NationStates Jolt Archive

Can anyone back up the truth of this meme?

As a counterpoint, I direct you to the thread I started that shows Kerry's October 9th 2002 War Authorization Senate floor speech.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622&page=4

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, but I'll dress it up and put a pretty bow on it so it looks like a "yes"

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

This is from www.seanrobins.com and not a US gov site, but then he is GoP crony.

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

This is from www.seanrobins.com and not a US gov site, but then he is GoP crony.

The Irony is, if you read the entire speech, it merely reinforces the fact that Kerry has not flip-flopped one iota. Funny that a GOP operative would post it.

The Irony is, if you read the entire speech, it merely reinforces the fact that Kerry has not flip-flopped one iota. Funny that a GOP operative would post it.

Glad to be of service! :D
I guess Go-to-the-publicaticans have warped view of everything.

Kerry's voting against the '91 Gulf War resolution to remove Saddam from Kuwait, when Bush I had wide UN support, while today claiming that Bush II didn't do enough to gain support from the UN before deposing Saddam. In short, claiming UN support is part of the Global Test, while voting against a DEFENSIVE war which had FULL support.

That's one of several.

Kerry's voting against the '91 Gulf War resolution to remove Saddam from Kuwait, when Bush I had wide UN support, while today claiming that Bush II didn't do enough to gain support from the UN before deposing Saddam. In short, claiming UN support is part of the Global Test, while voting against a DEFENSIVE war which had FULL support.

That's one of several.


Your talking about two different confrontations, two different presidents.
The reasons for both wars wee entirely different.


Try again?

Your talking about two different confrontations, two different presidents.
The reasons for both wars wee entirely different.


Try again?

The question is when should we be able to use military force, and with what level of support from international institutions. Kerry's stand is contradictory.

How is that a flip-flop, exactly? He never made the claim that we have to do everything that passes the "global test," only that our international actions must pass said test.

"I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision to disarm him, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." Kerry, Primary Debate, 5/3/03

Kerry when he fell behind in the polls: "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time."

See also: Friday's debate, last Thursday's debate, etc.

No contradiction, no flip-flop. Kerry agreed that Saddam was a threat, and thought he had WMD. He knows now that that wasn't true. That's called getting new information. He also fully supported letting the inspectors keep doing their jobs, to gain that additional information. He supported disarming Saddam, and supported granting the President the power to do so, with force if necessary, because he believed that what the President said about Iraq was true. He did not, though, support the President's methodology in doing so. I watched the debates, closely. There was no flip-flopping going on, despite what the spin machine would have people believe.

Flip-flops aside, of course, let us not forget Kerry's insistence that Bush should have gotten full UN support, while conveniently forgetting that France declared that they would never accept a resolution calling for force. Never. The French were in Saddam's pocket, and Kerry knows it. The Russians sold Saddam radar-jamming equipment on the eve of war.

The UN has its uses, but Bush was right, after a year of trying, to cease the dead-end negotiations with these guys, who were reassuring Saddam they would keep him in power.

Kerry can insist Bush have the support of these self-intrested, kickback enjoying obstructionists, but he ain't fooling Pepe Dominguez, no sir.

No contradiction, no flip-flop. Kerry agreed that Saddam was a threat, and thought he had WMD. He knows now that that wasn't true. That's called getting new information. He also fully supported letting the inspectors keep doing their jobs, to gain that additional information. He supported disarming Saddam, and supported granting the President the power to do so, with force if necessary, because he believed that what the President said about Iraq was true. He did not, though, support the President's methodology in doing so. I watched the debates, closely. There was no flip-flopping going on, despite what the spin machine would have people believe.

I agree completely. There was little flip-flopping by Kerry at the debates - he took a new position and stuck with it for the full 90 minutes.

Flip-flops aside, of course, let us not forget Kerry's insistence that Bush should have gotten full UN support, while conveniently forgetting that France declared that they would never accept a resolution calling for force. Never. The French were in Saddam's pocket, and Kerry knows it. The Russians sold Saddam radar-jamming equipment on the eve of war.

The UN has its uses, but Bush was right, after a year of trying, to cease the dead-end negotiations with these guys, who were reassuring Saddam they would keep him in power.

Kerry can insist Bush have the support of these self-intrested, kickback enjoying obstructionists, but he ain't fooling Pepe Dominguez, no sir.

