Kerry was ready for war on Iraq in November 1997

[DashRiprock]

Read it and weep (or spin it)...

link to article

Kerry sparred with CNN "Crossfire" co-host John Sununu Nov. 12, 1997, using language that sounded remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Bush administration six years later ? criticizing the United Nations and allies France and Russia for not standing tougher against Iraq.

Kerry, who now blames Bush for not achieving a broader international alliance in the war, said in 1997 nothing other nations had to say would stop the U.S. and Clinton from acting in defense of America's security interests.

Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock
Read it and weep (or spin it)...

link to article

Kerry sparred with CNN "Crossfire" co-host John Sununu Nov. 12, 1997, using language that sounded remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Bush administration six years later ? criticizing the United Nations and allies France and Russia for not standing tougher against Iraq.

Kerry, who now blames Bush for not achieving a broader international alliance in the war, said in 1997 nothing other nations had to say would stop the U.S. and Clinton from acting in defense of America's security interests.

Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq.

He was mislead by all the propeganda that Bush was spreading before he got into office. Oh yea. Bush was planning this presidency run for years before he was actually elected. Therefore, it is obviously not Kerry's fault. I mean, how could it be?

 

[conjur]

Ah...leave it to the World Nut Daily to conclude: "Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq."

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah...leave it to the World Nut Daily to conclude: "Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq."

Kerry's own words...

"The administration is leading." said Kerry. "The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. (Richard) Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock
Read it and weep (or spin it)...

link to article

Kerry sparred with CNN "Crossfire" co-host John Sununu Nov. 12, 1997, using language that sounded remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Bush administration six years later ? criticizing the United Nations and allies France and Russia for not standing tougher against Iraq.

Kerry, who now blames Bush for not achieving a broader international alliance in the war, said in 1997 nothing other nations had to say would stop the U.S. and Clinton from acting in defense of America's security interests.

Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq.

Wow - now there is a lot of meat for my john "Foragainst" kerry quote thread

CkG

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah...leave it to the World Nut Daily to conclude: "Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq."

kerry:

where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation
of such clearly illegal activity?

if you have allies without the resolve to act on resolutions and respect (and see) to their full enforcement what good
are they ? might as well just ask saddam to, 'pretty please, mr. blood thirsty dictator, could you be sweet enough as
just tell us the truth ?' . . . which btw they did again with 1441.

even massachusettes liberals weaned at lord kennedy's teat still, however fleetingly, show a flash of insight into the
nature of the evil regime they were dealing with.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah...leave it to the World Nut Daily to conclude: "Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq."

kerry:

where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation
of such clearly illegal activity?

if you have allies without the resolve to act on resolutions and respect (and see) to their full enforcement what good
are they ? might as well just ask saddam to, 'pretty please, mr. blood thirsty dictator, could you be sweet enough as
just tell us the truth ?' . . . which btw they did again with 1441.

even massachusettes liberals weaned at lord kennedy's teat still, however fleetingly, show a flash of insight into the
nature of the evil regime they were dealing with.

Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DashRiprock
Read it and weep (or spin it)...

link to article

Kerry sparred with CNN "Crossfire" co-host John Sununu Nov. 12, 1997, using language that sounded remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Bush administration six years later ? criticizing the United Nations and allies France and Russia for not standing tougher against Iraq.

Kerry, who now blames Bush for not achieving a broader international alliance in the war, said in 1997 nothing other nations had to say would stop the U.S. and Clinton from acting in defense of America's security interests.

Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq.

Wow - now there is a lot of meat for my john "Foragainst" kerry quote thread

CkG

Oh, please, GOD no: Not more and more of CAD playing with his "meat"

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: conjur

Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

That doesn't mean squat, the Iraqis were still playing their shell game. They showed the inspectors what and when they (the Iraqi's) wanted.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

That doesn't mean squat, the Iraqis were still playing their shell game. They showed the inspectors what and when they (the Iraqi's) wanted.

I'll take the word of Hans Blix and David Kay over yours, thanks.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DashRiprock
Read it and weep (or spin it)...

link to article

Kerry sparred with CNN "Crossfire" co-host John Sununu Nov. 12, 1997, using language that sounded remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Bush administration six years later ? criticizing the United Nations and allies France and Russia for not standing tougher against Iraq.

Kerry, who now blames Bush for not achieving a broader international alliance in the war, said in 1997 nothing other nations had to say would stop the U.S. and Clinton from acting in defense of America's security interests.

Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq.

Wow - now there is a lot of meat for my john "Foragainst" kerry quote thread

CkG

Oh, please, GOD no: Not more and more of CAD playing with his "meat"

- why don't you go study how to vote instead of playing stupid on this forum? Make sure you learn to follow the arrows and understand that you don't get a second chance to vote.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

That doesn't mean squat, the Iraqis were still playing their shell game. They showed the inspectors what and when they (the Iraqi's) wanted.

I'll take the word of Hans Blix and David Kay over yours, thanks.

So you think the WMDs were gone in 1994? Isn't that what they just said recently? Then why would kerry be wanting to act unilaterally in 1997 and bad mouthing Russia, France and others? There weren't any WMDs in 1997 - was he lying then?

