Originally posted by ThAnswr
Excuse me, I did not forget that Kerry supported the use of force, if necessary.
Kerry did not support the half-assed way this administration rushed into this war because of the chickenhawks' obsession with Iraq.
Kerry did not support the imcompetence, poor planning, overuse of the reserves, arbitrary duty extensions, cancelling of retirements, or the stunt of calling back those who had already retired that are now part of the debacle in Iraq.
Kerry did not support sending troops into battle without body armor or armored humvees. Eddie (Enron) Gillespie can blow smoke up the rightwing butts of how Kerry voted against body armor for the troops, but the fact is those troops were already there and dying because of the lack of equipment.
Kerry did not support the billions this war has cost the American taxpayer when this administration peddled the bull**** that Iraqi oil reserves would go to rebuilding Iraq.
The trite BS "but Kerry supported the war" doesn't quite tell the whole story. You righties conveniently forget that.
And getting back to Mossman's thread, if you think everything is hunky dory in this country, you vote for Bush.
If you think this country is headed in the wrong direction, you vote for Kerry.
"Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years, with the result that all key aspects of this program - R&D, production and weaponization - are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. "
Sen. John Kerry (D) 10/09/2002
"Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program - probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf. "
Sen. John Kerry (D) 10/09/2002
"Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime. "
Sen. John Kerry (D) 10/09/2002
"If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within one year."
Sen. John Kerry (D) 10/09/2002
"Can we really leave this to chance, when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now? In my view, we cannot. "
Sen. John Kerry (D) 10/09/2002
"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat. And if the Iraqi regime refuses to allow the international community to find and destroy those weapons through a non-negotiable, immediate, unfettered and unconditional inspection process, then together with the international community, we will be justified in going to war to eliminate the threat. "
Sen. John Kerry (D) 10/09/2002
"Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."
Sen. John Kerry (D) 10/09/2002
The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but
it is not new. The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
We have evidence, collected by United Nations inspectors during those inspections that Saddam Hussein has permitted them to make, that despite his pledges at the conclusion of the war that no further work would be done in these weapons of mass destruction programs, and that all prior work and weapons that resulted from it would be destroyed, this work has continued illegally and covertly. (Source: Congressional Record, INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN, U.S. Senate, March 13, 1998)
And that is why we must take action against this dictator. Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. (Source: Salon.com, "In their own words," October 11, 2002; NPR, "All Things Considered," March 19, 2003.)
My opponents say I have flip-flopped because I opposed the war in 1991. Well, my views have changed because the circumstances have changed. We are facing a very different world today than we have ever faced before. September 11 changed a lot, but other things have changed: Globalization, technology, a smaller planet, the difficulties of radical fundamentalism, the crosscurrents of religion and politics. We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past. We cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past. (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
While the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance? (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
And that is the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable. (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
George W. Bush tells us that Saddam can be disarmed by the mere threat of force. To believe that is to ignore the findings of nearly every intelligence service on earth--France's and Germany's, Iran's and Israel's, Britain's and America's.
Evidence suggests that Iraq has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX
. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf. (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime. (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
George W. Bush tells us it takes time to build an international coalition and gain support at the UN. With the threats we face, we can never cede our security to others, but even a nation as great as the United States needs some friends in this world. (Source: johnkerry.com, August 25, 2003)
Even so, as I have said going as far back as 1998, I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior, which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
And let's not lose sight of the plight of the Iraqi people in this phony war that George W. Bush is waging. Saddam Hussein has not limited his unspeakable actions to use of weapons of mass destruction. He and his loyalists have proven themselves quite comfortable with old-fashioned instruments and techniques of torture--both physical and psychological. During the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Kuwaiti women were systematically raped and otherwise assaulted. The accounts of the torture chambers in his permanent and makeshift prisons and detention facilities are gruesome by any measure. Saddam Hussein's actions in terrorizing his own people and in using horrible weapons and means of torture against those who oppose him, be they his own countrymen and women or citizens of other nations, collectively comprise the definition of crimes against humanity. (Source: Congressional Record, INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN, U.S. Senate, March 13, 1998)
This is a brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. (Source: Congressional Record, AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ, U.S. Senate, October 09, 2002)
Some of my Democratic opponents worry that disarming or removing Saddam Hussein would open the door to a long military campaign. As a Vietnam veteran, I hate war but I know some things are worth fighting for. As I said during the Kosovo War, the question we must ask ourselves is whether or not we are prepared to win or whether we are going to put obstacle after obstacle in front of ourselves to deprive ourselves of the capacity to achieve the goals that are achievable. (Source: Congressional Record, DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES TO THE KOSOVO REGION IN YUGOSLAVIA, U.S. Senate, May 03, 1999)
When 58 of us voted on the floor of the Senate to send people into harm's way in order to achieve our stated goals [in Kosovo], we were making a judgment about whether or not we thought it was a mistake to intervene. When 77 of us voted to take a stand against Saddam two years ago, we made the very same judgment. But George W. Bush flinched. [Once] we have decided to intervene, let us at least have the courage to persevere. (Source: Congressional Record, DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES TO THE KOSOVO REGION IN YUGOSLAVIA, U.S. Senate, May 03, 1999)
The United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff--and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point--we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses. (Source: Congressional Record, INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN, U.S. Senate, March 13, 1998)
So, he did support the war. can't change history, although you guys want to. But, the US media is trying to help Kerry change history.
The choice is clear. Ask yourself one question. "Who would Al-Quiada vote for?" If you vote for Kerry, you get in bed with them.