Wich is odd, considering that the new evidence says the the sanctions against Saddam were working.
Yah.....the very nerve of Kerry wanting to adhere to a group that was doing the right thing.

That aint Bush's style...no sir!

Bush will do the wrong thing...make no exscuses about it..and watch while tens of thousands of people die, becuase he was an ass.

Wich is odd, considering that the new evidence says the the sanctions against Saddam were working.
Yah.....the very nerve of Kerry wanting to adhere to a group that was doing the right thing.

That aint Bush's style...no sir!

Bush will do the wrong thing...make no exscuses about it..and watch while tens of thousands of people die, becuase he was an ass.

The new evidence can say Saddam was our greatest ally, and that all the atrocities he comitted were unsubstantiated rumors, but it wouldn't change the fact that the President has to deal with intelligence he is given in the present, not the future. Bush made the right choice with the information he had.

Besides, the Duelfer report doesn't give Saddam a free pass, far from it. He was indeed a threat, and even Kerry has had to concede that at each debate.

I agree completely. There was little flip-flopping by Kerry at the debates - he took a new position and stuck with it for the full 90 minutes.
Care to back the statement up? The only incidences of "flip-flopping" I've ever seen people try to argue have either been times when he changed his mind with the discovery of new information, or when he changed his mind over the course of several years. Beyond that, it's just been the assertation that he does it, which is meaningless.

The new evidence can say Saddam was our greatest ally, and that all the atrocities he comitted were unsubstantiated rumors, but it wouldn't change the fact that the President has to deal with intelligence he is given in the present, not the future. Bush made the right choice with the information he had.

Besides, the Duelfer report doesn't give Saddam a free pass, far from it. He was indeed a threat, and even Kerry has had to concede that at each debate.


Not quite.

Bush's own father knew that attacking Bahgdad without an exit strategy would be a very bad idea.
Thats why he didnt do it.

So, your trying to say that Bush Jr's actions were perfectly reasonable based on the piss poor, and PROVEN selective intelligence that BUSH presented to Congress?



And how exactly was Saddam a threat, and to whom was he a threat to?
Certainly not us.
You maybe referring to Bush's rhetoric that says he could have given WMD's to terrorists?

What terrorists exactly?

We know for a fact that Saddam had no Al-Qeada ties.
Rumsfeld even said so.


So who then, was Saddam going to give these weapons that he didnt have to?

Santa Claus?

The new evidence can say Saddam was our greatest ally, and that all the atrocities he comitted were unsubstantiated rumors, but it wouldn't change the fact that the President has to deal with intelligence he is given in the present, not the future. Bush made the right choice with the information he had.

Besides, the Duelfer report doesn't give Saddam a free pass, far from it. He was indeed a threat, and even Kerry has had to concede that at each debate.
Except that the President asked for flawed intel. He asked for a reason to go into Iraq, not whether going into Iraq was necessary or not. Paul O'Neill said as much. So did Richard Clarke. So don't act as though Bush looked at the intel and made a choice based on what it told him--he made the choice first and then got his people to make the intel fit the story, much like he's done with every other major decision he's made as President, from tax cuts to environmental policy.

Except that the President asked for flawed intel. He asked for a reason to go into Iraq, not whether going into Iraq was necessary or not. Paul O'Neill said as much. So did Richard Clarke. So don't act as though Bush looked at the intel and made a choice based on what it told him--he made the choice first and then got his people to make the intel fit the story, much like he's done with every other major decision he's made as President, from tax cuts to environmental policy.

I disagree, but I'm not going to rehash the holes in Clarke's testimony. Bush did not 'ask for' flawed intelligence, any more than President Clinton did when he made the same case in '97. The difference was urgency, whether it was right in hindsight or not.

As for Clarke, a quick google-search gave me this:
http://michnews.com/artman/publish/printer_3168.shtml

Like I said, I'm not going over it again, but it remains that Clarke's rational suggestions were followed, by-and-large.

And as for Kerry, he can jaw all day about attacking Iraq being wrong in hindsight, and it still tells us nothing about how he would've handled the situation in real-time.

And how exactly was Saddam a threat, and to whom was he a threat to?
Certainly not us.


Nice. Voting for a third-party candidate? 'Cause you don't agree with either Bush or Kerry here.

