want to (or fire anyone you want) based off anything except their race, and that's only because of the Civil Rights Act.


there's also sex, gender identity, sexual preferance, ethnicity, class, age, religious preference, creed, political ideology... ect

From Kerry's Speech on the Senate Floor That Day (emphasis added)

- based on intelligence that was given to congress at the time

October 9th, 2002

Uhhh, it sounds pretty damned consistent to me, excepting, of course, the flawed intelligence Congress was handed.

I think you are being too gracious about the failed intelligence and I think this is a powerful quote that clearly demonstrates John Kerry's support, ONLY if certain conditions are met, especially the inclusion of support by allies and the 2nd Resolution from the Security Council. This is definitely worth posting again.

There is definitely no flip flopping here....WTG Gymoor....excellent post!!

Repeat Time:

Originally Posted by Senator John F. Kerry
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.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

thanks!

In point of fact, it was ALWAYS about the WMDs, until the press started to go against the Bush Administration. Why else would Colin Powell ONLY talk about WMDs in his presentation to the U.N.? It only became about "liberty" when it became apparent that the WMDs were big "ifs", as in "if there were any beyond the ones Rumsfeld and V.P Bush sold to Saddam in the eighties, then WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY?"

From the Duelfer (Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector in Iraq) report released Wednesday, October 6, 2004: "The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam."

Furthermore, the report states that Saddam needed to deter the vastly superior military of Iran, and therefore could not give a straight answer to the U.N. on WMDs, lest he risk an invasion.

As for your bravery nonsense: Iraq was the result of a neocon strategy formulated by Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz while illegally working for the government of Binyamin Netanyahu in 1991 (they did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act that requires U.S. citizens to register when they perform work for another country's government). They have ALWAYS contended that overthrwoing Iraq was necessary to change the dynamic in the Middle East. This strategy has never been about making the U.S. safer, it's been about a world view, plain and simple.

Instead, the result has been, as a recently released National Intelligence Estimate shows, the world, especially in the terms of terrorism, is a MUCH more dangerous place now than it was before March, 2003. So, what the U.S. in effect did was overthrow a secular government with extremely limited ties to non-Palestinian terrorism (and even the Palestine related ties were limited to paying money to the surviving families of suicide bombers), none of which were at a state actor level (as the CIA has stated). Now, there are MORE terrorists in Iraq than there EVER were before 2003. Now, radical Islamic fundamentalists have more recruits than ever before. Indeed, radical Islam was never a factor in Iraqi politics (even among the rebellious Kurds and Shi'ites), but now it is one of THE key factions in that country.

Bottom line, Saddam was NEVER a threat to the U.S., and the war was therefore predicated on dishonesty, and unnecessary. It's really not even debatable in the face of actual facts.

:headbang:

Thank You! I'm glad I read the whole thread before replying to that grossly misguided opinion.
Everybody needs to pay very close attention to the above quoted post. Particularly paragraphs 1, 4 and 5. That really gets to the heart of the matter.
To further rebut:
HOWEVER, there is one method that can work. It's risky. It's dangerous because it means "going it alone". But it could work. And that solution is to remove the reason so many young people of the Islamic faith turn to extreme splinter groups of their faith and participate in unspeakable violence and self-destruction to make a better life in the hereafter with Allah.
One of the reasons Islamic fundamentalists hate America is because we keep sticking our noses and advanced weaponry in other people's business. So how does invading Iraq help again? It doesn't. It fuels their fire.

If there is one thing we've learned from history, it's that LACK OF DEMOCRACY and LACK OF OPPORTUNITY begets desparation and DISCONTENT. When you have governments in place that are more despotic than democratic, you can "handle" discontents very effectively. But once democracy and capitalism take hold in a region, the reason for ultra violence and self-destruction tends to dissipate.
So why all the insurgency in Iraq these days? Why aren't all the youngsters lining up to buy McDonald's franchises?

So, the President had a rather no-win situation on his hands. We could not get "instant" results. But we could take a very forward looking stance, and decide that we must plant the seeds of democracy, one way or the other, in the very heart of the furnace that is churning out these radicals and terrorists.
Hmmmm, the heart of the furnace that churns out these radicals? You mean Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran?
Soooo, we kind of looked around the Middle East, and said, "Hey, Iraq would be the perfect place to take out a tin pot dictator who was already weakened from a war in 1991, and let's get democracy in there instead, hold the course, in spite of the enormous costs, and maybe, just maybe, in a less than a generation, the extreme elements of Islamic Jihad just might get pushed out or replaced."
Either that or it will increase exponentially. Osama bin Laden inherited his hatred of Israel from his father. As he grew to manhood, that hatred was reflected off of Israel onto the US. It only took a generation for one rich guy's bigotry toward Jews to become the horror we remember from 9/11.

