Skip to comments.1998: Kerry calls for ground troops to topple Saddam; Clinton not tough enough
Posted on 06/20/2004 9:29:57 AM PDT by nwrep
WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry, who began his public life as a Vietnam War protester, said yesterday that the United States should use ground troops to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he does not comply with international demands to give up chemical and biological weapons.
Kerry, a potential presidential candidate in 2000, said sending US troops into Iraq should be "the last option, but it is a legitimate option."
The state's junior senator said President Clinton had not been tough enough in his measures to subdue the Iraqi president.
Because Iraq will try to rebuild its chemical and biological weaponry after a US air attack, "we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack," Kerry said.
Kerry said his conditional support for using ground troops put him "way ahead of the commander in chief, and I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues, and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this."
Not exactly news, but something that needs to be reposted regularly.
Mr. Kerry needs to send himself.
Do you get the feeling that he thinks well of himself?
He was "way ahead of the commander in chief ... and certainly of much of the country" before he became way behind them. But then, with him "way behind one", one has to watch one's back.
and Mr. clinton
Someone should put this in an ad.
Kerry 2002 (when he said Saddam had WMD)
Just like Johnson, he plans on escalating the war.
HE IS AN IDIOT.
He was for the war before he was against the war before he was for threatening war before he was against being for the war before he was for being against the war.
Everyone knows Kerry's position on any issue has a half-life of 2.5 nanoseconds. This means nothing.
You mean Kerry flip-flopped? Un-Effing-believable!!
"I was for the ( fill in the blank ) before I was against it."
I find it very consistent since outright surrender would also be an option...and he said ground troops was the last option.
He might, but he is delusional So was Mr. Clinton.
This info should be mentioned loudly and often!
Dean urged Clinton to take unilateral action in Bosnia
By Steve Komarow, USA TODAY
Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, a strong critic of what he calls President Bush's unilateral approach to foreign policy, urged President Clinton to act unilaterally and enter the war in Bosnia in 1995. (Related item: Text of letter)
However, after urging that the US military be used to oust Saddam, he probably urged against authorization of the necessary funds.
Thanks for another great find.
al Querry will rue the day that his buddy al Ghorroid invented the internet.
I now have a new tagline.
John F'n "biker pants" Kerry is backward in coming forward again....the ultimate flip flopper.
An interesting one from the liberal Boston Globe,no less.
In 1998 it was okay,but now it isn't.Am I missing something here?
We should really spread this one around.
For your ping lists.
For your indexing.
More good data for your creative minds.
Ping a ling
Yes, absolutely. So was Wellstone.
"Senator Flip Flop." What a disgusting worm he is.
To tell you the truth, Mears, I never HEARD of FnKerry before this year. I mean it. LOL!
I never heard of this worm..........
More evidence of mr. kerry's continual flip flopping. There is no way this sham of a man should have ever been elected to public office including the long tenure he has had as a Federal U.S. Senator. This is more indication that kerry does nothing but stick his fingers in the air to see which way the wind blows before he makes a decision about anything. Anything that at a particular moment in time might make him look good. In this particular instance, this also is more smoke he blew to try to hide his anti-American past so he could possibly use it for his gain in the future. Well six years have past mr. kerry since you made these statements. In contrast we should make sure the whole world knows of your constant flip flopping. mr. kerry, you should try running for office in Saigon(now Ho Chi Mihn City) were a memorial is already dedicated to you and others like you.
Thanks. I'll have to send this to my nephew, who now thinks that "Bush lied" to get us into Iraq. I'm really sick of hearing that refrain.
Because he saw Bosnia as an example of genocide. He didn't see that with Iraq.
FLip Kerry ( http://tvparty.com/flip.html )
He can say it all! He's FLip.
Crossdressed as Geraldine he'll tackle the gay agenda.
And he'll sock it to ya on taxes, sucka.
But if you ask him he'll say, "The Devil made me do it!"
Thanks .. I remember Wellstone , but I didn't remember that about Kerry
But Kerry gave a speech on the floor of the United States Senate in 1997 in which he urged the Clinton-Gore administration to deal with Saddam's "ominous" and "grave" threat of weapons of mass destruction decisively, even if the U.S. allies did not agree and the U.S. had to act on a "unilateral basis."
In that speech, on November 9, 1997, titled "We Must be Firm with Saddam Hussein," Kerry made points he'd probably like to leave in his past:
Kerry made the case that Saddam's WMD programs were a serious threat: "It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true."
Kerry warned if Saddam were not properly dealt with, a "world-threatening inferno" could result. "Were Israel to find itself under constant threat of potent biological or nuclear attack, the current low threshold for armed conflict in the Middle East that easily could escalate into a world-threatening inferno would become even more of a hair trigger. "
Kerry argued in 1997 that time to deal with Saddam was running out. "Saddam Hussein has continued to push international patience to the very edge."
Kerry conceded that some our allies might not fully understand or be worried about the danger posed by Saddam. "We must not presume that these conclusions automatically will be accepted by every one of our allies, some of which have different interests both in the region and elsewhere, or will be of the same degree of concern to them that they are to the U.S."
But be that as it may, Kerry argued that even if our key allies should lack resolve in dealing with Saddam, the U.S. should be decisive. "Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted...the United States must not lose its resolve to take action."
Kerry even argued that the U.S. would be justified in acting alone.
"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged."
"While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."
Kerry argued for Saddam to pay a grave price: "In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value."
Well, do tell. Couldn't be another flip flop, could it?
Well,I had heard of him of course.
I am proud to say he has been my senator for years,along with the wonderful Ted Kennedy,and the dynamic Barney Frank is my congressman.
Now that I've got that sarcasm out of my system it's time for a strong cup of coffee and something chocolate to calm my nerves.
Massachusetts is a sink!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.