I disagree, but I'm not going to rehash the holes in Clarke's testimony. Bush did not 'ask for' flawed intelligence, any more than President Clinton did when he made the same case in '97. The difference was urgency, whether it was right in hindsight or not.

As for Clarke, a quick google-search gave me this:
http://michnews.com/artman/publish/printer_3168.shtml

Like I said, I'm not going over it again, but it remains that Clarke's rational suggestions were followed, by-and-large.

And as for Kerry, he can jaw all day about attacking Iraq being wrong in hindsight, and it still tells us nothing about how he would've handled the situation in real-time.
Look--it's clear that the people Bush surrounded himself with wanted Hussein gone long before 9/11. They were calling for it in the mid-90's. Paul O'Neill said Bush was talking about it from the earliest days of his Presidency, and there's certainly no reason to disbelieve him, since the neo-cons in power had made it an open goal to get rid of him.

And it's become clear over the last year that the neocons in power were willing to ignore any intel that didn't fit with their preconception that Hussein was a threat. They focused on intel from suspect sources, most notably Ahmed Chalabi, and continually miscontrued what little physical evidence was available, most importantly the aluminum tubes that were never meant for centrifuges.

Now here's why I say Bush asked for the warped intel. First off, it matches his previous decision making style--make the decision and then twist and mash the evidence to support the decision instead of making a decision based on available evidence. He's done it on the environment, he's done it on the economy, why not on foreign policy. Secondly, if his staff had done this on their own, without at the very least his tacit approval, then why do they all still have jobs? You fuck up as bad as these guys did on the WMD issue, someone ought to be looking for work. Instead, the people who were forced out were the people who questioned the dogma--General Shinseki, for example.

Nice. Voting for a third-party candidate? 'Cause you don't agree with either Bush or Kerry here.

Nice. Hate your brain? 'Cause you didn't answer the damn question.

Flip-flops aside, of course, let us not forget Kerry's insistence that Bush should have gotten full UN support, while conveniently forgetting that France declared that they would never accept a resolution calling for force. Never. The French were in Saddam's pocket, and Kerry knows it. The Russians sold Saddam radar-jamming equipment on the eve of war.

The UN has its uses, but Bush was right, after a year of trying, to cease the dead-end negotiations with these guys, who were reassuring Saddam they would keep him in power.

Kerry can insist Bush have the support of these self-intrested, kickback enjoying obstructionists, but he ain't fooling Pepe Dominguez, no sir.

No. You're listening to the Bush flip-flop on this one, Read the original speech again. Kerry came away from the UN security council convinced that they would support going in to Iraq if the inspectors (who were doing their job,) were allowed to finish their job and an imminent thread was disclosed. It was only after Bush unceremoniously dismissed our old allies and the UN that France and others took a hard stance against us, and have been against us ever since.

Read the goddamned speech. Kerry was 100% right. I say again, read the speech, read the speech, read the speech, read the speech.

And as for Kerry, he can jaw all day about attacking Iraq being wrong in hindsight, and it still tells us nothing about how he would've handled the situation in real-time.

This is simply denial. Read the speech, linked to in this thread by a GOP-related source, delivered on October 9th, 2002. Not only does it indicate clearly how Kerry would have handled it in real time, it also makes it clear that Bush lied to congress as to how he was going to handle the gift of authorization that was given to him.

This was in 2002, and it fits perfectly with what Kerry is saying now. You continue to assert that Kerry has flip-flopped, and yet you have not given one shred of evidence to back up your claim. Not one shred.

Yes, Saddam was a threat. Kerry asserted, even with the intel given at the time, that the invasion should have been handled much differentlty. All this show is how truly intelligent and knowledgeable Kerry is.

Look--it's clear that the people Bush surrounded himself with wanted Hussein gone long before 9/11. They were calling for it in the mid-90's. Paul O'Neill said Bush was talking about it from the earliest days of his Presidency, and there's certainly no reason to disbelieve him, since the neo-cons in power had made it an open goal to get rid of him.

Bill Clinton, to his credit, made this policy during his tenure as President. Removal. Not negotiation, not containment, but removal. I have no doubt that Bush was asking about this early on, especially considering he ordered installations bombed in Iraq which were firing on our planes before 9/11 and possibly a while after. This was not neo-con policy, this was American policy.