When given the chance, and the support, most people will die to be free, rather than die to blow up children and fly planes into buildings.
You know, I think you just might be right. You do realize that all of this terrorism stems entirely from the Israel/Palestinian conflict, right. Really, it can all be traced back to that. So when you have Palestinians who just want to be free from an oppressive Israeli regime, but they can't be, those people are going to blow up children and fly planes into buildings, right? Hmmm, following your logic, maybe we should have liberated the Palestinians from Israeli control, because that truely is "the heart of the furnace that is churning out these radicals. But that wouldn't be so easy now, would it?

People "HATED" the man (sound familiar?). Why? Because it was new. It was progressive. It was forward thinking, which is not what you're talking about. You're talking about forming an opinion RIGHT HERE AND NOW. Why do you do this? Why do you think that all the answers are in sight for us to see already?

The same can be said about Hitler. (Not that I'm comparing Bush with Hitler, just making a point)

OMG! Please stop all this spinning! It's going to make me faint! :D

OMG! Please stop all this spinning! It's going to make me faint! :D
Which spinning?

Actually, you can deny service to any one you want to (or fire anyone you want) based off anything except their race, and that's only because of the Civil Rights Act.

Ahem. I would amend that to say that you can fire anyone for any reason, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. Legally prohibited reasons for termination are race, color, age, sex, and in some jurisdictions sexual orientation. There are a few jurisdictions where an employer must be able to show "just cause" for termination. Where the rub comes in is proving that a specific individual was terminated for a prohibited reason.

OMG! Please stop all this spinning! It's going to make me faint! :D

Trust a Bush supporter to think that going back to find out what someone actually said is spinning.

time to post this again


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.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

Bump

I'm going to keep bumping this until all the "Kerry flip-flopped on Iraq" nonsense ends.

I'm going to keep bumping this until all the "Kerry flip-flopped on Iraq" nonsense ends.
I salute you sir.

I'm going to keep bumping this until all the "Kerry flip-flopped on Iraq" nonsense ends.
Unfortunately, you may be bumping this indefinately then.

My theory has always been, and still is, that this war was never over WMD blah, blah. That was just spin.
What you call spin, I call lies.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
-Commissioner Pravin Lal, "UN Declaration of Rights"

A case for war should never be decided on spin.

People will still find a way, somehow, to attack this. You know it will happen. Either that, or they'll ignore it and hope it goes away. People generally don't want logical debates here on this forum, they want screaming matches. I posted a new thread a week or so ago where I tried to talk about various issues in the debate and separated the facts from the spin. There were about 4 replies (3 of them mine) before I gave up on it. The only response from someone else was how well-formulated my arguments/analyses were. Guess that didn't matter to everyone else though. *sigh*
Sometimes, when a poster makes good sense what can one add? More interestingly, few tried to gainsay you. Perhaps you provoked more thought than you give yourself credit for.

We rarely see all our ripples.

You may be looking at the leaves on the third tree on the left, instead of the entire forest. My theory has always been, and still is, that this war was never over WMD blah, blah. That was just spin. But it was necessary spin. Why? Because we would never have reached consensus for the REAL reason why we had to take down Saddam...

Consider what the "war on terror" REALLY looks like to those in top government posts. Here's an enemy that does not respond to simply "masses of troops" (in spite of what Mr. Kerry feels about Tora Bora, which is another topic so let's not get distracted here). This enemy comes and goes as it pleases. There has NEVER been an enemy such as this to combate, who can slip into our country BECAUSE OF THE VERY NATURE OF OUR FREEDOMS, and do terrible harm to thousands of people, NO MATTER HOW MANY TROOPS WE DEPLOY in Afganistan, Iraq, anywhere you think.
Actually this not new save that it is an extension of the gurellia approach taken by say, The Viet Cong who successfully withstood all the troops and bombs we threw at them.
HOWEVER, there is one method that can work. It's risky. It's dangerous because it means "going it alone". But it could work. And that solution is to remove the reason so many young people of the Islamic faith turn to extreme splinter groups of their faith and participate in unspeakable violence and self-destruction to make a better life in the hereafter with Allah.