Pfftt - nice game conjur, but you keep fighting a battle that can't be won. Kerry is a waffling POS no matter what amount of spin you eat up from his staff or the left's handlers.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Where did Blix and Kay say they were gone in '94? They could well have been, though.

Blix' report to the U.N. only stated the possiblity of items like stores of anthrax being leftover. When the inspections resumed, they found proof of some destruction of anthrax at a ground site in Iraq. They couldn't verify it was all destroyed as the inspectors were not present at the time but now, a year later, nothing has been found in Iraq. Fair to say it's gone, CkG.

 

[syzygy]

david kay

Originally posted by: conjur
Where did Blix and Kay say they were gone in '94? They could well have been, though.

Blix' report to the U.N. only stated the possiblity of items like stores of anthrax being leftover. When the inspections resumed, they found proof of some destruction of anthrax at a ground site in Iraq. They couldn't verify it was all destroyed as the inspectors were not present at the time but now, a year later, nothing has been found in Iraq. Fair to say it's gone, CkG.

blix was complementing the ba'athis on improved cooperation (in february 2003) when he should have recieved full and umitigated
cooperation from the start. reread 1441 and then remind blix of what it said.

david kay found a number of sanitized laboratories under the control of the iraqi intelligence services, more illegal attempts to procure
prohibited missile tech from north korea, native development of prohibited missile tech, and the confession of iraqi scientists "that
Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed
nuclear weapons development at some future point", among other findings.

do you see what cooperation means to the iraqis and how much a fool that blix character was/is ?

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: conjur
Where did Blix and Kay say they were gone in '94? They could well have been, though.

Blix' report to the U.N. only stated the possiblity of items like stores of anthrax being leftover. When the inspections resumed, they found proof of some destruction of anthrax at a ground site in Iraq. They couldn't verify it was all destroyed as the inspectors were not present at the time but now, a year later, nothing has been found in Iraq. Fair to say it's gone, CkG.

Security Council 7 March 2003 Blix said...

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as ?active?, or even ?proactive?, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute ?immediate? cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

Delaying tactics. They played him like a cheap guitar.

 

[conjur]

"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: conjur
"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

More time nothing, the Iraqis were delaying since 1991! All the while al-qaeda had 3 training bases in Iraq and was a safe haven for their terrorists.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

More time nothing, the Iraqis were delaying since 1991! All the while al-qaeda had 3 training bases in Iraq and was a safe haven for their terrorists.

In Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq.

 

[dmcowen674]

"Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq."

President Bush already proved that. Notice I said President Bush, not President Kerry.

It's not President Vs President. It's a lowly Senator Vs a Lowly President.

 

[SuperTool]

More WorldNetDaily Drivel.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

More time nothing, the Iraqis were delaying since 1991! All the while al-qaeda had 3 training bases in Iraq and was a safe haven for their terrorists.

In Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq.

Exactly. Areas Saddam had no control over but yet the U.S. and the coalition protected with its No-Fly Zone.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Anyway - back to kerry's comments about the French and Russians.

"It's not the first time France has been very difficult. ... " he said. "I think a lot of us are very disappointed that the French haven't joined us in a number of other efforts with respect to China, with respect to other issues in Asia and elsewhere and also in Europe. These are, this is a disappointment. But the fact is this. The president has, in effect, put military action on the table. Secretary (Richard) Cohen canceled his trip, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled a trip, troops are deployed, the aircraft carriers are being brandished. There's no misunderstanding here about where the United States is prepared to go and I think that people need to just sort of back off. It's funny how in Washington inevitably there are always distinctions to be found, even if they're only at the margins here, and I would suggest that if all we're doing is suggesting that the president needs to be doing some diplomacy behind-the-scenes, that's not a bad criticism because he's obviously doing that behindthe scenes."

Interesting little quote there from kerry.

CkG

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah...leave it to the World Nut Daily to conclude: "Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq."

Kerry's own words...

"The administration is leading." said Kerry. "The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. (Richard) Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war."

Owned.
Kerry is almost slicker than slick willy himself....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Anyway - back to kerry's comments about the French and Russians.

"It's not the first time France has been very difficult. ... " he said. "I think a lot of us are very disappointed that the French haven't joined us in a number of other efforts with respect to China, with respect to other issues in Asia and elsewhere and also in Europe. These are, this is a disappointment. But the fact is this. The president has, in effect, put military action on the table. Secretary (Richard) Cohen canceled his trip, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled a trip, troops are deployed, the aircraft carriers are being brandished. There's no misunderstanding here about where the United States is prepared to go and I think that people need to just sort of back off. It's funny how in Washington inevitably there are always distinctions to be found, even if they're only at the margins here, and I would suggest that if all we're doing is suggesting that the president needs to be doing some diplomacy behind-the-scenes, that's not a bad criticism because he's obviously doing that behindthe scenes."

Interesting little quote there from kerry.

CkG

Anyway...back to the valid reasons we had back then:


Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

More time nothing, the Iraqis were delaying since 1991! All the while al-qaeda had 3 training bases in Iraq and was a safe haven for their terrorists.

In Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq.

Half right, they were in an area that was not under Kurdish control.

Militant unit operating in Iraq is linked to Al-Qaeda