We wrongly relied on Ahmed Chlabi, about the level of respect the Iraqi people had for Saddam, but the idea that the Iraqis would love us did not figure into our rationale for war. As we found out, the Iraqis did celebrate the removal of Saddam, but grew dissatisfied with the occupation quickly. Chlabi was wrong to some degree, but this has nothing to do with the decision to go to war, only how to plan for the aftermath, which we screwed up in many more significant ways than that.

Bush didn't fire General Shinseki, for one, and the CIA is a bureaucracy with insane civil service protections no different than the NEA or the DOJ. If Bush gave himself power to dispense with anyone he wanted in the intelligence community, he would be accused of stifling dissent and granting himself too much power. Whether Bush relied too heavily on foreign intelligence sources is a valid criticism in hindsight, but mainly in hindsight.

It so cute watching the republicans get on the defensive as of late, after 3 years attacking everybody and their mother, now their lack of solid arguments take a toll.

FLIP-FLOPS?, how about this one?

26 Aug 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney declares: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

18 Sep 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the House Armed Services Commitee: "[Saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... [he] has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

24 Sep 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "His weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction program is not shut down. It is up and running... The intelligence picture (the intelligence services) paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."

28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, President George W Bush declares: "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."

4 Nov 2002 During a speech at Southern Methodist University, President George W Bush declares: "He has weapons of mass destruction. At one time we know for certain he was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."

7 Nov 2002 During a press conference, President George W Bush declares: "Some people say, 'Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.' Well, if we don't do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat... He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda... And we're going to deal with him."

13 Nov 2002 Condoleezza Rice declares: "He already has other weapons of mass destruction. But a nuclear weapon, two or three our four years from now -- I don't care where it is, when it is -- to have that happen in a volatile region like the Middle East is most certainly a future that we cannot tolerate."

2 Dec 2002 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."

9 Jan 2003 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "We know for a fact there are weapons there."

5 Feb 2003 During his U.N. presentation, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."

8 Feb 2003 During a radio address, President George W Bush declares: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

21 Mar 2003 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly."

23 Mar 2003 Kenneth Adelman of the Defense Policy Board declares: "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."

30 Mar 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "the area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

4 Apr 2003 British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "I have no doubt that we will [find WMDs]. We have got absolutely no doubt that these weapons exist. But there has been a campaign of concealment by Saddam ever since he knew that UN inspectors were coming back into the country, and I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there."

3 May 2003 President George W Bush declares: "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."

4 May 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."

30 May 2003 President George W Bush tells Polish TV: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories... we’ve so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Except it later turned out that the equipment was actually used to generate hydrogen gas for artillery balloons. Not a WMD at all.

George Bush May 6, 2003: I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003: U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003: They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003: For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

October 7 2004 Charles Duelfer states: "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them"... "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions,"

Game over.

Your talking about two different confrontations, two different presidents.
The reasons for both wars wee entirely different.


Try again?

Confronting the same man for the same thing (posing a threat to our interests, not necessarily our homeland) is the same battle whether or not it's under the same commander-in-chief. Just because YOUR life is not in danger does not mean war isn't justified. I am a registered Democrat, but MOST of my party can't seem to understand the justification for any war unless something nearby has exploded recently. 9-11 is out of everybody's minds except as a cliche, so no one really cares anymore; I cannot stand that.
The thing about Rumsfeld and whoever else finally crumbling, after being told over and over again by the press through loaded questions and the liberal leaders of Congress through masses and economic influence, to the statement that Saddam and al Qaeda have no connection is a matter best discussed by those who weren't listening intently and solely for that admittance. American soldiers did find records of large monetary transfers between the Baath party leaders and al Qaeda leaders upon raiding the Iraqi Presidential palaces. I personally doubt that they were of an innocent nature, but hey, as long as we're assuming Bush is working for the other side...
I was truly hoping that John Kerry would disclose his master plans to which he keeps referring for every major, specific issue. This concept seems to elude him. If he were to outline his plans for anything, there would be a far greater chance of my vote falling to him next month. However, Bush has shown how he works, and he does NOT back down when confronted with lies, or twisted truths, or half-truths, or outright insults. The fact of the matter is that he is too good-natured to do anything to set straight the opinions of the evil men and women opposing his every breath from Capitol Hill. I want to know what I'm voting for, and there are not enough good men in office today. I'll gladly reelect one of the few there are to the Presidency.
"He's obviously a fan of Bush, that right-wing pig!" No, my friend. I am an unwavering supporter of truth. Where does your allegiance lie?