If there is one thing we've learned from history, it's that LACK OF DEMOCRACY and LACK OF OPPORTUNITY begets desparation and DISCONTENT. When you have governments in place that are more despotic than democratic, you can "handle" discontents very effectively. But once democracy and capitalism take hold in a region, the reason for ultra violence and self-destruction tends to dissipate.

So, the President had a rather no-win situation on his hands. We could not get "instant" results. But we could take a very forward looking stance, and decide that we must plant the seeds of democracy, one way or the other, in the very heart of the furnace that is churning out these radicals and terrorists.

Soooo, we kind of looked around the Middle East, and said, "Hey, Iraq would be the perfect place to take out a tin pot dictator who was already weakened from a war in 1991, and let's get democracy in there instead, hold the course, in spite of the enormous costs, and maybe, just maybe, in a less than a generation, the extreme elements of Islamic Jihad just might get pushed out or replaced."

But of course there's the little problem that this is the CNN generation where everything is know and has to be justified for instant results... and right now. So how was the government to get around this? Perhaps by knowingly spinning in such a way that they might very well self-destruct themselves because we in this world do not want to hear of long-term sacrifice, and we feel guilty that democracy, like it or not, is mostly spread through violence, violence against evil for sure, but violence nonetheless.Unfortunately, Bush took the short attention span approach and instead has stirred such hatred and virulent opposition to America and anything American that what he got instead is a group of people who are not in the "CNN generation" and will harbor long simmering hatred. He has inspired more violence, not less in both the short and long term.

Think Japan and Germany and Italy in WWII just to name a few. It took occupation and violence and extreme criticism of the U.S., EXCEPT from those who got the taste of freedom back or for the first time. Today, that is true as well, the titular head of Iraq has nothing but praise for what we've done. Afganistan is about to have elections, even if people have to DIE to get it done.I think you need to do some real research on what is actually happening in Afghanistan and Iraq as to who the players are.

When given the chance, and the support, most people will die to be free, rather than die to blow up children and fly planes into buildings.

Anyone here remember the quote from the special edition of "Time" magazine in the editorial section?? It was called "The Case for Rage and Retribution"

" The worst times, as we see, separate the civilized of the world from the uncivilized. This is the moment of clarity. Let the civilized toughen up, and let the uncivilized take their chances in the game they started."Your assumption is that the Afghanistanis and Iraquis consider themselves uncivilized and America as a city on a hill. On fact the reverse is true. They consider Americans and their mere 200 year old culture uncivilized and psychotic.

I remember all too clearly what was on the news headlines several days before 911. The big "debate" raging was whether we should outlaw cell phones in cars. Then BANG, for a while, we woke up and stopped whining about nonesense.

I fear we are all whining again, and that means something awful is about to happen again.

All that you quote in John Kerry does not sway me to vote for him, not because I think it's cool to "hate" him, or I like to laugh at him, or make myself look "smart" by tearing him down, but because I don't have to shout about it to understand what's at stake here.

What George Bush did was incredibly brave and is exactly what leadership is all about. Making us take our medicine when "we don't wannahhhhh" whine whine whine....
It is not leadership to act the maverick, loose cannon. Leadership requires more than reckless abandon and a 'damn the torpedos' approach. It requires the discipline to know when to unglove the hand and when to restrain it.

Mr. Bush does not personify these necessary qualities.

Eloquently said, The Sadder But Wiser. I have nothing to add but my agreement.

bump

bump

Come on, has no one the guts to read through this and state that they still think Kerry has changed his position on Iraq? Seems like Kerry called it very accurately to me.

Come on, has no one the guts to read through this and state that they still think Kerry has changed his position on Iraq? Seems like Kerry called it very accurately to me.
Sadly, no.

Sadly, no.

Agreed. No one likes to have their false impressions shattered, I guess.

I agreed with that speech whole-heartedly. What i dont agree with is what Kerry is saying now. Everything he said in that speech two years ago is being contradicted by what he is saying now.

War was the last resort. Kerry wanted a new resolution passed, i did to, but it wasnt going to happen. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein broke the 17 previous resolutions put upon him, why would he honor the 18th one?