Bill Clinton, to his credit, made this policy during his tenure as President. Removal. Not negotiation, not containment, but removal. I have no doubt that Bush was asking about this early on, especially considering he ordered installations bombed in Iraq which were firing on our planes before 9/11 and possibly a while after. This was not neo-con policy, this was American policy.

We wrongly relied on Ahmed Chlabi, about the level of respect the Iraqi people had for Saddam, but the idea that the Iraqis would love us did not figure into our rationale for war. As we found out, the Iraqis did celebrate the removal of Saddam, but grew dissatisfied with the occupation quickly. Chlabi was wrong to some degree, but this has nothing to do with the decision to go to war, only how to plan for the aftermath, which we screwed up in many more significant ways than that.

Bush didn't fire General Shinseki, for one, and the CIA is a bureaucracy with insane civil service protections no different than the NEA or the DOJ. If Bush gave himself power to dispense with anyone he wanted in the intelligence community, he would be accused of stifling dissent and granting himself too much power. Whether Bush relied too heavily on foreign intelligence sources is a valid criticism in hindsight, but mainly in hindsight.


First of all, fuck Clinton. This has nothing to do with Clinton.

Now, to address the removal of Saddam, are you saying that the only two choices open to use was the immediate invasion, as decreed by Bush, or to leave Saddam completely alone? No, not that simple. Kerry said, even then, that Saddam had to be faced down. He said it in no uncertain terms. The issue at stake was the competence of the effort, the amount of cooperation we received and the credibility of the US as an institution.

[QUOTE=Gymoor]First of all, fuck Clinton. This has nothing to do with Clinton.
QUOTE]

I was addressing an opinion by a previous poster that the decision to invade Iraq was neo-con policy, and that Bush was influenced to take action for this reason. So yes, that had something to do with Clinton. We're all friends here, so please, allow me to distinguish who I'm speaking to.


As for the invasion, Bush did not wage an "immediate" invasion of Iraq, as you say, but only entered the country after a year's diplomacy (not to mention 12 of resolutions) and after France had vowed never to allow it to occur, legally and under UN resolution. Bush and Kerry both supported Saddam's removal, and Kerry praised it after the war, until recently. The issue is whether or not the inspection and resolution process had come to an impasse, a total stalemate within the Security Council, as it had. Kerry wants you to believe he could have swayed France, Russia, and Germany to put more pressure on Saddam, while in reality, it could have never been done, and all three said so before the war.

October 7 2004 Charles Duelfer states: "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them"... "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions,"

Game over.

That quote falls under the same category as the SecDef quote from my previous post. I suppose that the 500+ lbs. of mustard gas and dozens of containers of VX nerve agent and hundreds of roadside bombs diffused and found to have chemical or biological agents inside and ready for dispersion aren't weapons of MASS destruction. I mean, what's a dozen or so Marines anyway? That's not MASSIVE losses. Massive losses took place on 9-11. Airplanes are WMDs. Ban them! We are the perpetrators for having so many!
When everyone claims "We didn't find WMDs!" what they mean is apparently "We didn't find nukes!" because that was the only type of predefined WMD we didn't find (except for radiological, which wouldn't be stored anyway--it's a build-and-ship bomb made to order for terrorists, not something you load into an artillery shell).
Give me a break. If you don't think we found WMDs, you may as well save yourself the embarrassment of continuing this debate.

October 7 2004 Charles Duelfer states: "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them"... "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions," [/b]


The Duelfer report concluded that Saddam had the intense desire to produce WMD, and Saddam has admitted it in custody (that he wanted WMD to increase his prestige and leverage against Iran). I like how you can condense a 1,000 page report to one simple paragraph to support your view, but it's incomplete. So again, the report was clear on Saddam's intent, and he had the means, easily.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

For one.

Not to mention Saddam's missile program that the report cited as striving for intercontinental missiles. Or the shells we found that were poured for chemical ordinance. The list goes on, and none of it says Saddam was anything but a threat. Less of a threat than we thought? Yes. But still a threat.