We "rushed" to war because we didnt have a choice. We now know why. Saddam Hussein bribed the UN security council using the blood money from the oil for food program. He was bribing them so they would lift the sanctions on him so he can freely begin his weapons program. France and Germany sent a proposal to the UN to lift sanctions against iraq, if we waited for the UN to authorize our war, we would of been facing a fully armed Saddam Hussein and our soldiers wouldnt be dodging bullets, they'd be dodging nukes. Circumstances put us in the position to go to war when we did. Saddam Husseins had the materials, the knowledge, and the intent to produce WMD's AND he was buying the time. We just werent in on the cut.

Kerry was consistant two years ago, he sure as hell isnt now and to prove it, in august he was asked the question "if you knew what you know today would you still authorize the use of force" he said "absolutely", then in the interview with Diane Sawyer, he was asked "the same exact question" because she quoted it word for word and he said "no". If you are asked the same exact question twice and you answer differently from the first, thats inconsistency period no ands ifs or buts. If you ask me if im a conservative and i say yes then you ask me again tomorrow and i say no thats inconsistant no matter what.

...I dare say, once Mr. Kerry gets in office, he'll have a few "oops" of his own to deal with...

If that happens he can always just use the same answer Bush gives:

"I'm only human!"

I seem to remember him saying that a lot over the past few months...

I agreed with that speech whole-heartedly. What i dont agree with is what Kerry is saying now. Everything he said in that speech two years ago is being contradicted by what he is saying now.

War was the last resort. Kerry wanted a new resolution passed, i did to, but it wasnt going to happen. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein broke the 17 previous resolutions put upon him, why would he honor the 18th one?

We "rushed" to war because we didnt have a choice. We now know why. Saddam Hussein bribed the UN security council using the blood money from the oil for food program. He was bribing them so they would lift the sanctions on him so he can freely begin his weapons program. France and Germany sent a proposal to the UN to lift sanctions against iraq, if we waited for the UN to authorize our war, we would of been facing a fully armed Saddam Hussein and our soldiers wouldnt be dodging bullets, they'd be dodging nukes. Circumstances put us in the position to go to war when we did. Saddam Husseins had the materials, the knowledge, and the intent to produce WMD's AND he was buying the time. We just werent in on the cut.

Kerry was consistant two years ago, he sure as hell isnt now and to prove it, in august he was asked the question "if you knew what you know today would you still authorize the use of force" he said "absolutely", then in the interview with Diane Sawyer, he was asked "the same exact question" because she quoted it word for word and he said "no". If you are asked the same exact question twice and you answer differently from the first, thats inconsistency period no ands ifs or buts. If you ask me if im a conservative and i say yes then you ask me again tomorrow and i say no thats inconsistant no matter what.

go to the meat of our disagreement:
We "rushed" to war because we didnt have a choice. We now know why. Saddam Hussein bribed the UN security council using the blood money from the oil for food program. He was bribing them so they would lift the sanctions on him so he can freely begin his weapons program. France and Germany sent a proposal to the UN to lift sanctions against iraq, if we waited for the UN to authorize our war, we would of been facing a fully armed Saddam Hussein and our soldiers wouldnt be dodging bullets, they'd be dodging nukes. Circumstances put us in the position to go to war when we did. Saddam Husseins had the materials, the knowledge, and the intent to produce WMD's AND he was buying the time. We just werent in on the cut.

We did have a choice. We don't know why Bush didn't wait. Saddam may have been profiting money but the sanctions kept him from building nukes and other weapons. If Sanctions lifted thewn maybe but we wouldn't lwt it happen. Only if sanctions ended would we have a compelling case for you War-lusting loyalist have reason to follow King George to this war. (Sorry for those last words but its true.)
One thing if Saddam had nukes which it didn't. Many years away. So Bush wouldn't be in office when Saddam had nukes anyway.
Plus Saddam was more likely to attack Isreal than Americas. Secondly, he wouldn't send nukes at our soldiers because he would be nuking his own land. Gas dissapates nukes don't.

you say: Saddam Husseins had the materials, the knowledge, and the intent to produce WMD's AND he was buying the time

However, Saddam, sdiud'nt have the right materials. He didn't have enough knowledge to create them. And he didn't have the intent to make new WMD's, but he would use old ones. (but he didn't strangely)
And the time he was trying to buying would have saved American lives. We could have gotten better Intelligence. So we would be better prepared once we beat him.

But we didn't. We rushed to war. Had little credibility. With more and more troops pulling out. Poland dropped out a little while ago. Bush names them so often that has to hurt.

go to the meat of our disagreement:

We did have a choice. We don't know why Bush didn't wait. Saddam may have been profiting money but the sanctions kept him from building nukes and other weapons. If Sanctions lifted thewn maybe but we wouldn't lwt it happen. Only if sanctions ended would we have a compelling case for you War-lusting loyalist have reason to follow King George to this war. (Sorry for those last words but its true.)
One thing if Saddam had nukes which it didn't. Many years away. So Bush wouldn't be in office when Saddam had nukes anyway.
Plus Saddam was more likely to attack Isreal than Americas. Secondly, he wouldn't send nukes at our soldiers because he would be nuking his own land. Gas dissapates nukes don't.

you say: Saddam Husseins had the materials, the knowledge, and the intent to produce WMD's AND he was buying the time

However, Saddam, sdiud'nt have the right materials. He didn't have enough knowledge to create them. And he didn't have the intent to make new WMD's, but he would use old ones. (but he didn't strangely)
And the time he was trying to buying would have saved American lives. We could have gotten better Intelligence. So we would be better prepared once we beat him.

But we didn't. We rushed to war. Had little credibility. With more and more troops pulling out. Poland dropped out a little while ago. Bush names them so often that has to hurt.

You must be illiterate or something. Saddam bought out the UN security council, they would never have sided with us period, they were under Saddam's payroll. Its not the US that has the credibility issue its the UN, we didnt get bribed by Saddam Hussein the UN did. The UN planned to lift sanctions against iraq, France and Germany were pushing for it, thats why we had to act, we had the choice of moving then or moving after the sanctions were lifted, its safer to move when sanctions are still in place.

Didnt have the right materials? Didnt have the knowledge? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? He shot WMD's on his own people! Where do you think he got the WMD's the sky? Reality check dude, he definately had the knowledge, the head researcher of his weapons program turned all his plans over to US forces in return for immunity against persecution. Hahmda Obeidi (sp) was his name, he even wrote a book about it called "A bomb in my garden", he turned over all research, he had blueprints on how to make nukes and bio/chemical WMD's. He made WMD's before the gulf war, what did he all his researchers all of a sudden get amnesia and they cant remember how to make them? Common sense man, use it before making up such a stupid answer. God i get a headache just trying to figure out where you came up with that answer.

You must be illiterate or something. Saddam bought out the UN security council, they would never have sided with us period, they were under Saddam's payroll. Its not the US that has the credibility issue its the UN, we didnt get bribed by Saddam Hussein the UN did. The UN planned to lift sanctions against iraq, France and Germany were pushing for it, thats why we had to act, we had the choice of moving then or moving after the sanctions were lifted, its safer to move when sanctions are still in place.

Didnt have the right materials? Didnt have the knowledge? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? He shot WMD's on his own people! Where do you think he got the WMD's the sky? Reality check dude, he definately had the knowledge, the head researcher of his weapons program turned all his plans over to US forces in return for immunity against persecution. Hahmda Obeidi (sp) was his name, he even wrote a book about it called "A bomb in my garden", he turned over all research, he had blueprints on how to make nukes and bio/chemical WMD's. He made WMD's before the gulf war, what did he all his researchers all of a sudden get amnesia and they cant remember how to make them? Common sense man, use it before making up such a stupid answer. God i get a headache just trying to figure out where you came up with that answer.

Okay, yes, Saddam had the knowledge at his disposal. What he lacked, according to the definitive report, is the capability. Now, France and Russia had backdoor deals with Saddam...as did Halliburton. France and Russia only make up a fraction of the security council. Now, before the war, they both indicated that they would be agreeable to an 18th resolution and would join the coalition if the proper steps were taken. Bush pushed them away and rushed into war. He rushed into war without proper armor, well before the controversial $87 billion dollar vote. He rushed into war with hyped intelligence, as displayed by what we now know they knew about the Niger unranium and the aluminum tubes.

Bush constantly snubs the international community. He walked away from Kyoto without discussing how it could be improved. He walked away from the anti-missile treaty. He walked away from the World Court. Oh no, the World Court might actually hold trials if we do something wrong! Oh no!

Bush says Kerry disparages our allies. This is the height of hypocrisy.

You must be illiterate or something. Saddam bought out the UN security council, they would never have sided with us period, they were under Saddam's payroll. Its not the US that has the credibility issue its the UN, we didnt get bribed by Saddam Hussein the UN did. The UN planned to lift sanctions against iraq, France and Germany were pushing for it, thats why we had to act, we had the choice of moving then or moving after the sanctions were lifted, its safer to move when sanctions are still in place.