Confronting the same man for the same thing (posing a threat to our interests, not necessarily our homeland) is the same battle whether or not it's under the same commander-in-chief.

Different time, different circumstance, and in 1991, Bush Sr advised against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. You're being overly simplistic here.

Just because YOUR life is not in danger does not mean war isn't justified.

Yes, but if my life is in more danger now, then war is certainly not justified. Clearly, the world is a more dangerous place now, with much, much wider anti-American sentiment, and we've paid for it in American blood and money.

I am a registered Democrat, but MOST of my party can't seem to understand the justification for any war unless something nearby has exploded recently. 9-11 is out of everybody's minds except as a cliche, so no one really cares anymore; I cannot stand that.

I remember 9/11 clearly, and I am pissed that a war was carried out in it's name that had nothing to do with it.

The thing about Rumsfeld and whoever else finally crumbling, after being told over and over again by the press through loaded questions and the liberal leaders of Congress...

Republicans are the Majority in Congress. It's not the press that's making the case that Iraq had no WMD or connnection to 9/11, it's Bush own appointed committees and investigations.

...through masses and economic influence, to the statement that Saddam and al Qaeda have no connection is a matter best discussed by those who weren't listening intently and solely for that admittance. American soldiers did find records of large monetary transfers between the Baath party leaders and al Qaeda leaders upon raiding the Iraqi Presidential palaces. I personally doubt that they were of an innocent nature, but hey, as long as we're assuming Bush is working for the other side...
I was truly hoping that John Kerry would disclose his master plans to which he keeps referring for every major, specific issue.

he did. Go to JohnKerry.com. There are pages and pages of it

This concept seems to elude him. If he were to outline his plans for anything, there would be a far greater chance of my vote falling to him next month. However, Bush has shown how he works, and he does NOT back down when confronted with lies, or twisted truths, or half-truths, or outright insults.

Nor does he back down when he is proven incorrect. He merely makes his own lies, twisted truths, half-truths and insults...and more of them of greater scope.

The fact of the matter is that he is too good-natured to do anything to set straight the opinions of the evil men and women opposing his every breath from Capitol Hill. I want to know what I'm voting for, and there are not enough good men in office today. I'll gladly reelect one of the few there are to the Presidency.

Bush is good? Good-natured? What color is the sky in your world? His administration has been one of the most deceitful, backward-thinking. agressive and secretive in the last 70 years!

"He's obviously a fan of Bush, that right-wing pig!" No, my friend. I am an unwavering supporter of truth. Where does your allegiance lie?

My allegiance lies with truth. I just seem to be able to find it better. You, sir, are NO Democrat, unless your real name is Zell, in which case you should change parties immediately.

That quote falls under the same category as the SecDef quote from my previous post. I suppose that the 500+ lbs. of mustard gas and dozens of containers of VX nerve agent and hundreds of roadside bombs diffused and found to have chemical or biological agents inside and ready for dispersion aren't weapons of MASS destruction. I mean, what's a dozen or so Marines anyway? That's not MASSIVE losses. Massive losses took place on 9-11. Airplanes are WMDs. Ban them! We are the perpetrators for having so many!
When everyone claims "We didn't find WMDs!" what they mean is apparently "We didn't find nukes!" because that was the only type of predefined WMD we didn't find (except for radiological, which wouldn't be stored anyway--it's a build-and-ship bomb made to order for terrorists, not something you load into an artillery shell).
Give me a break. If you don't think we found WMDs, you may as well save yourself the embarrassment of continuing this debate.

You are living in an alternate universe. Why would Bush's handpicked investigation refuse to include conclusive proof like you just mentioned? Face facts. Saddam had no WMD. Saddam had no immediate way of making WMD. Saddam hid the fact that he had no WMD because he feared an ivasion by Iran, who, incidentally, have developed or are devloping nukes while we've been on a witch hunt.

You are living in an alternate universe. Why would Bush's handpicked investigation refuse to include conclusive proof like you just mentioned? Face facts. Saddam had no WMD. Saddam had no immediate way of making WMD. Saddam hid the fact that he had no WMD because he feared an ivasion by Iran, who, incidentally, have developed or are devloping nukes while we've been on a witch hunt.