Didnt have the right materials? Didnt have the knowledge? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? He shot WMD's on his own people! Where do you think he got the WMD's the sky? Reality check dude, he definately had the knowledge, the head researcher of his weapons program turned all his plans over to US forces in return for immunity against persecution. Hahmda Obeidi (sp) was his name, he even wrote a book about it called "A bomb in my garden", he turned over all research, he had blueprints on how to make nukes and bio/chemical WMD's. He made WMD's before the gulf war, what did he all his researchers all of a sudden get amnesia and they cant remember how to make them? Common sense man, use it before making up such a stupid answer. God i get a headache just trying to figure out where you came up with that answer.

Its hard to be illeterate when you can write. I can't think of one person who can do the one without the other.

No its safer when sanctions lifted because then we would have the threat. There was no threat with sanctions. Only when lifted as you agree.

Where do you think he got the WMD's the sky?

US, Russia, etc. Mostly US I believe. During when Iran attacked if I'm not mistaken.

Well you say Saddam. Saddam personally didn't have the knowkedge those scientists did.
He never made WMD's before the war. He was given them. He was researching them before the gulf war but backwards engineering is hard.
Look the gasing of the kurds is more likely Iran. Iran used WMD's also.

Yoo hoo!

Seriously, all you people saying you support Bush are just playing a joke on us, right? I mean, seriously, after three debates, all the crap that has happened and the complete lack of any plan to change a thing, you support that?

Ha ha. Fun's over, right? It's not funny anymore.

Well, I am in a Comparative Government and Politics class, and recently we have studied that democracies are about as war prone, and conflict prone as non-democracies. And also, democracies tend not to fight other democracies, but rather, they fight and conflict with non-democracies. And so, placing a democracy in the heart of a region filled with non-democracies is likely to create new conflict, rather than bring peace.

So the argument there would be that any country making strides towards democracy should halt their developments just in case they may come into conflict with despotic governments in the same region.

It's also not exactly unprecedented for dictatorial governments to go to war with each other.

So the argument there would be that any country making strides towards democracy should halt their developments just in case they may come into conflict with despotic governments in the same region.

It's also not exactly unprecedented for dictatorial governments to go to war with each other.

Like O'Reilly wanted to do in the shower with the woman who is suing him: Bump

loofah bump

In point of fact, it was ALWAYS about the WMDs, until the press started to go against the Bush Administration. Why else would Colin Powell ONLY talk about WMDs in his presentation to the U.N.? It only became about "liberty" when it became apparent that the WMDs were big "ifs", as in "if there were any beyond the ones Rumsfeld and V.P Bush sold to Saddam in the eighties, then WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY?"

From the Duelfer (Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector in Iraq) report released Wednesday, October 6, 2004: "The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam."

Furthermore, the report states that Saddam needed to deter the vastly superior military of Iran, and therefore could not give a straight answer to the U.N. on WMDs, lest he risk an invasion.

As for your bravery nonsense: Iraq was the result of a neocon strategy formulated by Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz while illegally working for the government of Binyamin Netanyahu in 1991 (they did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act that requires U.S. citizens to register when they perform work for another country's government). They have ALWAYS contended that overthrwoing Iraq was necessary to change the dynamic in the Middle East. This strategy has never been about making the U.S. safer, it's been about a world view, plain and simple.

Instead, the result has been, as a recently released National Intelligence Estimate shows, the world, especially in the terms of terrorism, is a MUCH more dangerous place now than it was before March, 2003. So, what the U.S. in effect did was overthrow a secular government with extremely limited ties to non-Palestinian terrorism (and even the Palestine related ties were limited to paying money to the surviving families of suicide bombers), none of which were at a state actor level (as the CIA has stated). Now, there are MORE terrorists in Iraq than there EVER were before 2003. Now, radical Islamic fundamentalists have more recruits than ever before. Indeed, radical Islam was never a factor in Iraqi politics (even among the rebellious Kurds and Shi'ites), but now it is one of THE key factions in that country.

Bottom line, Saddam was NEVER a threat to the U.S., and the war was therefore predicated on dishonesty, and unnecessary. It's really not even debatable in the face of actual facts.

:headbang:
You ROCK.

Actually this not new save that it is an extension of the gurellia approach taken by say, The Viet Cong who successfully withstood all the troops and bombs we threw at them.
Unfortunately, Bush took the short attention span approach and instead has stirred such hatred and virulent opposition to America and anything American that what he got instead is a group of people who are not in the "CNN generation" and will harbor long simmering hatred. He has inspired more violence, not less in both the short and long term.

I think you need to do some real research on what is actually happening in Afghanistan and Iraq as to who the players are.

Your assumption is that the Afghanistanis and Iraquis consider themselves uncivilized and America as a city on a hill. On fact the reverse is true. They consider Americans and their mere 200 year old culture uncivilized and psychotic.


It is not leadership to act the maverick, loose cannon. Leadership requires more than reckless abandon and a 'damn the torpedos' approach. It requires the discipline to know when to unglove the hand and when to restrain it.

Mr. Bush does not personify these necessary qualities.
You ROCK!

bump. There are still idiots who think Kerry flip-flopped on this.

From Kerry's Speech on the Senate Floor That Day (emphasis added)

- based on intelligence that was given to congress at the time

October 9th, 2002



Uhhh, it sounds pretty damned consistent to me, excepting, of course, the flawed intelligence Congress was handed.


And that whole first set of statements that he has now renigged on...

consitent my ass.

And that whole first set of statements that he has now renigged on...

consitent my ass.

The first set of statements? You mean about WMD? It's renegging to change your mind when better intelligence comes along? You'll notice that even when Kerry was certain ther were WMD, he still called for greater international cooperation and for the inspections to continue. Entirely consistent.

Please be specific if you disagree.

The first set of statements? You mean about WMD? It's renegging to change your mind when better intelligence comes along? You'll notice that even when Kerry was certain ther were WMD, he still called for greater international cooperation and for the inspections to continue. Entirely consistent.

Please be specific if you disagree.


His statements that Saddam was contained and not a threat, and here his statements that saddam was a threat, as well as his current discounting Bush's statements that there were WMD when he said the same thing at the time, and his accusations that Bush lied when he said the same thing.

His statements that Saddam was contained and not a threat, and here his statements that saddam was a threat, as well as his current discounting Bush's statements that there were WMD when he said the same thing at the time, and his accusations that Bush lied when he said the same thing.

Ah, but there is a difference between a threat and an imminent threat, is there not? Kerry believed the threat was real, but not imminent. Hence why in his speech he suggested caution.

Also, evidence has clearly shown that some of the Iraq evidence was hyped with pre-knowledge of the Bush administration. The Niger uranium. The aluminum tubes that Bush's own energy department said were not for nuclear technology before the Iraq war. The supposed meeting between Iraqi officials and Atta in Prague that the Bush administration knew was bunk before they used it. Cheney even suggested that 9/11 and Saddam were linked several times, and then LIED and said he didn't.

Yes, Kerry said there were WMD at the time. Now we know there weren't, that there weren't even active programs. Yet Bush keeps trying to suggest that the Dulfer report, which mentions that Saddam wanted WMD but had no way to get them, is reason enough for war. So yes, as Kerry made clear at the time, Saddam was a threat, but not an imminent one.

I'm just hoping that I have enough time to do everything I want in this life before the human race decides to up and annihilate itself.... :(

I'm just hoping that I have enough time to do everything I want in this life before the human race decides to up and annihilate itself.... :(

World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Ah, but there is a difference between a threat and an imminent threat, is there not? Kerry believed the threat was real, but not imminent. Hence why in his speech he suggested caution.

Also, evidence has clearly shown that some of the Iraq evidence was hyped with pre-knowledge of the Bush administration. The Niger uranium. The aluminum tubes that Bush's own energy department said were not for nuclear technology before the Iraq war. The supposed meeting between Iraqi officials and Atta in Prague that the Bush administration knew was bunk before they used it. Cheney even suggested that 9/11 and Saddam were linked several times, and then LIED and said he didn't.

Yes, Kerry said there were WMD at the time. Now we know there weren't, that there weren't even active programs. Yet Bush keeps trying to suggest that the Dulfer report, which mentions that Saddam wanted WMD but had no way to get them, is reason enough for war. So yes, as Kerry made clear at the time, Saddam was a threat, but not an imminent one.

I'm not going to point out the flaws in some of your points. All I'm going to point out is that Kerry has not said one or the other; in fact he has said both. He stated in the debate that he did not beleive Saddam was an iminent threat, and then 20 minutes later stated that he believed Saddam was a threat.

The fact remains, Kerry has no plan for Iraq. He claims to be able to bring countries in that have already stated they will not, that he has some magic phrase to use against them. At the same time he claims that, he decries the allies that are with us; he sends his daughter to Australia to work against the PM there who aided us in the war, his people mock the PM of Iraq, and he decries the contributions of our allies in Iraq.