Does it matter WHY Saddam was pursuing WMD, whether to intimidate Iran or not? I don't think it does. Al Quaeda could've attacked us 9/11 because the Jordanians thought they were punks and they wanted to prove a point. Who cares? I return to the Duelfer report: Saddam wanted WMD and we shut him down. 500 tons of uranium, nuclear-capable delivery systems and an active ICBM program (to name a few things) are not insignificant if they were intended to intimidate Iran, not that this was likely. After all, you don't need an ICBM to scare a close neighbor.. Add in Saddam's terrorist past and support for terrorism even at the time of invasion, and you've got a threat. As for Iran - their nuclear ambition ends November 3. Unless you think the sudden shipment of bunker-busting bombs to the Israelis, who bombed Saddam's nuke program, was just a goodwill gesture. ;)

Does it matter WHY Saddam was pursuing WMD, whether to intimidate Iran or not? I don't think it does. Al Quaeda could've attacked us 9/11 because the Jordanians thought they were punks and they wanted to prove a point. Who cares? I return to the Duelfer report: Saddam wanted WMD and we shut him down. 500 tons of uranium, nuclear-capable delivery systems and an active ICBM program (to name a few things) are not insignificant if they were intended to intimidate Iran, not that this was likely. After all, you don't need an ICBM to scare a close neighbor.. Add in Saddam's terrorist past and support for terrorism even at the time of invasion, and you've got a threat. As for Iran - their nuclear ambition ends November 3. Unless you think the sudden shipment of bunker-busting bombs to the Israelis, who bombed Saddam's nuke program, was just a goodwill gesture. ;)

You're missing the point. The report that came out not only indicated that Saddam had no WMD, it also pointed out that he had no capability of producing WMD. He could yearn for them all he wanted, but the simple fact, and this is something Powell himself said in 2001, is that Saddam was contained and basically crippled by the sanctions. Yes, France and Russia were caught withtheir hands in the cookie jar, but if we had just been more patient, we could have used that against them. As for ICBMs, please cite a report that indicated that Saddam had any capability in that direction. There simply isn't a credible report that says that.

This is all beside the point. We can argue this in another thread. The point of this thread is that Kerry has not flip-flopped on Iraq, as his speech on the sentate floor shows conclusively, if you chose to read it. Not only that, but it also shows that Kerry had a better grasp of the situation, even then, that surpasses Bush understanding, even now.

The "Kerry flip-flopped on Iraq" hypothesis is bunk. This information shows it conclusively.

The Duelfer report concluded that Saddam had the intense desire to produce WMD, and Saddam has admitted it in custody (that he wanted WMD to increase his prestige and leverage against Iran). I like how you can condense a 1,000 page report to one simple paragraph to support your view, but it's incomplete. So again, the report was clear on Saddam's intent, and he had the means, easily.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

For one.

Not to mention Saddam's missile program that the report cited as striving for intercontinental missiles. Or the shells we found that were poured for chemical ordinance. The list goes on, and none of it says Saddam was anything but a threat. Less of a threat than we thought? Yes. But still a threat.

Except that all of the statements elaborating about Saddam's intent are based on Duelfer ASSumptions, non of them are based on evidence found on the field. Hence... the second quote in that paragraph, he goes on how he thinks that Saddam would've done that if that would've happend, but then in the end he states that he has no evidence to back up his claims about Saddam's intent.

Darien chemical and biological weapons are considered WMD's by all reports done about the Iraqi situation. All of the reports of smoking gun by the conservative media during the war, where immediatly disproved, maybe you were not paying attention.

Hey... but it's not me you have to argue with, go argue with Duelfer, who was on the field looking for them, who was paid to find them at all cost, and is the one stating that Iraq did not have WMD the day the war started.

You go as far as ignoring the report just to feel all giddy about your beliefs, pretty much how Bush feels he's always right no matter how much the evidence builds up against his case and unbiased investigations conclude that he was in fact wrong, so it's hard to argue with someone who lives in the fantasy world and ignores the facts that hurt his argument.

You can just admit that Bush lied, but you like him better than Kerry and that you dont care about thousands of people dying (including the 1000+ american soldiers) based on that lie, because your belief is that Bush did it with good intentions and that he's an angel of heaven. But please, dont ignore the facts if you want to save yourself from the embarresment of continuing this debate.

Look. We have gotten sidetracked here. I merely asked for a single example, quoted verbatim and in context, of Kerry flip-flopping on Iraq. Can anyone provide one?