He states its the wrong war, that we shouldn't have gone, that he wouldn't have gone, mocks and decries our most important allies, but his plans are to, after all this, turn to the rest of the world and say "please join us in this war"?

I'm not going to point out the flaws in some of your points. All I'm going to point out is that Kerry has not said one or the other; in fact he has said both. He stated in the debate that he did not beleive Saddam was an iminent threat, and then 20 minutes later stated that he believed Saddam was a threat.

The fact remains, Kerry has no plan for Iraq. He claims to be able to bring countries in that have already stated they will not, that he has some magic phrase to use against them. At the same time he claims that, he decries the allies that are with us; he sends his daughter to Australia to work against the PM there who aided us in the war, his people mock the PM of Iraq, and he decries the contributions of our allies in Iraq.

He states its the wrong war, that we shouldn't have gone, that he wouldn't have gone, mocks and decries our most important allies, but his plans are to, after all this, turn to the rest of the world and say "please join us in this war"?

With regards to your first paragraph, you stated that he said Saddam was a threat and then says he's not an imminent threat. How is making a vital distinction being inconsistent?

Paragraph 2: Kerry does indeed have a plan for Iraq, and it has several prongs. First, it's to allow off-site training for Iraqi security forces, meaning that they can be removed to a secure country, trained without fear of being blown up, and then returned to Iraq. This will be with the help of NATO, several members of whom Bush ticked off in the ramp-up to war. Secondly, Kerry plans to actually spend some of the money earmarked for Iraq reconstruction, something Bush's group has been pathetic at...unless you count the enormous amount paid to Halliburton for unfinished and overcharged work. Third, he will conduct more humanitarian programs, hoping to forstall insurgent recruitment. Kerry also plans to crate 40,000 more troops (not going to Iraq) to ease troop strain and make us less spread out. He hopes to do this by increasing incentives. Kerry also plans to double our special forces, creating more soldiers whose specialty will be the hunting down and rooting out of terrorists.

As far as the allies we already have, it is unlikely that they will withdraw their support because of anything Kerry has said. Kerry, in fact, is much more popular in those countries because he was not involved in directly lying to them to get them into a war. In other countries Kerry is also more popular and does not have the "you're either with us or against us" attitude that tends to drive away fence-sitters and those looking for compromise. Kerry will also open up reconstruction to more countries, giving them an economic stake and reason to help out. Yes, Kerry disparaged Allawi, but only because Allawi was spouting the Republican lies like a puppet. Allawi was brought to the US as more of a campaign stunt than anything else. Sorry if Kerry calling a spade a spade ruffles your feathers.

Kerry states, very clearly I might add, that this is the wrong war because of how it's been bungled and how haphazardly it was rushed in to. With a little more patience, there would have been NO more risk to the US, and we would have found the truth behind the nonexistant WMD's. Do you like the job Bush has done? Do you like that he went in with too few troops with not enough armor (before the appropriations vote, don't forget!) and no plan to win the peace? He honestly thought people would be throwing flowers! He thought, according to his won supporter Pat Robertson, that THERE WOULD BE NO CASUALTIES.

I support Kerry because he clearly has a better grasp on how the world works. Bush is out of touch and out to lunch.

Next!

Next!
Alright, sorry man-I was doing this for some other thread and it got locked and it was a lot of work, so I'm putting it here even though it doesn't respond to anything specific in your thread. Sorry man.

yes i have what i saw with my own eyes and a post on an interenet website..let me way the two..hmmm..what i saw has more impact for me...but the second i can find it i will post it..thanx
Maybe you where looking for this? (http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp) Except it contains some pertanent points such as:
By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.
and
Senators like CHUCK HAGEL and DICK LUGAR, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before--and not after--you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism--they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.
and
Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally
and (this is MOST telling)
If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.
and even the president didn't call this a vote to go to war-
As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''
and he didn't say there was imminent threat, he said it was needed-
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
and it looks like Kerry being true to his word right here:
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
hmmmmm
Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet.
None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Excellent post Cannot think of a name. While it may have been intended for elsewhere, it proves my point very well and shows a clarity of vision that Bush supporters would rather turn a blind eye to.

The fact of the matter is, Kerry had a much clearer view of what was going to happen in Iraq than Bush ever did, even with the handicap of the horribly flawed intelligence the Bush administration was disseminating.